Senate Majority Leader John Thune publicly rejected President Donald Trump's call to "nationalize" elections, exposing a growing divide within the Republican Party over federalism and the constitutional balance of power between Washington and the states.
The South Dakota senator's rebuke came after Trump told The Dan Bongino Show that he wanted Republicans to "take over" voting in "at least 15 places" and federalize election administration, citing unfounded concerns about electoral fraud.
"The Constitution specifically delegates that authority to the states," constitutional law experts told reporters. Article I, Section 4 grants states primary authority over election administration, though Congress may modify these regulations through legislation—a point that underscores why unilateral presidential action would be unconstitutional.
Thune's position stands in stark contrast to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who backed Trump's proposal. Johnson told reporters he shared the president's "frustration about the lack of some of the blue states, frankly, of enforcing these things and making sure that they are free and fair elections."
The Speaker went further, alleging suspicious activity in California elections: "It just looks on its face to be fraudulent." However, he immediately acknowledged he had no evidence: "Can I prove that? No, because it happened so far upstream."
This divergence between the Senate and House GOP leadership reveals deeper tensions about how Republicans balance loyalty to Trump against traditional conservative principles of limited federal power and states' rights.
"What he's saying is outlandishly illegal," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). "The president's talking no differently than a dictator."
Even some Republicans expressed concern. Representative Don Bacon (R-NE) opposed nationalizing elections, stating the Constitution requires secure elections where every citizen's vote counts—but that this should happen at the state level.
Legal experts were unanimous in their assessment. Bradley P. Moss, a Washington attorney specializing in national security law, told Newsweek: "There is no legal basis for the President to nationalize elections. The Constitution specifically delegates that authority to the states."
Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor, was more blunt: "Only in the President's mind does he have the power to oversee the Congressional voting process. The Constitution says not!"
For Americans in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona—where election administration has become intensely scrutinized—the debate has practical implications. State and local officials have spent years refining procedures, training poll workers, and implementing security measures. A federal takeover would upend these systems.
The controversy also highlights how Trump's continued focus on election administration keeps his base energized while creating headaches for Republican officeholders who must navigate between constitutional principles and political loyalty.
Johnson's comments blaming mail-in voting practices echo concerns among some Republicans, though election officials from both parties have consistently found these systems secure when properly administered.
As Americans like to say, "all politics is local"—even in the nation's capital. The irony is that Trump's push to centralize election control contradicts the very local accountability that has defined American democracy since its founding, a principle that many conservatives have long championed.
