The Motives Behind Trump’s Preemptive Policies for the 2026 Congressional Elections
The U.S. midterm elections, scheduled for November 2026, represent a pivotal moment in American politics. They are not merely a contest for congressional seats (the renewal of all House seats, plus one-third of Senate seats), but essentially a referendum on the performance of the U.S. president and his party during the first half of his term.
In this context, the White House confirmed that these elections will be run as a referendum on Donald Trump’s policies and his future project. Facing the historical tendency that favors the opposition in midterm elections, Trump is seeking to overturn the political balance in next year’s elections through a set of unconventional preemptive policies. These reflect his desire not only to preserve or strengthen the Republican majority in Congress, but also to reshape the balance within the Republican Party itself to ensure the continuity of his influence beyond 2026.
Preemptive Policies:
To maintain the Republicans’ majority in both chambers of Congress in the 2026 midterms, Trump has adopted a series of policies and measures, which can be summarized as follows:
1. Redistricting:
Trump aims to reshape the electoral map in favor of the Republican Party in several key states, including Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, and Texas. In Texas, he exerted direct pressure on Republican officials until the state Senate approved a new electoral map that gives the GOP a clear advantage, not by swaying voters but by re-engineering the electoral process itself. This included the creation of five new districts in Texas that would enable Republicans to gain additional seats in Congress. Democrats strongly objected, boycotting legislative debates for two weeks and accusing Republicans of trying to “silence minority voices” through racial gerrymandering that fails to reflect Texas’s true demographic makeup. In response, Democrats in California adopted countermeasures to offset potential losses, including organizing a referendum in November to give legislators the authority to redraw districts without the independent commission (as per rules in place since 2010), with the goal of creating new districts to balance the GOP’s gains in Texas.
According to the British newspaper The Guardian, the Supreme Court paved the way for gerrymandering in Texas, even reshaping the rules of the electoral game. In 2019, the Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering cannot be challenged in federal court unless it involves racial discrimination, noting that redistricting has always been part of U.S. history. As a result, lawmakers in several states were able to manipulate district boundaries, entrenching polarization. This also means the importance of the upcoming midterms may diminish in determining candidates, as party primaries — where extremists, not moderate swing voters, decide the outcome — could matter more. The result would be polarized legislatures dominated by performative partisan showboating.
2. Pledging to End Mail-In Voting:
Despite expected Democratic opposition, Trump announced his intention to end mail-in voting and scrap voting machines, which he described as “inaccurate, costly, and controversial.” Although the U.S. electoral system allows each of the 50 states to manage its elections independently within a congressional framework, Trump demanded that states comply with his preference for a more centralized approach.
It is worth noting that on March 25, 2025, Trump signed an executive order tightening rules on voter registration, imposing new restrictions on mail-in voting, requiring proof of citizenship through official documents, and obligating federal agencies to share their data with state governments to verify voter rolls. The order also required all mail-in ballots to arrive by Election Day to be counted, threatening to cut federal funding to states that failed to comply. Democrats filed multiple lawsuits in response.
Taken together, these policies reveal Trump’s intent to redraw constitutional balances between federal and state powers, as he insists on prioritizing federal authority over states in election management. This reflects his effort to reshape the electoral process in line with his vision of safeguarding the integrity of voting and its outcomes.
3. Weighing In on Party Nominations:
A team of senior advisers, led by Tony Fabrizio and Chris LaCivita, is coordinating election campaigns, holding daily talks with senior White House staff to manage the political scene. Seeking to unify the Republican Party, boost GOP chances in highly competitive districts, manage internal rivalries, and minimize losses in key states, Trump has issued direct guidance and strategic interventions in party nominations. He backed certain candidates in Senate races in swing states like Maine and North Carolina, and pressured some House members to keep their seats rather than pursue higher executive offices.
For example, after discussions with Trump, Zach Nunn abandoned his run for governor of Iowa to seek reelection in the state’s 3rd congressional district. Trump also persuaded Michigan Representative Bill Huizenga to step aside from a Senate race to support candidate Mike Rogers, while New York Representative Mike Lawler received a clear message to drop his gubernatorial ambitions in favor of reelection in a southern New York district.
At the Senate level, the White House encouraged Senator Joni Ernst to run again despite speculation about her retirement, while also exploring alternatives in Maine in case Senator Susan Collins decided not to seek reelection.
4. Maximizing Campaign Financial Power:
Following his presidential victory last year, Trump launched an early, intensive fundraising campaign. Within just three weeks of his second term, he raised about $608 million — showcasing his enormous fundraising capacity and ability to use it as a strategic tool to strengthen GOP influence. Ahead of the 2026 midterms, and despite constitutional restrictions preventing him from seeking a third presidential term, Trump hinted that these funds could be directed to support his Republican allies. He also pledged to pressure major donors, while financing multi-million-dollar ad campaigns in eight critical districts and presiding over major fundraising events for the Republican National Committee. These steps strengthen his presence in the legislative arena in preparation for next year’s elections.
Compound Motives:
Trump’s preemptive policies for the 2026 midterms stem from several intertwined motives, the most notable of which include:
1. Growing Importance of the Midterms:
The U.S. is experiencing heightened political polarization as preparations intensify for next year’s midterms. These elections are crucial for multiple reasons. They will determine Trump’s ability to strengthen his hold on the federal government during his last two years in office. They may also bring significant changes to governorships, shifting local power balances.
Trump’s team has already begun early efforts to preserve the GOP’s fragile majority in the House, fearing that a Democratic victory could reopen investigations against the president, possibly leading to impeachment, as happened during his first term when Democrats controlled the House. Republican strategist Matt Gorman warned that impeachment would remain an option if Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries became Speaker. Some Democrats have already expressed interest in investigating Trump over his reforms, possible market manipulation via tariffs, and his role in facilitating deals for major companies like the Starlink project.
2. Declining Popularity of Trump:
A Gallup poll conducted on July 26, 2025, showed a significant decline in Trump’s popularity, particularly among independent voters. His approval among independents fell to just 29% — the lowest in either of his terms, and down 17% since January 2025. Overall, only 37% of American adults approved of his performance. Meanwhile, 64% of independents and 97% of Democrats disapproved, compared to just 7% of Republicans.
Analysts argue these numbers reflect a deep crisis of trust, especially as independents form the decisive voting bloc. This raises GOP concerns about keeping their slim congressional majority in the midterms. The decline is tied to issues of economy, finance, and immigration, despite these being pillars of Trump’s 2024 campaign. About 68% of independents opposed Trump’s economic policies, 73% rejected his handling of the federal budget after his massive spending bill, and only 30% supported his immigration policies.
3. Concerns Over Tariff War Fallout:
There is growing concern that Trump’s tariffs on most countries, and possible retaliatory responses, could push the U.S. economy into a deep recession. Republican voices, including Senator Ted Cruz, warned that if the crisis continues, the 2026 elections could turn into a “political bloodbath” allowing Democrats to seize both the House and Senate. GOP lawmakers are increasingly alarmed by the “tariff war” Trump launched on April 2, 2025, dubbed “Liberation Day,” which wiped nearly $5.4 trillion from U.S. financial markets in just two days. Voters could punish Republicans if the economic downturn continues to directly harm Americans.
4. Cementing GOP Dominance:
Since 2020, Trump’s political experience has been defined by clashes with constitutional institutions, including elected Republicans in Congress and state legislatures, as well as administration officials and military leaders who refused to follow him after his initial defeat. In his second term, he has sought to tighten his grip on the GOP, supporting candidates loyal to him in congressional races. Historically, the ruling party often loses seats in the midterms — as happened in 2018, when Democrats regained the House majority, leading to Trump’s impeachment and stalling of his agenda. Trump is determined to avoid a repeat, arguing that his actions are necessary to “protect democracy.”
5. Repercussions of the Tax Law:
While Republicans may convert popular support for their economic and security programs into electoral gains — strengthening their hold on the House and perhaps expanding their Senate influence — growing opposition to Trump’s tax law (known as the “big and beautiful bill”) could backfire. Its effects on the middle and lower classes may give Democrats an opportunity to regain momentum if they can present an alternative narrative highlighting the law’s economic and social risks. Thus, the law could be a double-edged sword: either bolstering GOP dominance if they manage the media narrative effectively, or offering Democrats a strategic advantage if they rally voters around themes of social and economic justice.
Conclusion:
Trump operates from a firm belief that his 2024 presidential victory granted him a broad and lasting mandate to dominate U.S. policy — even pushing for the GOP to gain additional congressional seats, as though some states’ seats were naturally the property of his party.
Despite the GOP’s slim majorities in both chambers, Trump’s popularity has sharply declined. His policies enjoy only limited support on key issues such as immigration and increased defense spending. This places the upcoming midterms in a challenging context, especially with worsening macroeconomic problems and soaring inflation driven by tariffs and mass deportations.
These challenges are compounded by the historical trend of the ruling party losing seats in the midterms. After the 2018 midterms during Trump’s first term, Republicans lost their House majority and several governorships to Democrats. Now, there are growing fears that Democrats could once again disrupt Trump’s political agenda.
