The Digital Ground Game Newsletter October 12th

How the Strategies of the Trump Administration might be used to Interfere with the 2026 Midterms

In our October 5 edition of The Digital Ground Game Newsletter, I will analyze recurring tactics employed by the Trump administration to circumvent legal boundaries. The sheer volume of corrupt or outright illegal conduct seen during this administration can be overwhelming, even for the most committed political commentators. For this reason, when I present a theme, I’ll provide an example from earlier in Trump’s second term, then link it to behavior we can see currently in the news. The goal of this newsletter topic isn't to make readers needlessly afraid for the security of our electoral process, but to make them aware of possible avenues of malfeasance so people aren't blindsided if these tactics reemerge. Before delving into specifics, the Digital Ground Game team reminds voters planning to use mail-in ballots to send them two to three weeks before Election Day, if possible. Although Trump’s proposed USPS rules have been struck down, a September 25 Supreme Court emergency ruling authorized voluntary use of DHS’s SAVE system to verify voter eligibility ^[1]. The system’s well-documented tendency to generate false positives means mail-in voters should exercise increased vigilance.

“National Security”

The broadest theme to cover here is Trump’s frequent invocation of national security threats to justify his actions. The most significant example of this early on was the “Liberation Day” tariff regime that impacted nearly every country globally. The administration argued that having a trade deficit constituted a national emergency ^[2]. Trump enacted these tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute that temporarily grants the president broader leeway to modify economic policy in order to address international threats ^[3]. The Supreme Court ultimately struck the tariffs down in February of 2026, determining that levying tariffs was not a power granted by the statute ^[4]. Despite this outcome, his reliance on IEEPA, combined with judges’ general deference to the executive on national security matters, may explain why he’s continued to invoke national security threats as a justification in court.

Since then, “national security” has also been used to justify massive expansions to homeland security forces like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ^[5][6]. This rapid personnel increase is part of what has contributed to the significant rise in fatal confrontations with these agencies seen this term ^[7]. The excuse is frequently used to stall court intervention while the administration implements often irreversible actions; this can be plainly seen in the situation leading up to the Trump administration sending more than 200 individuals to El Salvador’s CECOT torture prison in March of 2025 ^[8]. This pattern has reappeared in the news as an extension of the recent surprise White House renovations and Trump’s obsession with constructing a new ballroom ^[9]. The demolition of the East Wing as part of the ballroom project makes more sense when you take into account that the presidential emergency operations bunker was located underneath it. Exposing the bunker conveniently lent credence to the security risk claims the administration used to justify the necessity of the project’s completion. Trump later announced the addition of a missile-capable drone port on the roof of the planned building in an attempt to bolster his case ^[10]. With Trump now asserting that his ban of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House press pool was necessary to protect national security, it seems unlikely this pattern will abate any time soon ^[11].

Ask forgiveness, not permission

Related but distinct is the administration’s tendency to take often irreversible actions before seeking approval from the relevant agencies. Lawyers seeking to challenge such actions have taken to using the term “fait accompli” to describe them because only preemptive restraining orders can meaningfully solve the issue ^[12]. The clearest instance is the aforementioned demolition of the White House’s East Wing — despite prior assurances that the ballroom would not require alterations to the existing building ^[13]. A construction project like this usually requires the approval of both the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) ^[14] and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) ^[15], followed by an authorization from Congress. Trump sought none of these until months after the demolition was complete. The especially stupid element of this situation is that the executive boards of both oversight bodies had been replaced with loyalists earlier in the year, making the blindsiding effort effectively redundant ^[16]. The administration’s stance on the matter was made painfully clear in an exchange between DOJ attorney Yaakov Roth and Judge Patricia Millett regarding whether the National Trust for Historic Preservation had standing to sue for damages over the demolition ^[17]. Attempting to test the DOJ’s logic, Judge Millett posed a hypothetical about the standing of people whose ancestors first saw the Statue of Liberty upon their arrival: “If the government decides very quickly and bulldozes the Statue of Liberty… but the government moved too fast, nothing can be done?” Roth’s frank answer drew audible gasps in the courtroom: “I think that’s right, yes.” Their publicly stated position is that unless a court steps in before any action is taken, there is no recompense.

The latest iteration of this strategy can be seen with the Kennedy Center debacle that’s unfolded in court over the past 10 months ^[18]. The back-and-forth over whether Trump could add his name to the building without congressional approval reached a fever pitch in late August 2026. The argument that DOJ attorney Brantley Mayers submitted is that without the renovations tied to the name change, the building would likely be unsafe and would require demolition ^[19]. Attempting to head off any surprise construction work, Judge Cooper, who oversees the case, has placed an order requiring 30 days’ notice ahead of any renovations. Despite this, messaging from Trump has been sporadic, and recent events have heightened the public’s skepticism about the order’s effectiveness. On September 16, amid escalating rhetoric from the president on social media regarding the case, photos surfaced of Trump on Air Force One reading a poster board that seemingly read “Kennedy Center Demolition” ^[20]. White House spokespeople claimed the incident was nothing more than “typical Trump hyperbole,” but given his history, the behavior wouldn't be out of character if he were actually planning a demolition.

Dismissing Congress to avoid difficult votes

The final theme is less a direct executive behavior and more a consequence of power ceded to the White House as a result of House Speaker Mike Johnson’s supplicant nature. The speaker has repeatedly shown his willingness to violate congressional norms to benefit Trump; his favorite tactic appears to be initiating impromptu vacations to delay inconvenient votes. The 119th Congress (2025-2026) is among the least productive congressional sessions in history, forcing the minority party to seek procedural workarounds to bring votes to the floor without the majority leadership’s approval. A method we’ve seen more frequently in this session is discharge petitions; this involves getting a majority of House members to sign a petition allowing a vote to move to the floor, bypassing committee chairs and majority leadership. A number of tactics have been tried by Speaker Johnson to address this issue, but the most widely publicized effort came in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act Discharge Petition in fall of 2025. After his efforts to kill the bill in the Rules Committee were circumvented by a discharge petition, Johnson elected to begin Congress’s summer recess a week early to prevent the petition from ripening — a procedural step requiring the passage of seven legislative business days before a completed petition is formally voted on ^[21]. To Johnson, the government shutdown that followed the summer recess was a convenient reason to keep the House out of session; not only did it place pressure on Democrats negotiating over healthcare cuts, but it kept the petition from progressing ^[22]. Just before the shutdown recess, Representative Adelita Grijalva, expected to be the final vote on the petition, was elected to fill her late father’s seat. Johnson refused to seat her until Congress was formally back in session, resulting in the longest delay in seating of a member of Congress in American history, at 50 days ^[23].

While there have been minor examples of similar tactics since, the most significant recent resurfacing in the news involves articles of impeachment introduced against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. During the week-long session between summer recess and the seven-week campaign recess ahead of the midterm elections, Representative Thomas Massie introduced the articles of impeachment ^[24]. The charges cited included unlawful orders allegedly issued during the Iran war, continued troop deployments without congressional approval, and the weaponization of the Department of Defense against Senator Mark Kelly after he publicly urged service members to resist illegal orders. The response from Speaker Johnson was to initiate the planned campaign recess early, effectively tabling the possibility of an impeachment vote until after the midterms ^[25]. Without mentioning Johnson’s clear coordination to benefit the White House, the downstream effects of this repeated tactic are plain in the numbers: the current congressional session set modern record lows for the number of votes taken and bills passed in the first year of a session (362 votes taken and 38 bills passed in 2025) ^[26].

Tying these themes to the midterms

The potential strategy most widely discussed among political commentators falls squarely into the “national security” excuse category. The risk of Trump deploying ICE agents or the National Guard to watch polling stations is real and not that far outside of previous actions this term. It wouldn't be far-fetched to say that the national security element has already been foreshadowed in Trump’s July 17 primetime address, where he claimed that China compromised our elections by acquiring voter data — much of which was already publicly available ^[27]. The goal of stationing ICE agents at the polls would be to depress non-white voter turnout, but some analysts argue it might have the reverse effect ^[28]. Alternatively, the administration could contest election results in blue states by claiming their supposedly poor election security allowed for foreign interference. This also ties into chicanery in the House as Mike Johnson might refuse to seat Representatives whose elections are being contested. The delay in swearing in Representative Grijalva could be seen as a trial balloon to see how strongly the press would react to such a strategy. Similar ideas have been explicitly proposed by writers at The Heritage Foundation, the group behind Project 2025, which the Trump administration has largely been following ^[29]. That said, refusing to seat new members would likely be a last resort because its front-facing nature would almost certainly cause significant public backlash. The “ask forgiveness, not permission” theme is the least clear in terms of how it will manifest. Venturing a guess, this might look like last-minute rule changes behind the scenes. Interference strategies of this nature would likely be the easiest to contest in court, so the administration would need to be secretive about how it deploys them. The closest real example I can offer is a September 2026 whistleblower report laying out how the Trump administration was setting up new USPS rules for handling mail-in ballots; the whistleblower noted that the actions were often either without court approval or in direct violation of previous orders ^[30]. Still, legal challenges inevitably require time to adjudicate. Once election results are certified, the prospect of holding a new election is virtually nonexistent, meaning Democrats in Congress must live with the outcome until the next cycle

As these unpredictable actions will shape our elections, individual vigilance remains one of the most powerful tools we have. Take a moment today to verify your voter registration status, especially if your state is likely to use DHS’s SAVE system to verify eligibility. If you’re voting by mail, don’t wait; send your ballot as early as possible to safeguard your vote from the administration's possible policy changes. In a climate where respect for our system's norms seems to have been removed,  proactive participation is more important than ever.

Closer

I’m always looking for reader feedback, so feel free to send your suggestions to sstonewrite@gmail.com. If you want more immediate, real time updates on Digital Ground Game, be sure to keep an eye on our website or join our Discord, where you can talk to our staff directly about news and upcoming events.