Dem Peddles Conspiracy About Trump Interfering in 2026 Elections
On Sunday’s edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, Rep. Ro Khanna of California offered a preview of what is likely to become a familiar refrain as the 2026 midterm elections approach.
Asked directly whether he had confidence that the elections would be free and fair, Khanna answered with a careful rhetorical split: yes, there would be an election — but no, he suggested, not without aggressive interference from the Trump administration.
The exchange began with host Kristen Welker noting that the administration had requested voter rolls from 24 states and the District of Columbia and had authorized FBI agents to execute a search warrant at an election center in Georgia.
These facts formed the predicate for the question, but Khanna’s response went far beyond procedural concern. He asserted that the administration would “use every tool in their toolbox to try to interfere” with the election, framing routine federal actions and law enforcement activity as part of a broader, coordinated effort to undermine democratic outcomes.
What followed was less a reassurance about electoral integrity than a description of a counteroffensive. Khanna spoke of deploying “a battalion of lawyers at the polls,” invoking past Democratic efforts in states such as California, New Jersey, and Virginia.
He emphasized the role of governors in ensuring compliance with election law and pointed to high turnout as the ultimate safeguard. The implication was unmistakable: the system itself cannot be trusted unless it is actively monitored and contested by one side.
This posture reflects a striking inversion of recent political history. For years, Democrats have insisted that questioning elections is inherently dangerous, corrosive, and anti-democratic.
Yet Khanna’s remarks rest squarely on the assumption that federal actions taken under a duly elected administration are presumptively suspect, motivated not by enforcement of law but by partisan desperation. His claim that the administration “knows they’re losing public support” reframes anticipated enforcement measures as preemptive suppression rather than governance.
Notably, Khanna did not allege specific illegal acts, nor did he cite evidence of planned misconduct. Instead, he leaned on broad language — “every tool,” “make it hard,” “interfere” — terms elastic enough to encompass virtually any action that disadvantages his party. The result is a narrative that simultaneously affirms faith in elections while warning viewers that those elections are under siege.