COLUMN: Trump Sets His Conditions for Accepting the 2026 Elections

When Trump Wants to Take Control

On Monday, February 3, 2026, during an interview with Dan Bongino, former deputy director of the FBI, Trump drops the word: “nationalize.” “Republicans should say: We want to take control of the vote in at least 15 places. Republicans should nationalize the vote.” The message is clear. He wants the federal government to take over the electoral processes in the states he deems “corrupt”—meaning those that don’t vote for him. Yet Article I of the U.S. Constitution is unequivocal: it is the states that determine “the times, places, and manner” of holding federal elections within their borders. Congress can regulate, but it cannot take over. On Wednesday, speaking with Tom Llamas, Trump denied using the term “nationalize.” A brazen lie, given that the recording exists. He then shifted the conversation to the SAVE Act, the legislation that would require proof of citizenship before voting—a measure Democrats denounce as a disguised attempt at voter suppression.

Take a close look at what’s happening. Trump is testing the limits. He floats a scandalous idea, gauges the reactions, then backs off slightly while keeping up the pressure. It’s a well-honed strategy. Tomorrow, what shocks us today will seem almost reasonable compared to what he’ll propose next. It’s the salami tactic—slicing away at democracy bit by bit until there’s nothing left.

Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta — the cursed trio

Trump has his favorite targets. Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta. Three cities he describes as “extremely corrupt” without ever providing a shred of evidence. Three cities that vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Three cities with predominantly Black populations. The pattern is clear. In 2020, Trump had already called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to ask him to “find” more than 11,000 votes—exactly the number he needed to overturn the result in that state. Raffensperger refused. Today, Trump continues to target these same urban areas, fueling a narrative of election fraud that exists only in his imagination and that of his supporters. Election experts, the courts, and even Republican officials have confirmed the integrity of the 2020 election. But for Trump, reality has never been an obstacle.

What strikes me is the barely veiled racism in this rhetoric. The “corrupt” cities are always those where minorities live. The “honest” states are the ones that vote for him. It’s brutally simple. And it works. Because Trump knows exactly which buttons to push, which fears to exploit. This isn’t about democracy. It’s about power. Control. Domination.

When Intelligence Interferes in Elections

In early February 2026, an unusual operation took place in Fulton County, Georgia. The Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, led by Tulsi Gabbard, conducted a raid on a election center. The goal: to obtain personal information about voters from the 2020 election—the election that Trump attempted to overturn. Gabbard’s involvement is particularly troubling. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) normally focuses on national security and foreign policy, not on local elections. Gabbard justifies her involvement by citing her “broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate, and analyze intelligence related to election security.” But experts fear that this information could be used to identify new ways to disenfranchise voters under the guise of “election reform.” Gabbard’s investigation, separate from that of the DOJ, could focus on baseless allegations of foreign interference in the 2020 election—one of the many conspiracy theories Trump promoted after his defeat.

This is where we stand. Intelligence agencies, meant to protect the nation, are being hijacked to serve the obsessions of one man. Gabbard, formerly a Democrat, has become a tool of this authoritarian drift. And meanwhile, the personal data of millions of voters is in the hands of a government that no longer hides its intention to manipulate the system. It’s mind-boggling. It’s frightening. It’s real.

When Trump Refuses to Step Down

During the interview with Tom Llamas, another question was asked. Is there a scenario in which Trump would seek a third term? His response: “Wouldn’t it be terrible if I gave you the answer you’re looking for? That would make life so much less exciting. I’m doing this for one reason only: to make America great again.” No clear denial. No “no, never.” Just that calculated ambiguity that leaves the door open. Yet the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear: no president may be elected to more than two terms. But Trump has already shown that he doesn’t care about constitutional rules. In January 2026, he even suggested that he should be allowed to “cancel” the midterm elections, before backtracking by claiming that the media would call him a dictator. “They always call me a dictator,” he added, as if it were an unfair accusation rather than an accurate description of his aspirations.

I remember a time when such statements would have sparked a public outcry. Today, they go almost unnoticed. We’ve become desensitized. Numb. Trump can say whatever he wants; the media machine chugs along, and then we move on to something else. But these words carry weight. They lay the groundwork. They normalize the unthinkable. And one day—perhaps sooner than we realize—the unthinkable will become reality.

When the Party Turns a Blind Eye

Faced with Trump’s calls to “nationalize” the elections, the reaction from Republicans in Congress was… silence. A few embarrassed murmurs, but no firm condemnation. No Republican leader dared to stand up and say, “No, Mr. President, you’re going too far.” ” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt tried to downplay Trump’s remarks by claiming he was simply referring to the SAVE Act. But Trump himself continued to hammer home his message about the need for the federal government to “get involved” in state elections. The Republicans know. They know that Trump is lying. They know there is no evidence of widespread election fraud. They know that his attacks on Democratic cities are baseless. But they remain silent. Out of political calculation. Out of cowardice. Out of fear of losing their pro-Trump base. This silence is complicity. A betrayal of their constitutional oaths.

How can anyone look their children in the eye when they have betrayed everything they claimed to stand for? These Republican elected officials who remain silent, who look the other way, who make excuses—they bear an overwhelming responsibility for this downward spiral. History will judge them. But until then, how much damage will they have allowed to occur? How many red lines will have been crossed while they were counting their votes and calculating their chances of reelection?

A Highly Contentious Election

The November 2026 midterm elections are shaping up to be a crucial test for American democracy. Trump has already laid the groundwork for his potential challenge to the results. If the Republicans lose control of Congress, he will cry fraud. He will mobilize his supporters. He will use every lever of executive power to question the legitimacy of the election. Steve Bannon, Trump’s former strategist, has even called for ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to “surround polling places” in November—a barely veiled form of voter intimidation. Democracy experts are sounding the alarm. The data collected during the raid in Georgia could be used to identify and target specific voters. Calls for the “nationalization” of elections could serve as a pretext for federal intervention in key states. And if Trump refuses to accept the results, what will happen? Another insurrection? A constitutional crisis? No one knows. But everyone should be concerned.

We are at a turning point. Not tomorrow. Not in some hypothetical future. Now. The choices we make today, the lines we agree to let be crossed, will determine whether American democracy survives this ordeal. And I’m not sure we truly grasp the magnitude of what’s at stake. We may be living through the final months of a democratic America as we know it. That thought chills me to the bone.

When Election Security Masks Voter Suppression

The SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) is presented by Trump and the Republicans as a common-sense measure to ensure the integrity of elections. It would require all voters to present proof of citizenship before they can vote. On the surface, this seems reasonable. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll uncover the true intention. Millions of Americans—particularly among minorities, seniors, and low-income populations—do not have easy access to the required documents. Obtaining a birth certificate, passport, or other proof of citizenship costs money and time—resources that many do not have. The SAVE Act would effectively create a barrier to voting for millions of legitimate citizens. That is exactly the intended goal. Trump said it himself: “If Democrats don’t want voter ID, that means they want to cheat.” This is simplistic logic that ignores the complex reality of voter access in America. Studies show that voter fraud is extremely rare. But voter suppression, on the other hand, is very real.

It’s always the same tactic: creating an imaginary problem to justify a solution that exacerbates a real one. Voter fraud does not exist on the scale Trump claims. But voter suppression is well-documented, proven, and systematic. And now, they want to institutionalize it under the guise of “security.” It’s cynical. It’s calculated. It’s effective. And it makes me sick.

When America Will Have to Choose Sides

So here we are, teetering on the brink. Trump has made his intentions clear: he will only accept the results of the 2026 elections if they suit him. He has called for federal takeover of the electoral processes in Democratic states. He has refused to rule out an unconstitutional third term. He has mobilized intelligence agencies to investigate his political enemies. And meanwhile, the Republican Party remains silent, complicit through its inaction. The November 2026 elections will not simply be an ordinary midterm election. They will be a referendum on American democracy itself. Either Americans stand up to defend their institutions, or they accept a slide toward a regime where elections are legitimate only when they produce the result desired by those in power. There is no middle ground. The time for half-measures and compromises is over. America must choose.

I end this column with a heavy feeling in my chest. Not exactly fear. Rather, a deep sadness at what we have become. At what we are accepting. I grew up believing that American democracy was indestructible. That the institutions would hold. That the checks and balances would work. Today, I no longer know. I watch Trump dictate his terms for accepting a democratic election, and I wonder how we could have let it come to this. How we let things deteriorate to this point. And above all, I wonder if we’ll have the courage to say no. To draw a line and refuse to cross it. Because if we don’t do it now, it may be too late. History is watching us. Our children will judge us. And the question that will remain is simple: what did we do when democracy was in danger? Did we fight? Or did we look the other way?

Signed, Jacques Provost