The Plausible Situation Where Trump Is Defeated Yet Assumes Control Nonetheless
Explore the potential scenarios in which Trump might challenge and overturn the results of the 2024 election. Here’s how it could happen.
TroibNews 
Four years ago, a sitting president — rejected by American voters — attempted to seize a second term despite the results, leading to a period of confusion, conflict, and ultimately, violence.
Now, Donald Trump's political resurgence has reignited fears among officials and institutions that opposed him previously: Could history repeat itself?
Interviews with those deeply involved in the election process reveal a widespread belief: Trump not only could attempt to overturn a lost election again, but he and his allies are already beginning to set the stage for such efforts.
“The threat remains,” stated Tim Heaphy, who led the investigation into Trump’s election subversion for the House’s Jan. 6 select committee.
However, 2024 presents a different landscape from 2020. Trump's opportunities for repeating his actions are narrower and considerably riskier. Amidst current challenges, he lacks some of the resources he previously threatened to deploy; as it stands, the military and Justice Department operate under Joe Biden's command. Additionally, Trump would need considerable help from Republican power brokers in state legislatures and Congress to reverse a loss, especially in a scenario where Kamala Harris claims victory.
The fallout from Trump's earlier attempts has prompted congressional Democrats to take significant action. Revisions to the Electoral Count Act, following Trump's 2020 efforts, sought to cement the obligation of election officials and Congress to adhere to results certified by state governments, raising the stakes against potential election theft.
Nonetheless, heading into the 2024 election, Trump is better informed about the repercussions of his previous actions. His need for the protection afforded by the presidency may be more urgent than ever, given the numerous criminal charges he faces should he lose.
“No one knows exactly what Trump’s attack on the electoral system will be in 2024,” remarked Rep. Jamie Raskin, a member of the Jan. 6 committee. “What will he do this time?”
Lawmakers, congressional investigators, party operatives, election officials, and constitutional experts predict several potential tactics:
— He will intensify skepticism about the integrity of the election by making unsubstantiated claims about widespread voter fraud and pursuing lawsuits aimed at challenging enough ballots to potentially swing the outcome in critical states.
— He will encourage sympathetic county and state officials to resist certifying election outcomes — a move that, while unlikely to succeed, would create pressure on elected Republican legislators to support his agenda.
— He may urge allies in GOP-controlled swing-state legislatures to appoint “alternate” electors.
— He will count on congressional Republicans to endorse, or at least reject, Democratic electors during the official certification.
— He will aim to deny Harris the 270 votes she needs in the Electoral College, thereby sending the election decision to the House, where Republicans could potentially select Trump as the next president.
Some factors aligning with this ambitious strategy are already taking shape. Trump is actively fostering widespread uncertainty about the election results, claiming that the only way he can lose to Harris is through Democratic cheating — all while dismissing evidence that fraud was a factor in either 2020 or 2024. His messages have been echoed by loyal supporters, and many officials who previously opposed him are no longer in positions of power, paving the way for more accommodating successors. Meanwhile, threats against election officials and the risk of civil unrest have escalated, raising alarms about the potential for violence at various electoral stages, something that concerns many of Trump's detractors.
Although allies assert that Trump is focused on winning, rather than planning post-election maneuvers, questions about his intentions persist. The Trump campaign did not respond to inquiries regarding any preparations for potential election scenarios. Additionally, Trump once again refrained from committing to a peaceful transition of power.
There's also the possibility that Trump's team won’t mount a sustained effort to challenge a defeat. An overwhelming victory for Harris might impair Trump's ability to galvanize Republican support. However, election observers and political insiders agree on one key point: On election night, regardless of the actual results, the number of uncounted votes, or contrary advice from his advisors, Trump is likely to declare victory.
From that point, he could pursue a risky yet feasible strategy to contest the legitimate election results in favor of reinstalling himself in office.
**Stirring Distrust**
To begin, Trump will continue to amplify groundless claims about election integrity. He has spent recent weeks pushing accusations of Democratic voter fraud, insinuating that non-citizens are voting illegally and that the Postal Service will falter in processing mail ballots, despite efforts to mitigate these concerns.
“They are getting ready to CHEAT!” declared Trump in a post on Truth Social.
These claims have been echoed by his allies in Congress and state politics and have found enthusiastic support from figures like Elon Musk. This messaging has largely overshadowed statements from some Republican leaders asserting that the election is more secure due to the reforms instituted over the past few years.
Opponents of Trump, along with independent election experts, argue that his real intent is to lay the groundwork for extreme measures should the results not align with his expectations.
“I think they are sowing doubt. They have been sowing doubt and preparing the ground for an outcome they are not happy with and then finding an easy scapegoat to blame,” said Arizona State Sen. Priya Sundareshan, a Democrat.
The Michigan Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, characterized Trump’s myth of noncitizen voters as a “myth” but acknowledged the “seeds are being planted” for possible post-election disputes.
Current polling indicates that Republicans are noticeably more skeptical than Democrats and independents about the accuracy of the upcoming election's vote tally.
**Exerting Pressure on Election Boards**
This partisan disparity sets the stage for the next phase: the procedures county and state officials follow to finalize the election results.
This decentralized process serves as an early check on electoral accuracy, with each state determining its own methods and deadlines. Ultimately, governors must certify the results and submit them to Congress, detailing which candidate will receive Electoral College votes.
In 2020, Trump exerted pressure on state election officials to disregard certification. He personally contacted officials in states like Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan but ultimately met with limited success.
Since then, however, Trump-aligned individuals have secured positions on county and state election boards in key battleground states. At a rally, Trump even singled out three members of the Georgia State Elections Board, labeling them “pitbulls” fighting for his “victory.”
In this volatile environment, one can envision a precarious scenario:
If a critical swing state takes several days to count votes, and Harris leads Trump by a narrow margin, Trump could inundate the state with ads urging officials to “stop the steal.” He might dispatch loyalists to protest at ballot-counting facilities, file numerous lawsuits seeking to invalidate post-Election Day ballots, and propagate allegations of impropriety in the counting process. This unrest might escalate threats against election officials, leading to protests that fuel the already heightened tensions among Republican state and federal lawmakers dealing with the aftermath.
While the situation certainly has the potential to create chaos, election officials assert that such tactics would not prevent the certification of true election results.
“We would immediately take them to court,” asserted Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, Al Schmidt.
In fact, election officials in every swing state can take measures to compel recalcitrant county boards to certify their results. Many secretaries of state have indicated their readiness to pursue court action, secure in the knowledge that certification is ultimately mandatory.
However, in 2024, the noise that Trump generates might be all he needs.
If local officials friendly to Trump struggle to disrupt the electoral process, their failures could mobilize the “Stop the Steal” coalition that previously rallied for him. That resurgence would likely increase pressure and fear among Republican legislators, complicating the subsequent phases of the electoral process.
“Those seeking to wreak havoc with respect to the 2024 election are way ahead of where they were in 2020,” remarked Marc Harris, former senior investigative counsel for the Jan. 6 committee.
**The Role of Lawsuits**
As the election approaches, both parties grapple with numerous lawsuits seeking advantages in the intricate mechanics of voting. These legal disputes could critically influence the counting of ballots in tight races.
Post-election, however, if Trump loses, a different type of lawsuit is expected to emerge. As Trump’s previous legal efforts faltered in 2020, he turned to fringe lawyers who made outlandish claims of fraud, hoping to keep his electoral prospects alive.
In these instances, the legal outcomes may not matter much. In 2020, as the courts shot down Trump’s numerous lawsuits, he utilized the setbacks to fuel his critique of the legal system and traditional dispute resolution methods, further convincing his followers that power was only attainable through controlling state legislatures and Congress.
Once election officials have certified the election results, and courts have offered no recourse, Trump’s focus would shift to Republican-controlled state legislatures.
Republicans lead both chambers in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania's legislature is divided, but both chambers will see new members seated right when the transfer of power is expected. These states collectively hold 72 electoral votes, a significant number capable of influencing the outcome in 2024.
State legislatures are constitutionally empowered to allocate their electoral votes in whatever manner they choose. Although all swing states currently have laws mandating that electors be nominated based on statewide popular vote results, Trump’s allies previously posited a different interpretation following the rejection of his overtures in 2020.
Some members of Republican-majority legislatures, previously opposed to changing the electors, might jump at the chance to overturn the election. A recent memo from then-Vice President Mike Pence’s legal advisor suggested that had Trump-aligned legislatures endorsed competing slates of electors, Pence would have felt compelled to consider them.
Currently, Trump’s plans remain opaque, and Republican legislative leaders haven’t commented on any communication with Trump or his associates.
Should Republican-controlled legislatures opt to appoint alternate electors, their slates would arrive alongside those appointed by governors, setting the stage for a constitutional conflict—a direct challenge to reforms enacted post-Jan. 6 intended to thwart similar disputes.
In 2022, the Biden administration and Congress reformed the Electoral Count Act of 1887, clarifying that only governors have the authority to certify slates of electors unless overridden by court orders. Harris has promised to abide by this law as she presides over electoral counting. However, if any legislatures submit alternate electors, it raises constitutional questions about how to handle them, adding complexity to Congress's proceedings.
Eastman, who lost his law license due to his involvement in the previous election, maintains that his 2020 theories remain relevant, potentially bolstered by recent legal developments. He argues that state legislatures possess unbridled authority in regards to the Electoral College process, claiming that recent law changes make the Electoral Count Act “more unconstitutional, not less.”
“The Article II power remains what it was,” Eastman asserted in an email. The response of GOP congressional leaders on Jan. 6, 2025, will heavily influence Trump's chances of challenging any election outcome.
A significant change since 2020 is that without legislative backing, pro-Trump groups seeking fake electors are unlikely to repeat their prior efforts. Many who participated in the earlier actions now face criminal charges.
Certain state party leaders are wary of unnecessary entanglement in further electoral legal disputes. For instance, Wisconsin Republicans have preemptively indicated their intention not to use their electors unless Trump and his running mate win their state.
“If J.D. Vance and Donald Trump win the most votes in the state of Wisconsin, then our electors will be convening on December 17,” explained Wisconsin GOP spokesperson Matt Fisher. “But if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, or by some miracle a third-party ticket wins, then our list of electors will be irrelevant.”
Yet, discussing such positions is easier before the election and prior to any pressure Trump may exert.
Once governors have sent their certified election results to Congress, the ensuing task for electors of the winning candidate — and potentially those sanctioned by GOP state legislative boards — is to meet and cast their votes to be communicated to lawmakers.
This process, which has traditionally been a straightforward formality, may be drastically different this time — particularly if two opposing slates of electors create a conflict for Congress to resolve on Jan. 6, 2025.
State election officials nationwide are preparing for possible unruliness and violence at every electoral phase—especially as electors convene. Given the tight schedules established in state and federal laws for finalizing election results, any disruptions could lead to uncertainty surrounding the outcomes.
“Regrettably, we have had to focus more on security than ever before,” noted Steve Simon, Minnesota’s Democratic secretary of state. Previously, the state hosted the Electoral College in an open rotunda, but Simon advised that under current circumstances, this is “not practical today.”
Civil unrest could additionally impact pre-December 17 election activities. Evidence presented against Trump by special counsel Jack Smith included a text exchange between a Trump campaign aide and an ally inside a Detroit ballot-counting operation that suggested inciting a riot.
In response to rising threats targeting all election-related processes, law enforcement officials have identified unprecedented levels of threats against ballot officials, lawmakers, and judges.
“Anyone involved in certifying Trump’s defeat should he lose is a potential target,” stated Tom Joscelyn, a senior adviser to the Jan. 6 committee. “The extremists firmly believe it’s being stolen yet again.”
“The thing that’s going to be bad is the thing we’re not thinking of,” cautioned Gabe Sterling, the chief operating officer at the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, highlighting concerns about lone individuals radicalized by misinformation.
If Trump strives to overturn an electoral loss, he will require the GOP to maintain or even strengthen its slim margin in the House of Representatives. Without this support, efforts to alter the election outcome would likely falter as states submit their certified results to Congress.
All attention will focus on Jan. 6, 2025, the day the House and Senate meet to count the Electoral College votes—a mere three days following the new Congress's start.
In 2020, with Democrats leading the House, Trump relied on the vice president's role in presiding over the electoral counting to attempt to undermine the results.
This time, the individual presiding will be Harris, who has pledged that her role will be strictly ministerial, leaving no room for subjective decision-making.
Under the Electoral Count Act, Congress gathers to count votes at 1 p.m., with Harris presiding. With the help of House and Senate staff, she opens certified electoral ballots and announces the results, provided there are no objections.
Previously, any single member of either the House or Senate could challenge electors, prompting lengthy debates. The revised Electoral Count Act now requires a minimum of one-fifth of both chambers to pose such an objection, a standard not hard for a group of Trump-aligned Republicans to meet.
Also, for an objection to succeed, it must be approved by both chambers—though a divided Congress would raise complicated constitutional dilemmas. Historically, no organized challenge to electoral results has been successful.
Even if Republicans mount challenges to the certification, they will need a majority in the House to overturn the election results. If they fail to secure the House, they will dismiss any objections to Harris’s electors and, if required, quash alternate slates as well.
Similarly, a Democratic-controlled Senate will easily endorse Harris’s electors. Even if Republicans narrowly win the Senate, key GOP senators are likely to resist efforts that veer away from certified results. For instance, Sen. Susan Collins was instrumental in drafting the Electoral Count Act updates aimed at preventing a recurrence of Trump’s 2020 strategy.
However, should Republicans maintain control of the House and strengthen influence in key state legislative chambers, a dangerous pathway could open for Trump's allies.
Before Jan. 6, Trump and his backers would push relentlessly to persuade House Republicans to reject Harris’s electoral victory, particularly if alternate slates of electors from Republican-led states are in place.
Some Democrats remain anxious that even while they appear to regain the House, enough races might remain contested to allow Republicans to secure control when the new Congress convenes.
In light of the violent attempts to disrupt Congress following the 2020 election, federal officials are working diligently to prevent a repeat of such events. The Biden administration has recognized the Jan. 6, 2025, session as a “National Special Security Event,” granting additional resources similar to those allocated for presidential inaugurations or the Super Bowl. The U.S. Capitol is set to be fortified following Election Day.
**The Speaker Maneuvers**
Now let’s assume the House remains under Republican leadership. Trump may spend the months before the election pressuring state legislatures in key battlegrounds to assert claims on alternate electors. If these efforts succeed and those slates are submitted to Harris, backed by governmental authority, the groundwork will be laid for Trump loyalists to attempt to assert control.
This situation begins with the individual occupying the speaker's chair. While Rep. Mike Johnson currently holds this position, his standing among the often-divided Republican caucus is uncertain. Trump would likely seize the opportunity to play kingmaker, demanding assurances from hopeful candidates for his endorsement. If Trump continues to question election integrity throughout this time, commitments from the next speaker to side with him on Jan. 6 would be a priority.
If unresolved leadership issues persist until Jan. 6—and they nearly did in 2023—this could freeze congressional proceedings altogether. Such an unprecedented leadership vacuum adds a layer of uncertainty that officials are now attempting to preemptively address.
Assuming Johnson retains his position, the house that he leads will be pivotal as Harris presides over a potentially contentious joint session.
Johnson has been a staunch Trump ally, including during the unsuccessful attempts to reverse the 2020 election results. He has maintained he will “follow the Constitution” and federal law, but he has not clarified how he interprets those principles in relation to the existing legal framework.
If Johnson aligns with Trump’s beliefs regarding the unconstitutionality of the electoral process, he could leverage that authority to sidestep established norms. This might lead to facilitating a direct vote by Congress on the legitimacy of state-backed electoral slates or even allowing extensive debates on fraud allegations, thereby prolonging the process and keeping the election outcome ambiguous. Action such as this could stifle the session's progression altogether.
Should events unfold in a manner that leads to chaos, courts—including potentially the Supreme Court—may be required to mitigate the situation.
Ultimately, these scenarios are the culmination of Trump’s ongoing campaign to delegitimize any electoral loss, perpetuating an alternative narrative that contends the rightful outcome is contested.
**The House Picks a President**
If Republicans disrupt the electoral outcome in such tactical maneuvers, it could initiate a so-called contingent election process within the House, where each state delegation casts a single vote. Given the GOP’s control over 26 state delegations compared to the Democrats’ 22, if this situation transpires, it is highly likely Republicans would elect Trump as president.
Democrats are currently strategizing for such potential outcomes, weighing risks depending on the GOP's margins in the upcoming elections and the willingness of moderate Republicans to stand up to Trump.
To block the certification of a Harris victory, several critical elements must fall into place, ultimately requiring a good election night for Republicans and collusion among Trump allies across multiple levels of governance.
This scenario would present a stark departure from typical political processes, amounting to brazen authoritarianism that would veer into lawlessness.
“Then you’re really getting into the realm of lawlessness,” commented Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA. “If people are going to be willing to just ignore the law and declare someone the winner, then you’re talking about a real coup.”
Lucas Dupont for TROIB News
Now, Donald Trump's political resurgence has reignited fears among officials and institutions that opposed him previously: Could history repeat itself?
Interviews with those deeply involved in the election process reveal a widespread belief: Trump not only could attempt to overturn a lost election again, but he and his allies are already beginning to set the stage for such efforts.
“The threat remains,” stated Tim Heaphy, who led the investigation into Trump’s election subversion for the House’s Jan. 6 select committee.
However, 2024 presents a different landscape from 2020. Trump's opportunities for repeating his actions are narrower and considerably riskier. Amidst current challenges, he lacks some of the resources he previously threatened to deploy; as it stands, the military and Justice Department operate under Joe Biden's command. Additionally, Trump would need considerable help from Republican power brokers in state legislatures and Congress to reverse a loss, especially in a scenario where Kamala Harris claims victory.
The fallout from Trump's earlier attempts has prompted congressional Democrats to take significant action. Revisions to the Electoral Count Act, following Trump's 2020 efforts, sought to cement the obligation of election officials and Congress to adhere to results certified by state governments, raising the stakes against potential election theft.
Nonetheless, heading into the 2024 election, Trump is better informed about the repercussions of his previous actions. His need for the protection afforded by the presidency may be more urgent than ever, given the numerous criminal charges he faces should he lose.
“No one knows exactly what Trump’s attack on the electoral system will be in 2024,” remarked Rep. Jamie Raskin, a member of the Jan. 6 committee. “What will he do this time?”
Lawmakers, congressional investigators, party operatives, election officials, and constitutional experts predict several potential tactics:
— He will intensify skepticism about the integrity of the election by making unsubstantiated claims about widespread voter fraud and pursuing lawsuits aimed at challenging enough ballots to potentially swing the outcome in critical states.
— He will encourage sympathetic county and state officials to resist certifying election outcomes — a move that, while unlikely to succeed, would create pressure on elected Republican legislators to support his agenda.
— He may urge allies in GOP-controlled swing-state legislatures to appoint “alternate” electors.
— He will count on congressional Republicans to endorse, or at least reject, Democratic electors during the official certification.
— He will aim to deny Harris the 270 votes she needs in the Electoral College, thereby sending the election decision to the House, where Republicans could potentially select Trump as the next president.
Some factors aligning with this ambitious strategy are already taking shape. Trump is actively fostering widespread uncertainty about the election results, claiming that the only way he can lose to Harris is through Democratic cheating — all while dismissing evidence that fraud was a factor in either 2020 or 2024. His messages have been echoed by loyal supporters, and many officials who previously opposed him are no longer in positions of power, paving the way for more accommodating successors. Meanwhile, threats against election officials and the risk of civil unrest have escalated, raising alarms about the potential for violence at various electoral stages, something that concerns many of Trump's detractors.
Although allies assert that Trump is focused on winning, rather than planning post-election maneuvers, questions about his intentions persist. The Trump campaign did not respond to inquiries regarding any preparations for potential election scenarios. Additionally, Trump once again refrained from committing to a peaceful transition of power.
There's also the possibility that Trump's team won’t mount a sustained effort to challenge a defeat. An overwhelming victory for Harris might impair Trump's ability to galvanize Republican support. However, election observers and political insiders agree on one key point: On election night, regardless of the actual results, the number of uncounted votes, or contrary advice from his advisors, Trump is likely to declare victory.
From that point, he could pursue a risky yet feasible strategy to contest the legitimate election results in favor of reinstalling himself in office.
**Stirring Distrust**
To begin, Trump will continue to amplify groundless claims about election integrity. He has spent recent weeks pushing accusations of Democratic voter fraud, insinuating that non-citizens are voting illegally and that the Postal Service will falter in processing mail ballots, despite efforts to mitigate these concerns.
“They are getting ready to CHEAT!” declared Trump in a post on Truth Social.
These claims have been echoed by his allies in Congress and state politics and have found enthusiastic support from figures like Elon Musk. This messaging has largely overshadowed statements from some Republican leaders asserting that the election is more secure due to the reforms instituted over the past few years.
Opponents of Trump, along with independent election experts, argue that his real intent is to lay the groundwork for extreme measures should the results not align with his expectations.
“I think they are sowing doubt. They have been sowing doubt and preparing the ground for an outcome they are not happy with and then finding an easy scapegoat to blame,” said Arizona State Sen. Priya Sundareshan, a Democrat.
The Michigan Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, characterized Trump’s myth of noncitizen voters as a “myth” but acknowledged the “seeds are being planted” for possible post-election disputes.
Current polling indicates that Republicans are noticeably more skeptical than Democrats and independents about the accuracy of the upcoming election's vote tally.
**Exerting Pressure on Election Boards**
This partisan disparity sets the stage for the next phase: the procedures county and state officials follow to finalize the election results.
This decentralized process serves as an early check on electoral accuracy, with each state determining its own methods and deadlines. Ultimately, governors must certify the results and submit them to Congress, detailing which candidate will receive Electoral College votes.
In 2020, Trump exerted pressure on state election officials to disregard certification. He personally contacted officials in states like Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan but ultimately met with limited success.
Since then, however, Trump-aligned individuals have secured positions on county and state election boards in key battleground states. At a rally, Trump even singled out three members of the Georgia State Elections Board, labeling them “pitbulls” fighting for his “victory.”
In this volatile environment, one can envision a precarious scenario:
If a critical swing state takes several days to count votes, and Harris leads Trump by a narrow margin, Trump could inundate the state with ads urging officials to “stop the steal.” He might dispatch loyalists to protest at ballot-counting facilities, file numerous lawsuits seeking to invalidate post-Election Day ballots, and propagate allegations of impropriety in the counting process. This unrest might escalate threats against election officials, leading to protests that fuel the already heightened tensions among Republican state and federal lawmakers dealing with the aftermath.
While the situation certainly has the potential to create chaos, election officials assert that such tactics would not prevent the certification of true election results.
“We would immediately take them to court,” asserted Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, Al Schmidt.
In fact, election officials in every swing state can take measures to compel recalcitrant county boards to certify their results. Many secretaries of state have indicated their readiness to pursue court action, secure in the knowledge that certification is ultimately mandatory.
However, in 2024, the noise that Trump generates might be all he needs.
If local officials friendly to Trump struggle to disrupt the electoral process, their failures could mobilize the “Stop the Steal” coalition that previously rallied for him. That resurgence would likely increase pressure and fear among Republican legislators, complicating the subsequent phases of the electoral process.
“Those seeking to wreak havoc with respect to the 2024 election are way ahead of where they were in 2020,” remarked Marc Harris, former senior investigative counsel for the Jan. 6 committee.
**The Role of Lawsuits**
As the election approaches, both parties grapple with numerous lawsuits seeking advantages in the intricate mechanics of voting. These legal disputes could critically influence the counting of ballots in tight races.
Post-election, however, if Trump loses, a different type of lawsuit is expected to emerge. As Trump’s previous legal efforts faltered in 2020, he turned to fringe lawyers who made outlandish claims of fraud, hoping to keep his electoral prospects alive.
In these instances, the legal outcomes may not matter much. In 2020, as the courts shot down Trump’s numerous lawsuits, he utilized the setbacks to fuel his critique of the legal system and traditional dispute resolution methods, further convincing his followers that power was only attainable through controlling state legislatures and Congress.
Once election officials have certified the election results, and courts have offered no recourse, Trump’s focus would shift to Republican-controlled state legislatures.
Republicans lead both chambers in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania's legislature is divided, but both chambers will see new members seated right when the transfer of power is expected. These states collectively hold 72 electoral votes, a significant number capable of influencing the outcome in 2024.
State legislatures are constitutionally empowered to allocate their electoral votes in whatever manner they choose. Although all swing states currently have laws mandating that electors be nominated based on statewide popular vote results, Trump’s allies previously posited a different interpretation following the rejection of his overtures in 2020.
Some members of Republican-majority legislatures, previously opposed to changing the electors, might jump at the chance to overturn the election. A recent memo from then-Vice President Mike Pence’s legal advisor suggested that had Trump-aligned legislatures endorsed competing slates of electors, Pence would have felt compelled to consider them.
Currently, Trump’s plans remain opaque, and Republican legislative leaders haven’t commented on any communication with Trump or his associates.
Should Republican-controlled legislatures opt to appoint alternate electors, their slates would arrive alongside those appointed by governors, setting the stage for a constitutional conflict—a direct challenge to reforms enacted post-Jan. 6 intended to thwart similar disputes.
In 2022, the Biden administration and Congress reformed the Electoral Count Act of 1887, clarifying that only governors have the authority to certify slates of electors unless overridden by court orders. Harris has promised to abide by this law as she presides over electoral counting. However, if any legislatures submit alternate electors, it raises constitutional questions about how to handle them, adding complexity to Congress's proceedings.
Eastman, who lost his law license due to his involvement in the previous election, maintains that his 2020 theories remain relevant, potentially bolstered by recent legal developments. He argues that state legislatures possess unbridled authority in regards to the Electoral College process, claiming that recent law changes make the Electoral Count Act “more unconstitutional, not less.”
“The Article II power remains what it was,” Eastman asserted in an email. The response of GOP congressional leaders on Jan. 6, 2025, will heavily influence Trump's chances of challenging any election outcome.
A significant change since 2020 is that without legislative backing, pro-Trump groups seeking fake electors are unlikely to repeat their prior efforts. Many who participated in the earlier actions now face criminal charges.
Certain state party leaders are wary of unnecessary entanglement in further electoral legal disputes. For instance, Wisconsin Republicans have preemptively indicated their intention not to use their electors unless Trump and his running mate win their state.
“If J.D. Vance and Donald Trump win the most votes in the state of Wisconsin, then our electors will be convening on December 17,” explained Wisconsin GOP spokesperson Matt Fisher. “But if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, or by some miracle a third-party ticket wins, then our list of electors will be irrelevant.”
Yet, discussing such positions is easier before the election and prior to any pressure Trump may exert.
Once governors have sent their certified election results to Congress, the ensuing task for electors of the winning candidate — and potentially those sanctioned by GOP state legislative boards — is to meet and cast their votes to be communicated to lawmakers.
This process, which has traditionally been a straightforward formality, may be drastically different this time — particularly if two opposing slates of electors create a conflict for Congress to resolve on Jan. 6, 2025.
State election officials nationwide are preparing for possible unruliness and violence at every electoral phase—especially as electors convene. Given the tight schedules established in state and federal laws for finalizing election results, any disruptions could lead to uncertainty surrounding the outcomes.
“Regrettably, we have had to focus more on security than ever before,” noted Steve Simon, Minnesota’s Democratic secretary of state. Previously, the state hosted the Electoral College in an open rotunda, but Simon advised that under current circumstances, this is “not practical today.”
Civil unrest could additionally impact pre-December 17 election activities. Evidence presented against Trump by special counsel Jack Smith included a text exchange between a Trump campaign aide and an ally inside a Detroit ballot-counting operation that suggested inciting a riot.
In response to rising threats targeting all election-related processes, law enforcement officials have identified unprecedented levels of threats against ballot officials, lawmakers, and judges.
“Anyone involved in certifying Trump’s defeat should he lose is a potential target,” stated Tom Joscelyn, a senior adviser to the Jan. 6 committee. “The extremists firmly believe it’s being stolen yet again.”
“The thing that’s going to be bad is the thing we’re not thinking of,” cautioned Gabe Sterling, the chief operating officer at the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, highlighting concerns about lone individuals radicalized by misinformation.
If Trump strives to overturn an electoral loss, he will require the GOP to maintain or even strengthen its slim margin in the House of Representatives. Without this support, efforts to alter the election outcome would likely falter as states submit their certified results to Congress.
All attention will focus on Jan. 6, 2025, the day the House and Senate meet to count the Electoral College votes—a mere three days following the new Congress's start.
In 2020, with Democrats leading the House, Trump relied on the vice president's role in presiding over the electoral counting to attempt to undermine the results.
This time, the individual presiding will be Harris, who has pledged that her role will be strictly ministerial, leaving no room for subjective decision-making.
Under the Electoral Count Act, Congress gathers to count votes at 1 p.m., with Harris presiding. With the help of House and Senate staff, she opens certified electoral ballots and announces the results, provided there are no objections.
Previously, any single member of either the House or Senate could challenge electors, prompting lengthy debates. The revised Electoral Count Act now requires a minimum of one-fifth of both chambers to pose such an objection, a standard not hard for a group of Trump-aligned Republicans to meet.
Also, for an objection to succeed, it must be approved by both chambers—though a divided Congress would raise complicated constitutional dilemmas. Historically, no organized challenge to electoral results has been successful.
Even if Republicans mount challenges to the certification, they will need a majority in the House to overturn the election results. If they fail to secure the House, they will dismiss any objections to Harris’s electors and, if required, quash alternate slates as well.
Similarly, a Democratic-controlled Senate will easily endorse Harris’s electors. Even if Republicans narrowly win the Senate, key GOP senators are likely to resist efforts that veer away from certified results. For instance, Sen. Susan Collins was instrumental in drafting the Electoral Count Act updates aimed at preventing a recurrence of Trump’s 2020 strategy.
However, should Republicans maintain control of the House and strengthen influence in key state legislative chambers, a dangerous pathway could open for Trump's allies.
Before Jan. 6, Trump and his backers would push relentlessly to persuade House Republicans to reject Harris’s electoral victory, particularly if alternate slates of electors from Republican-led states are in place.
Some Democrats remain anxious that even while they appear to regain the House, enough races might remain contested to allow Republicans to secure control when the new Congress convenes.
In light of the violent attempts to disrupt Congress following the 2020 election, federal officials are working diligently to prevent a repeat of such events. The Biden administration has recognized the Jan. 6, 2025, session as a “National Special Security Event,” granting additional resources similar to those allocated for presidential inaugurations or the Super Bowl. The U.S. Capitol is set to be fortified following Election Day.
**The Speaker Maneuvers**
Now let’s assume the House remains under Republican leadership. Trump may spend the months before the election pressuring state legislatures in key battlegrounds to assert claims on alternate electors. If these efforts succeed and those slates are submitted to Harris, backed by governmental authority, the groundwork will be laid for Trump loyalists to attempt to assert control.
This situation begins with the individual occupying the speaker's chair. While Rep. Mike Johnson currently holds this position, his standing among the often-divided Republican caucus is uncertain. Trump would likely seize the opportunity to play kingmaker, demanding assurances from hopeful candidates for his endorsement. If Trump continues to question election integrity throughout this time, commitments from the next speaker to side with him on Jan. 6 would be a priority.
If unresolved leadership issues persist until Jan. 6—and they nearly did in 2023—this could freeze congressional proceedings altogether. Such an unprecedented leadership vacuum adds a layer of uncertainty that officials are now attempting to preemptively address.
Assuming Johnson retains his position, the house that he leads will be pivotal as Harris presides over a potentially contentious joint session.
Johnson has been a staunch Trump ally, including during the unsuccessful attempts to reverse the 2020 election results. He has maintained he will “follow the Constitution” and federal law, but he has not clarified how he interprets those principles in relation to the existing legal framework.
If Johnson aligns with Trump’s beliefs regarding the unconstitutionality of the electoral process, he could leverage that authority to sidestep established norms. This might lead to facilitating a direct vote by Congress on the legitimacy of state-backed electoral slates or even allowing extensive debates on fraud allegations, thereby prolonging the process and keeping the election outcome ambiguous. Action such as this could stifle the session's progression altogether.
Should events unfold in a manner that leads to chaos, courts—including potentially the Supreme Court—may be required to mitigate the situation.
Ultimately, these scenarios are the culmination of Trump’s ongoing campaign to delegitimize any electoral loss, perpetuating an alternative narrative that contends the rightful outcome is contested.
**The House Picks a President**
If Republicans disrupt the electoral outcome in such tactical maneuvers, it could initiate a so-called contingent election process within the House, where each state delegation casts a single vote. Given the GOP’s control over 26 state delegations compared to the Democrats’ 22, if this situation transpires, it is highly likely Republicans would elect Trump as president.
Democrats are currently strategizing for such potential outcomes, weighing risks depending on the GOP's margins in the upcoming elections and the willingness of moderate Republicans to stand up to Trump.
To block the certification of a Harris victory, several critical elements must fall into place, ultimately requiring a good election night for Republicans and collusion among Trump allies across multiple levels of governance.
This scenario would present a stark departure from typical political processes, amounting to brazen authoritarianism that would veer into lawlessness.
“Then you’re really getting into the realm of lawlessness,” commented Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA. “If people are going to be willing to just ignore the law and declare someone the winner, then you’re talking about a real coup.”
Lucas Dupont for TROIB News
