“WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections. Remember, the States are merely an “agent” for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.”

This is the typical Trumpian abuse of the English language, but I can’t see how you read this as saying that the EO is simply to lead towards a goal that Congress will take up. The word “Congress” does not appear in the tweet. And the two sentences after the one about the EO, in addition to being complete legal gibberish, clearly suggest that the states will have to do whatever Trump tells them.

Again, it’s typical Trump, so you could plausibly read it about four different ways. It wouldn’t be inconsistent with the language of the tweet for an EO to “begin this effort” that will eventually include Congress, but that’s not what the man wrote and arguably not what the language suggests.

Did you understand what I wrote? I’ll repeat: his EO does not appear to be assuming such action will happen because of the EO itself. It’s “leading” towards a goal that Congress will take up. Whether what Congress will do is constitutional is the question. I’ve thought long and hard about that – including when the Democrats tried to pass HR1. I don’t know the answer; I think whether it’s Democrats or Republicans trying to pass federal laws of that sort that override what states want, it’s something SCOTUS will ultimately decide if and when such federal laws are passed by Congress.

Back in the day, we on the right used to criticize Obama, Biden, Steven “they can’t catch them all” Reinhardt and other leftists for deliberately doing things that were or were likely to be unconstitutional just to push the boundaries in their preferred partisan direction. Now many of us are rationalizing Trump doing the same thing.

Another possibility is that Trump will sign a constitutional EO that is somehow related to election law, but nothing at all like what he proposes.

The worst case scenario here is if Trump gets the base all fired up against mail-in voting just in time to . . . handicap Republican GOTV efforts for the 2026 midterms by reminding the base why they are suspicious of mail-in voting.

In this case, Trump’s wording indicates he doesn’t even see this EO as having the ability to actually implement anything. No abuse of power; pay attention to the words. He said he’s going to “lead a movement” to get rid of these things, which indicates to me that the EO acts as motivator for others to follow in order to accomplish these things. He says he will begin this effort by signing the EO. It is clear to me he expects others – Congress – to finish the effort.

Even that might be held unconstitutional, but maybe not. That one’s a judgment call. It is well worth a try.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

So this is a power of Congress and the States, not the executive. It sounds like ONLY the method of chusing (sic) Senators requires an amendment (CF the seventeenth amendment whose wisdom may be questioned) so a simple Congressional act should suffice. Although at least one of the Supreme Justices (and perhaps as many as three) would have objections, even though the language is as plain as the nose on your face that Congress “may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations”. Article II has nothing obvious on presidential elections (it refers only to electors chosen by the states) so one MIGHT make an argument that that is fully in the realm of the State Legislatures, although there clearly is the precedent of Congressional legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act affecting the right and nature of Presidential voting. For 2026 it is Congress that matters and the nature of those votes are clearly within its purview. Getting something useful passed where some of the more RINO flavored Republican Congresscritters and Senators are involved is a wholly different issue.

Article IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

It seems that secure elections are required for a Republican form of government. So the Federal Government seems required to interfere if corruption in voting gets too bad or even seems suspect.
Also, it appears the Feds have been failing on the protection from invasion for decades.

Why do you think elections became more unreliable in the last 30 years

And why did they protest in 2000 2004 and 2016 with no consequences yet they criminalized any criticism most recently against one america news

Too often,Trump is all about winning the news cycle rather than actually accomplishing anything. It’s a perfect example of Moynihan’s boob bait for bubba. If Trump were serious about trying to accomplishing any of these things, he wouldn’t be leading with a clearly unconstitutional EO that will be struck down in a New York minute and never heard from again.

This is an abuse of power for the purpose of firing up the base. Judging by the comments here, it seems to have worked.