Trump does not dismiss declaring national emergency to change election rules
President responds to suggestion he bypass Congress to enforce voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made
President Donald Trump did not dismiss the idea of declaring a national security emergency around elections to impose new requirements before the midterms (Getty)
Photograph: The Independent (embedded from source)
What this story says
- Donald Trump told Wayne Allyn Root he would not dismiss declaring a national security emergency to enforce voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements for federal elections.
- Legal experts, including the Center for American Progress, say no federal executive official has the authority to change federal election rules.
- Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that U.S. elections are vulnerable to widespread fraud, a claim courts have rejected.
- The SAVE Act, which would impose the requirements Trump supports, has not passed Congress.
Who covered it
Percentages are shares of the 8 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. Coverage measured .
Trust
54/100
Craft
95/100
Hype
35/100
8 sources · methodology
Thin on the right so far
Only 1 of the 8 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated right.
This story is still being watched, so it is a count and not yet a finding. Coverage keeps arriving for hours after an event, and a side that has published nothing this morning may publish by tonight. If it is still true when we stop checking, we will say so plainly.
President Donald Trump did not reject the idea of declaring a national security emergency to enforce voter ID, proof-of-citizenship requirements, and restrictions on mail-in ballots for federal elections. During an interview with Wayne Allyn Root on Real America’s Voice, Root suggested Trump could bypass Congress by declaring such an emergency. Trump responded, “Let me just say that stranger things have happened, OK. I’ll leave it at that.”
Root claimed a national security emergency could only be overturned by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate. He argued that if Trump declared one within a month, it would enforce photo ID, proof of citizenship, and limits on mail-in ballots. The Center for American Progress reported in March 2026 that no federal executive official has the authority to alter federal election rules. The U.S. Constitution grants that power to Congress.
Trump has long asserted, without evidence, that U.S. elections are susceptible to widespread fraud. Courts have blocked his previous attempts to enforce similar measures, including an executive order directing states to create lists of eligible citizens for voter rolls. A federal appeals court ruled that the order involved “unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials in how states administer elections.” The Supreme Court is currently considering whether to allow Trump to restrict mail-in voting.
What the coverage left out
No centre- or right-rated outlet ran this story at all. None of the left-rated reports mentioned that the Supreme Court is currently considering whether to allow Trump to restrict mail-in voting, though The Independent reported that the administration had asked the court to do so. The digests did not carry the detail that courts have previously blocked Trump’s attempts to enforce similar measures.
Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 4 times, most recently on 11 Aug 2026, 19:15, and will add the sides that appear.
How other outlets pictured it
Which photograph to run is each newsroom’s own choice. The leaning beside a name is that outlet’s published rating, not a claim that the pictures divide along it. Every picture is shown from the outlet’s own server and links to the article it ran in.
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
6 rated outlets
- All six left-rated reports led on Trump’s refusal to dismiss the idea of declaring a national emergency to change election rules. The Independent and HuffPost, whose full reports are printed below, both quoted Trump’s remark that “stranger things have happened” and Root’s suggestion that a national emergency could bypass Congress. The Independent noted that legal experts, including the Center for American Progress, say no president has the authority to change election laws unilaterally.
- HuffPost described Root as a “conspiracy theorist” and noted that MAGA activists have circulated a draft executive order accusing China of interfering in the 2020 election as a pretext for declaring an emergency. The outlet quoted a former Defense Department special counsel calling the plan a “madcap” scheme. The Independent and HuffPost both reported that Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that elections are vulnerable to fraud.
- The digests from Common Dreams, Raw Story, and The New Republic also carried Trump’s remark that “stranger things have happened.” Raw Story’s digest mentioned a warning from a former Trump administration official about a potential “midterm plot” involving “ballot-snatchers,” though it did not link the warning directly to the national emergency proposal. The New Republic’s digest described the plan as “dystopian.”
Centre
1 rated outlet
We have not written our reading of the centre coverage of this story. The centre-rated outlets that ran it are listed below.
Right
1 rated outlet
We have not written our reading of the right coverage of this story. The right-rated outlets that ran it are listed below.
Read it at the source
8 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
6- Trump doesn’t deny a possible federal takeover of elections (opens The Independent (US) in a new tab)
The Independent (US) — is The Independent (US) biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Trump Doesn't Rule Out 'National Security Emergency for Elections' Floated by Far-Right Host (opens Common Dreams in a new tab)
Common Dreams — is Common Dreams biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Trump doesn’t deny a possible federal takeover of elections (opens The Independent in a new tab)
The Independent — is The Independent biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Ex-DHS official floats disturbing theory for Trump midterm heist: ‘Chaos-by-design’ (opens Raw Story in a new tab)
- Trump Is Entertaining An Alarming Pitch To Take Over The Midterms (opens HuffPost in a new tab)
- Trump Openly Mulls Dystopian Plan for Stealing the Midterm Elections (opens The New Republic in a new tab)
The New Republic — is The New Republic biased? Our profile of this outlet
Centre
1Right
1Not rated
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
Questions about this coverage
- How did the left and right cover Trump does not dismiss declaring national emergency to change election…?
- Of the 8 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 75% are rated left, 12% are rated centre, 13% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
- Is Trump does not dismiss declaring national emergency to change election… left or right?
- Too few of the outlets on this story carry a published leaning rating to say. 8 of them do, and this site does not characterise a field under 12: at that size one newsroom filing moves the share by ten points. The percentages above are the count as it stands.
- Is the coverage of Trump does not dismiss declaring national emergency to change election… biased?
- Trump does not dismiss declaring national emergency to change election rules is one event reported by 8 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
- Which side is not reporting Trump does not dismiss declaring national emergency to change election…?
- When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
- Which outlets covered Trump does not dismiss declaring national emergency to change election…?
- 8 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
- What did Trump say about declaring a national emergency for elections?
- Trump told Wayne Allyn Root he would not dismiss the idea, saying, “Let me just say that stranger things have happened, OK. I’ll leave it at that.” Root had suggested Trump declare a national security emergency to enforce voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements for federal elections. Legal experts say no president has the authority to change election laws unilaterally.
- Can a U.S. president change election rules without Congress?
- No. The Center for American Progress reported in March 2026 that no federal executive official has the authority to alter federal election rules. The U.S. Constitution grants that power to Congress. Courts have blocked Trump’s previous attempts to enforce similar measures, including an executive order directing states to create lists of eligible citizens for voter rolls.
- What is the SAVE Act?
- The SAVE Act is a bill that would require Americans to prove their citizenship upon registering to vote and to show photo ID to vote in federal elections. Trump supports the bill, but it has not passed Congress. Wayne Allyn Root suggested Trump bypass Congress by declaring a national emergency to enforce its provisions.
How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.
