COLUMN: When the Constitution Becomes an Obstacle for Trump

A Lesson in Constitutional Law for the President

Faced with this proposal, Rand Paul didn’t mince words. In his interview with Stephanie Ruhle on MS NOW, the Kentucky senator reiterated a basic truth that Trump seems to have forgotten—or chooses to ignore. “That’s not what the Constitution says about elections,” he insisted. Paul then outlined the constitutional framework: The Supreme Court does indeed limit certain state powers, such as a state’s inability to impose term limits on federal elected officials if other states do not do so. But regarding “the time, place, and manner of elections, that is, according to the Constitution, a state activity,” he explained. “ So, I’m not in favor of nationalizing this.” The senator even pointed out that Republicans had blocked the Democrats’ attempts under Biden to reform elections at the federal level in the Senate. “I was against Nancy Pelosi’s bill that would have nationalized elections, but I would also be against any bill from this administration that would nationalize elections,” he stated

There is something deeply sad about the fact that a senator has to remind the President of the United States what the Constitution says. It’s as if we had to explain to an adult why you can’t shoplift. It’s elementary. It’s basic. It’s the very foundation of the system. And yet, here we are—having to explain the obvious to the very person who is supposed to protect and defend that same Constitution

Senate Majority Leader Distances Himself

Rand Paul is not alone in his opposition. John Thune, the Senate Republican Majority Leader, also rejected Trump’s proposal, though he chose his words more carefully. Thune told reporters that he supports requiring voters to show identification to prove citizenship when voting, but that he does not support the federal government taking over the administration of elections. “I’m in favor of only citizens voting and showing identification at the polls,” he said. “I think that makes sense… But I’m not in favor of federalizing elections—no. I think that’s a constitutional issue.” ” The South Dakota senator added an important technical observation: “I firmly believe in decentralized and distributed power. And I think it’s harder to hack fifty election systems than it is to hack a single one. In my view, at least, it’s a system that has always worked pretty well.”

Thune talks about cybersecurity. About decentralization. About technical arguments. But deep down, what he’s really saying is: “I don’t trust Trump with this power.” And he’s right not to trust him. No one should have that power. Not Trump, not Biden, not anyone. That is precisely why the Founding Fathers designed the system the way they did—so that no single person or party could seize control of the democratic machinery.

An escalation that didn’t start yesterday

Trump’s proposal didn’t come out of nowhere. It’s part of an escalation that has been going on for months, if not years. Less than a week before his remarks, the FBI raided an election office near Atlanta, Georgia, seizing ballots and other election documents from the 2020 election. Trump alluded to this raid during his interview with Bongino, suggesting that “you’re going to see some interesting things come out” of Georgia. The president has intensified his efforts to undermine the results of the 2020 election in recent months, promising in January that “people will soon be prosecuted for what they did” regarding that election. His Department of Justice has also sued about two dozen states, demanding access to their voter registration rolls. This threat to nationalize the vote echoes a promise he made last summer to sign an executive order bringing “honesty” to the 2026 midterm elections.

You see the pattern, don’t you? FBI raids. Lawsuits. Threats. Intimidation. And now, the ultimate proposal: take control of the system itself. It’s methodical. It’s calculated. It’s terrifying. Because each step normalizes the next. Each transgression makes the next one more acceptable. And before we know it, we’ll wake up in a country we no longer recognize

Election fraud that exists only in Trump’s imagination

At the heart of this entire campaign lies a lie that Trump repeats tirelessly: that he won the 2020 election “by a landslide.” During his appearance on the Bongino podcast, the president once again insisted that he had won the election, alleging without any evidence that people “voted illegally.” The facts tell a different story. Dozens of challenges to the election results have produced no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud. In Georgia, both a statewide audit and a recount requested by the Trump campaign itself confirmed that former President Joe Biden had won the state. But Trump refuses to accept this reality. He prefers to construct an alternative narrative in which he is the victim of a massive conspiracy—a narrative that now justifies his attempt to seize control of future elections

That’s what kills me. It’s not even subtle. He loses an election—fairly, legally—and instead of accepting defeat like any responsible adult, he invents a story about massive fraud. And when no one finds any evidence of this fraud, he doesn’t say, “Oh, I was wrong.” ” No. He says, “The system is so corrupt that it’s hiding the evidence.” It’s perfect circular logic. Unfalsifiable. Dangerous

A president who does not respect constitutional limits

This proposal to nationalize elections is not the first time Trump has attempted to overstep his constitutional powers. Last August, he wrote on social media: “Remember, the states are merely ‘agents’ of the federal government in counting and tabulating votes. They must do what the federal government, represented by the President of the United States, tells them to do, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY.” This view of the states as mere “agents” of the federal government is a radical distortion of American federalism. In March 2025, Trump signed an executive order aimed at adding proof of citizenship to the national voter registration form and modifying mail-in voting procedures for the states. This order has been largely blocked by federal judges, although its final fate remains uncertain. But Trump is not discouraged. Every judicial setback only strengthens his determination to find another way to achieve his goal

He’s testing the limits. Constantly. He pushes, pushes, pushes. And when a judge says no, he tries something else. It’s exhausting. It’s designed to be exhausting. Because at some point, people get tired of resisting. They let their guard down. And that’s when he strikes. It’s a strategy of attrition against democracy itself

Where Have the Defenders of the Constitution Gone?

What is perhaps most troubling about this story is not that Trump is proposing something unconstitutional—we’ve unfortunately grown accustomed to that. No, what’s truly frightening is the silence of the majority of Republicans. Rand Paul is speaking out. John Thune is speaking out, albeit cautiously. But where are the others? Where are the dozens of Republican senators who swore an oath to defend the Constitution? Where are the House representatives who called themselves “constitutionalists”? They’re staying silent. They’re looking the other way. They’re hoping the storm will pass without them having to take a stand. Because taking a stand against Trump in the modern Republican Party means risking one’s political career. It means exposing yourself to vicious attacks on social media. It means potentially facing a Trump-backed challenger in the primaries. So they remain silent. And in their silence, they become accomplices

I think of all those Republicans who, in private, know that Trump is wrong. Who know that this proposal is dangerous. Who know that the Constitution is clear. But who will say nothing publicly. Out of cowardice. Out of political calculation. Out of fear. And I wonder: at what point did they lose their souls? At what point did they decide that their careers were worth more than their country? Because that’s the choice they’re making. Every day. Through their silence

A Democratic Future in Jeopardy

The 2026 midterm elections are approaching, and this proposal by Trump casts a troubling shadow over their conduct. If the president succeeds in implementing any form of federal control over the elections—whether through executive order, legislation, or other means—the consequences would be catastrophic for American democracy. Imagine a scenario in which the ruling party controls not only the executive and legislative branches, but also the electoral machinery itself. Where the rules of the game can be changed midway to favor one side. Where the referee is also one of the players. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers warned against. That is exactly why they created a system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and federalism. Not by accident. Not on a whim. But because they understood human nature and the temptation of absolute power

We’re at a turning point. I can feel it. You can feel it too, can’t you? That moment when history shifts. When things that seemed impossible suddenly become real. When the safeguards we thought were solid turn out to be fragile. And I wonder if, twenty years from now, we’ll look back and say, “That was it. That was the moment when we could have stopped it.” But we didn’t. Because we were too tired. Too cynical. Too used to the abnormal

A Choice That Will Define a Generation

This clash between Rand Paul and Donald Trump is not just another political spat. It is a defining moment that lays bare the fundamental divide within the Republican Party and, more broadly, within American society. On one side are those who still believe that the Constitution is non-negotiable, that the rules apply to everyone, and that power must be limited and distributed. On the other, those who believe that the end justifies the means, that winning is all that matters, and that rules are for losers. Paul said something simple yet powerful: “That’s not what the Constitution says.” Ninety words that sum it all up. The question now is whether enough Americans—Republicans, Democrats, and independents—will stand up to defend this principle. Or whether silence and complacency will allow American democracy to slide toward something much darker. History is watching us. And it’s taking notes.

I don’t know how this story will end. No one does. But I know one thing: silence is no longer an option. Indifference is no longer an option. Because what’s at stake isn’t just an election or a particular policy. It’s the very idea that citizens can choose their leaders. That power comes from the people. That no one is above the law. These ideas have endured for more than two centuries. But they aren’t immortal. They survive only if each generation chooses to defend them. Now it’s our turn. And frankly, I’m not sure we’re up to the task

Signed, Jacques Provost