During the campaign, it was hard to clearly imagine how Donald Trump could actually carry out some of the extreme things people feared he might try to do.
It all felt theoretical, like a worst-case scenario that might never really happen. But as time goes on, those ideas don’t seem so far-fetched anymore. What once sounded dramatic or exaggerated is starting to feel more realistic.
Back in 2024, Kamala Harris and other Democrats tried to warn voters that another Trump term could seriously damage American democracy. Whether they made that case effectively is something people can argue about. But one big challenge they faced was that they were warning about things that hadn’t happened yet.
Most voters don’t spend much time worrying about vague future possibilities. When the risks aren’t concrete, it’s easy to tune them out. So when Democrats suggested that Trump might try to cancel elections or undermine the system if he returned to office, many people dismissed it as speculation or partisan scare tactics.
Even for those who believed Trump might attempt something extreme, it was hard to picture exactly how he would do it. No American president had ever tried to cancel an election or seize control of major media companies. The mechanics of such a move were unclear. What laws would he use? What powers would he claim? It was easier to believe he might want to do it than to explain the step-by-step process of how it could actually unfold.
Now we are starting to see possible outlines. Take elections, for example. The Washington Post recently reported that pro-Trump activists who say they are working with his administration have been circulating a draft executive order.
This document reportedly claims that China interfered in the 2020 election and argues that this supposed interference justifies declaring a national emergency. Under that emergency, the president would claim broad new powers over how elections are conducted. The proposed measures include requiring voter ID nationwide and banning mail-in voting, with the president announcing these changes by executive order.
The basic claim behind this plan that China interfered in the 2020 election to help Joe Biden is not supported by evidence. While Hunter Biden had some business interests in China, investigations did not show that his father was compromised by them.
In fact, a U.S. intelligence report released in 2021 concluded that China considered trying to influence the election but ultimately did not carry out efforts to change the result. The same report found that Russia was the most active foreign player in 2020, and that its efforts were aimed at helping Trump by spreading damaging stories about Biden and his family.
Despite that, Trump and members of his administration, including former Attorney General Bill Barr, repeatedly pushed the idea that China was the real threat. That makes it easier now for Trump to return to that claim and argue that future elections are in danger from foreign interference. By framing it as a national security emergency, he could attempt to justify extraordinary steps.
Legal experts say he does not have the authority to simply impose nationwide voter ID rules or eliminate mail-in voting by himself. For example, legal scholar Norm Eisen has argued that the Supreme Court would likely strike down such actions, just as it pushed back on earlier claims of emergency powers in other areas.
But court rulings take time. Even when the Supreme Court eventually limits a president’s actions, months can pass while policies remain in effect or confusion spreads.
A president can declare a national emergency under laws like the Insurrection Act or other old statutes. Once an emergency is declared, he might argue that the situation requires urgent changes. First, early voting could be restricted. Then mail-in ballots could be limited. Then new ID requirements could be announced shortly before Election Day.
If those steps are presented as necessary responses to a supposed crisis, and if they happen quickly enough, they could create chaos and uncertainty. In an extreme scenario, the president could claim that because of ongoing threats, the election must be postponed. Even if courts block that move, the delay and instability could have serious consequences.
Media control is another piece of the concern. What seemed unlikely before was the aggressive effort by media executives like David Ellison of Paramount Skydance to pursue major networks. There were high-stakes bids involving companies such as Netflix, and political pressure entered the picture in unusual ways.
When business leaders attend major political events and the president publicly pressures companies about who should sit on their boards, it raises questions about independence and influence.
In other countries with weaker democratic traditions, political leaders often lean on media owners to shape coverage in their favor. The idea that something similar could happen in the United States once seemed far-fetched to many observers.
Imagine a tense political moment close to an election. Suppose damaging allegations against a sitting president emerge and gain public attention. Poll numbers drop. The economy struggles. The opposition party appears likely to win control of Congress. In that environment, a president might feel cornered.
If he then declares a national emergency and postpones the election, the Supreme Court could intervene. But courts do not enforce their rulings directly; they rely on the executive branch and state officials to comply. If some governors or officials choose to side with the president, the situation could escalate into a constitutional crisis.
That would amount to an attempted coup
an effort to stay in power despite the normal democratic process. Whether such an attempt would succeed is impossible to predict. But having friendly media outlets, or influence over how major networks present events, would make it easier to shape public opinion and muddy the facts. Add that to an already powerful ecosystem of supportive media voices, and the impact could be significant.
The larger point is that democratic systems rarely collapse overnight. They weaken step by step, often under the cover of emergency powers, legal arguments, and claims of protecting the nation. What once seemed like exaggerated fears can start to feel less hypothetical when the groundwork for such moves begins to appear in real life.
