How to plan for an election that leaders are trying to subvert

The second Trump administration is systematically eroding the institutional foundations of competitive elections without formally abolishing them. They have a plan to achieve what scholars of democratic backsliding call “electoral subversion”: changing electoral rules in their favor. Protectors of democracy must have a counter-plan of their own.

The White House’s approach to electoral subversion has multiple fronts. The administration has rewarded those who used violence to disrupt the last transfer of power, disabled the federal agencies charged with protecting election integrity, moved to extend executive control over voter registration, and threatened to withhold terrorism prevention funding from states who do not change their voting rules.

Donald Trump continues to claim without proof that the election system is rigged. This discrediting allows officials to justify changing rules to subvert how free and fair the elections will be. In this effort, the federal government has allies. Allied state legislatures have moved to give themselves greater control over election certification. This erodes the independence of electoral monitoring.

The logic of each move is the same: to narrow the field of who votes, who counts and who wins. The president’s own words confirmed what the policy record already showed. In January 2026, he told Reuters: “When you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.”

These are not isolated incidents or careless words. They point toward a coherent plan for electoral subversion.

Electoral subversion is common among illiberal presidents who begin to lose electoral competitiveness. Presidents who respect democracy confront electoral decline by adjusting public policies to try to align them with the preferences of the electorate. Illiberal presidents confront electoral decline by adjusting electoral rules. This administration and its allies seem to be mostly choosing the latter.

There are clear and specific actions that democracy protectors can take between now and then to prevent further authoritarian consolidation.

Community organizations must not slow down in their efforts to register and educate millions of voters. This work is critical to ensuring community members’ voices are heard. And high turnout can make it harder for saboteurs to claim that results don’t reflect the will of the people. The recent Hungarian election – in which the autocrat Viktor Orbán quickly accepted his defeat in a very high turnout election – bears this out.

One key to this civic engagement work is fighting the tendency of voters to abstain. An intentional side effect of electoral subversion is to convince voters that the system is so rigged that they should not even bother to show up to vote.

The result is that opponents of free and fair elections are disproportionately the ones voting. Fighting the tendency of voters to stay home is thus crucial. This is one reason why Orbán’s efforts to subvert the election failed. The voting surge drove an undeniable victory for those invested in democracy.

In addition, there will be large numbers of legal observers and litigators on hand this fall. This will be critical for ensuring eyes and ears – and capable legal talent – if there are shenanigans at poll sites. In Venezuela, María Corina Machado’s recent electoral strategy to defeat Maduro involved maximizing the number of polling centers with election watchers. While Maduro ultimately declared victory, the opposition built sufficient infrastructure to make it widely known in and outside the country that the result was fraudulent.

Compared with many other cases of democratic backsliding, the United States legal system remains relatively strong, which is an asset. But US pro-democracy groups must prepare for the guardrails not to hold, given the administration’s unprecedented measures and the judicial system’s mixed record in cases where the executive seeks to expand the scope of its authority. That means building people power and novel coalitions across civil society. And it will require several important steps.

First, pro-democracy groups must begin scenario planning and training early. Response plans need to be based on local threats, which may be different across localities. Well-designed training and community education about these threats can also help inoculate communities against a potential dip in turnout by reinforcing a sense of people’s agency. Moreover, since many of the risks may materialize before election day, it is not sufficient to focus on business-as-usual election activities and then turn to protecting the election on election day.

Second, civil society must prepare for “red line” moments, when the administration flouts the democratic process. The people of Minnesota demonstrated the power of this kind of response when thousands of federal agents were deployed there. Community, labor, and faith organizations ensured the response was firm but also non-violent. They organized a citywide general strike and march of upwards of 75,000 people, partnered with local leaders, and built solidarity actions across the country, while taking measures to prevent violence. As a result, the federal government withdrew federal forces from the city. Minnesotans exemplified how small-d democratic movements can and must maintain discipline and not be provoked into violence while bearing witness and taking action.

Third, there must be strong collaboration between pro-democracy groups and those government officials who are working to ensure free and fair elections. Election administration officials in many states have been under threat like never before. They need support. These same officials would do well to engage early with community groups on the ground that are registering and educating voters and are trusted messengers with communities in a fractured information environment.

Fourth, the pro-democracy coalition needs to expand its tent. Ensuring a free and fair election will require broad sectors of society – including a diverse set of elite institutions – to stand up for a fair count and certification process. This calls for establishing cross-sector relationships well before the election, for example, between higher education, legal advocacy, business, and faith organizations. It also requires avoiding tribalism, or the tendency to privilege the ideas of only one faction.

None of this is easy – and there’s not much time before the election to build on the work already under way. The administration and aligned election interferers are using their resources to sow confusion, exhaustion and despair. It’s up to the pro-democracy movement to respond – with strategic organizing, savvy coalition-building, and the commitment to ensure that voters cast their ballots and that every vote counts.

What’s giving us hope now

Daniel has been filled with hope by Courage Project awardees, whose acts of civic bravery were featured at the Washington National Cathedral’s interfaith service commemorating the country’s 250th anniversary.

Javier has felt hope witnessing the civic groups, legal organizations, courts and politicians who are increasingly mindful of the challenges to free and fair elections ahead.

• Daniel Altschuler is the managing director of the Freedom Together Foundation and holds a doctorate in politics from the University of Oxford

• Javier Corrales is Dwight W Morrow 1895 professor of political science at Amherst College