Polls suggest that Democrats could win majorities in the US House, maybe even the Senate this fall.

Republicans running for seats, even in so-called safe “red states,” are certainly concerned about unpopular Trump policies and the judgement of voters.

Yet the Trump regime doesn’t look worried, and the president seems oblivious.

Instead of changing course, they are doubling down on culture war, brazen corruption, empty promises, and denial of harsh realities.

You have to wonder why. Well, it’s probably because they already have a plan and know how they will respond afterward— with institutional resistance, challenges to the elections’ validity, and use of executive authority to bypass legislative oversight. And if all that doesn’t work, some power moves in the House are also a possibility.

The rejection of negative mid-term outcomes will very likely precipitate a political crisis. Mission Accomplished.

Executive branch officials are already laying the groundwork to challenge specific voting systems. Homeland Security Secretary Chad Mullin, for example, has requested a Department of Justice investigation into whether barcode- or QR code-based ballot tabulation machines comply with federal law. This move will establish a legal pretext to challenge or dismiss the validity of ballots.

The administration is pushing for more oversight of local systems. Mullin has also warned that election officials who fail to “secure the elections” according to federal standards could face prosecution. This could lay the groundwork to queation or alter unfavorable outcomes.

The Department of Justice, led by people like Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon, a former vice chair of the California Republican Party, is preparing to deploy approximately 1,000 election monitors nationwide. While the DOJ describes it as a routine expansion to ensure election integrity, this “monitoring” could intimidate voters and disrupt local polling operations.

Democratic congressional leaders and legal groups are preparing for “doomsday scenarios.”

That includes the possibility of attempted deployment of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or National Guard units to specific districts, under the guise of polling security or protecting against voter intimidation. Some military leaders have publicly pushed back, emphasizing that elections remains the constitutional responsibility of state and local officials. But ICE is rapidly evolving into a para-military arm of the administration, with apparent immunity from the rule of law.

The regime has used executive actions to attempt restrictions on voting methods, including a highly contested executive order aimed at compelling the US Postal Service to limit or alter mail-in ballot procedures. The Supreme Court blocked this, citing that the Constitution vests election authority in states and Congress. But the administration continues to pursue alternative legal avenues to narrow mail-in voting parameters. The DOJ has also sued several states to force them to hand over sensitive voter rolls, in an attempt to purge voters from registration records ahead of Election Day.

Meanwhile, in public speeches, Trump repeats unverified claims of foreign interference and “rigged” voting machines. This rhetoric erodes public trust in institutional safeguards. Ironically, the administration has removed federal personnel dedicated to objective cybersecurity and foreign interference oversight, replacing them with individuals who echo election-denial rhetoric. This includes key administrative positions across federal agencies.

The Brennan Center for Justice and various state attorneys general have prepared legal challenges for what is likely to follow, confident that independent courts will continue to uphold local control and the rule of law. But the DOJ and administration figures have used hostile rhetoric against judges, called for impeachments, and filed unprecedented judicial misconduct complaints against federal judges.

After the elections, if faced with a divided or hostile Congress, the regime will use its broad existing powers to continue enacting policy unilaterally. Take the legislative debate surrounding the Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, which illustrated that the administration seeks to solidify expansive presidential authority to enact sweeping tariffs without congressional approval. The law cemented expansive penalty mechanisms rather than relying on revocable executive orders, yet preserved wide practical latitude for the president to apply or waive the rules. In short, effective Congressional oversight will be resisted, sidestepped, or simply ignored.

The regime has already begun to use executive maneuvers to claw back previously allocated funding. In late September, it requested the cancellation of nearly $1 billion in funding already appropriated by Congress via pocket rescissions. That’s a euphemism for when a president cancels appropriated funds so close to the end of the fiscal year that the money expires before Congress can review or approve the request.

Even if Democrats secure the House, structural hurdles, executive privilege, and aggressive pushback from executive agencies will restrict Congress’s ability to enforce subpoenas or conduct successful oversight investigations. But we may not even get that far.

If election margins in various states are close, the White House and its congressional allies will lean on legal loopholes that allow the House of Representatives itself to investigate and potentially refuse to seat winning candidates in contested races. The House has the authority to investigate and potentially refuse to seat winning candidates through Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, as well as the Federal Contested Elections Act (FCEA).

While the Supreme Court ruled in 1969, in Powell v. McCormack, that Congress can’t permanently exclude a member-elect who meets basic constitutional qualifications (age, citizenship, and residency), procedural gaps, broad constitutional wording, and statutory mechanisms allow a House majority to delay, investigate, and potentially overturn specific races.

Article 1, Section 5 dictates that each legislative chamber “shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” But this effectively grants the House sole jurisdiction over its own elections, rendering its decisions judicially unreviewable. Because federal courts treat congressional seating disputes as “nonjusticiable political questions,” a majority party can vote to challenge or delay a candidate’s seating with virtually no risk of a court overriding them.

When the new Congress convenes on January 3, it will start fresh with its own rules and a provisional roll, assembled by the House Clerk. If uncooperative, that ministerial official can be replaced by the Speaker of the House. During the opening day ceremonies, any member-elect can rise to object to the swearing-in of another member-elect. This has happened several times in recent years.

By a simple majority vote, the House can then vote to temporarily block that winner from taking the oath of office while referring their case to the Committee on House Administration for an investigation. Any attempt to bypass certified credentials will likely also trigger federal court intervention and constitutional review.

The FCEA provides a framework for losing candidates to contest certified results within 30 days of state certification. Once an official objection is filed, the Committee on House Administration acts as a judicial tribunal, with the power to 1) subpoena witnesses and documents, 2) order states to preserve ballots or override state ballot-destruction timelines, and 3) conduct independent, federally managed recounts. The Committee’s current chairman is Republican Brian Steil, who supports Trump’s platform and key agenda items like trade and tariffs.

After an investigation, the Committee recommends a course of action to the full House. By a simple majority vote, the House can adopt a resolution to dismiss the challenge, make the loser the actual winner, or declare the seat vacant—triggering a special election.

Normally, when the House Clerk seats a representative, they rely on official election certificates sent by state executives (governors or secretaries of state). However, if a state official delays or refuses to certify a race due to ongoing local legal battles, administrative errors, or political pressure, the seat remains technically vacant when Congress opens. The House can choose to leave the seat open indefinitely or seat a candidate provisionally while running its own investigation, thus dictating who holds the seat during a majority fight.

Maybe all this is why House Speaker Mike Johnson is still smiling and Trump seems convinced he can’t lose. If bribing voters with promised federal checks isn’t enough — a tactic Trump has used more than once — they have other cards to play.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Greg Guma is a Vermont writer, former editor, and author of 15 books, including Managing Chaos: Adventures in Alternative Media. Visit the author’s blog. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image is from the author

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.