Allies of President Donald Trump are openly discussing martial law and other extraordinary federal action if they conclude that next month's midterm elections have been "rigged."
The proposals come less than three weeks before Election Day and raise questions about what power a president actually has to intervene in elections. Under existing federal law, however, a president cannot simply declare martial law to postpone an election, seize ballots, or take control of state election systems.
Axios reported Friday that prominent MAGA election activists have advocated extraordinary measures while warning of election-security problems they believe could emerge in November. Axios noted that no evidence shows the elections will be rigged and that some proposed actions extend beyond Trump's legal authority.
Peter Ticktin, an attorney for election activist Tina Peters and a childhood friend of Trump, said during a September 30 Rumble call for MAGA election activists that "there would have to be martial law in the event…[of] another rigged election."
Ticktin subsequently told Axios that authorities would probably need to commandeer ballots and election equipment to investigate what happened before proceeding further. He told the Daily Beast that his proposal applied only to what he described as a "nightmare scenario" in which foreign interests took control of election equipment and affected the result.
Peters participated in the September 30 call and met with Trump this month, according to Axios. She was convicted in 2024 of crimes connected to a breach of election equipment before Colorado Governor Jared Polis commuted her sentence this year. Peters and Ticktin also visited Trump at the White House in late June.
Another participant, Gregory Stenstrom, advocated pausing the election over security concerns or, alternatively, using the National Emergencies Act to compel changes in how states administer elections. Peters has also promoted replacing voting machines with hand-marked paper ballots and, where possible, conducting manual recounts.
...
What Is Martial Law?
Martial law generally describes an extraordinary situation in which military authority displaces civilian government in a particular location. No federal statute defines the term, and the U.S. Constitution does not mention martial law.
Supreme Court precedent on the subject is limited and largely dates to the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Brennan Center for Justice says federal and state officials have declared martial law at least 68 times in U.S. history.
Under certain circumstances authorized by law, the military can assist civilian authorities while those institutions continue to function.
Martial law traditionally describes the far more extreme step of military authorities taking the place of civilian ones, potentially including soldiers performing policing functions and military tribunals handling matters ordinarily heard by civilian courts.
Could Trump Declare Martial Law? What the Constitution Says
The president's power is far more limited than the phrase "martial law" suggests. The Constitution does not expressly grant the president authority to declare it, and no existing federal statute explicitly authorizes the president to do so. The Supreme Court has also never conclusively ruled that the federal government has a general martial-law power or established that a president could exercise one without congressional authorization.
The Brennan Center says that a unilateral presidential declaration would run afoul of the framework the Supreme Court established in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). Congress has enacted extensive restrictions on domestic military activity, including the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits federal armed forces from participating in civilian law enforcement unless Congress authorizes it. Because Congress has legislated extensively in this area, the report concludes that a president could not override those restrictions merely by invoking martial law.
Jasmine Mines, an attorney whose practice includes federal criminal defense and post-conviction constitutional litigation, told Newsweek that allegations of a rigged election would not provide a president with authority to impose martial law.
"Not in any meaningful legal sense, and certainly not because of allegations about an election," Mines said. "No federal statute authorizes a president to declare martial law, so anyone claiming the power would have to find it in the Constitution itself."
Pointing to the Supreme Court's 1866 decision in Ex parte Milligan, Mines said the court held that martial rule "can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction."
"On Election Day, the courts will be open," Mines said. "A claim that an election was rigged is a claim to take to those courts, not a reason to replace them."
Mines similarly said neither martial law, the Insurrection Act nor an emergency declaration would give the president those powers. She noted that the National Emergencies Act requires presidents to identify the specific statutory authorities they intend to invoke.
"There is no statute he could name that lets him postpone a federal election, stop a count, take custody of ballots, or order a nationwide hand recount," Mines said.
For congressional elections, she added, the Constitution gives each chamber of Congress, not the president, the power to judge the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members.
The Brennan Center's Derek Tisler similarly told Axios that emergency powers are not a "blank check" that lets presidents disregard the Constitution or federal law.
Newsweek reached out to Tisler for additional comment.
Presidents do possess substantial authority to deploy troops domestically without imposing martial law. The Insurrection Act provides circumstances in which a president may use federal forces to suppress insurrection, enforce federal law, or protect constitutional rights when specific statutory conditions are met. But the Brennan Center notes that the law does not expressly authorize the military to replace civilian government, making invocation of the Insurrection Act legally distinct from martial law.
Federal law also specifically restricts military involvement in elections. Mines cited 18 U.S.C. § 592, which makes it a crime for federal civil or military personnel to station troops at polling places, except when necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States. She also cited 18 U.S.C. § 593, which prohibits members of the armed forces from imposing election rules different from those prescribed by law or interfering with election officials carrying out their duties.
"Each carries up to five years in prison," Mines said.
She argued that those congressional restrictions matter under the Supreme Court framework established in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, under which presidential power is weakest when the president acts contrary to Congress' expressed will.
Why Martial Law Is Being Discussed by Trump Allies
The calls for extraordinary action reflect years of continued skepticism about U.S. election systems among some Trump supporters following his false claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
The debate also comes as people who challenged the 2020 outcome hold positions or maintain influence around Trump's administration. Heather Honey, who disputed the 2020 election results in Pennsylvania and Arizona, now serves as the Department of Homeland Security's deputy assistant secretary for election integrity. White House adviser Peter Navarro has continued to promote his claims of widespread irregularities in the 2020 election.
Legitimate cybersecurity concerns also surround the coming election, though they do not prove widespread electoral fraud. The FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency have warned election officials, candidates and political organizations about hackers using increasingly sophisticated phishing messages to steal passwords or other sensitive information, according to material provided for this story.
The White House did not directly answer Newsweek's questions about whether Trump supports calls for martial law or would consider using martial law or other emergency authorities in connection with the midterms. Instead, spokeswoman Lauren Bis pointed to the administration's broader election-security efforts.
"President Trump has done more than any other President to ensure we have free and fair elections," Bis told Newsweek. "Every American should be asking why the radical Left continues to fight against commonsense election integrity measures, like Voter ID and citizenship verification to make sure only Americans decide our elections."
Bis said the administration was "taking decisive action to protect our elections," citing election-crime prosecutions, election-infrastructure security and efforts to protect vulnerable voters from fraud and coercion. The White House also referred Newsweek to Justice Department election-crime prosecutions, plans to deploy election monitors on Election Day, and the Department of Homeland Security's 2026 Election Infrastructure Security Plan.
The statement did not say whether Trump would consider martial law or other emergency powers if his allies challenged the legitimacy of the November election.
Biggest Races in the 2026 Midterm Elections
The debate is unfolding as both parties fight for control of Congress on November 3. All 435 House seats are on the ballot, along with 35 Senate seats and 36 governorships. Republicans currently control both chambers, so the election could reshape Trump's ability to advance his agenda during the remaining two years of his term.
Mines said that even if a president issued such an order, the declaration itself would not settle its legality, and courts could rapidly be asked to intervene.
"A signature does not make an unlawful order lawful," Mines said.
She also pointed to a distinction arising from the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling in Trump v. United States: "Nothing in it extends that immunity to the officers and service members who would carry out an order."
Mines said the president could direct the Justice Department to investigate suspected federal election crimes and pursue disputes in court, but added: "What he cannot do is make himself the election administrator, the recount board, and the final judge of the result."
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Kate Nalepinski and Sam Wilson.