Jake Starkey
Verified User
I wonder if the President has a far firmer grip mentally than we give him credit for and if he is heading toward a political coup?
I asked copilot AI "Is the executive executing a plan to conclude with a coup against the US government just before or during the next elections in the fall?"
It answered in an Summary assessment that
There is no verified evidence that the Executive Branch is executing a plan to conclude with a coup against the U.S. government before or during the next elections. Analysts and legal scholars have raised concerns about expanded assertions of presidential power and moves that could undermine election administration, but these do not constitute proof of a planned coup. U.S. institutions (courts, Congress, state election officials) retain significant authority that can check unlawful executive action.
I asked AI "track current court challenges and legislative actions related to executive election interference and summarize what each could change before the fall."
I asked copilot AI "Is the executive executing a plan to conclude with a coup against the US government just before or during the next elections in the fall?"
It answered in an Summary assessment that
There is no verified evidence that the Executive Branch is executing a plan to conclude with a coup against the U.S. government before or during the next elections. Analysts and legal scholars have raised concerns about expanded assertions of presidential power and moves that could undermine election administration, but these do not constitute proof of a planned coup. U.S. institutions (courts, Congress, state election officials) retain significant authority that can check unlawful executive action.
Executive power expansion and legal context
- Unitary executive assertions: Reporting and legal commentary describe efforts to centralize control over the executive branch, including aggressive personnel actions and attempts to restructure or diminish certain agencies. Experts caution this could trigger constitutional litigation, but note that a direct refusal to obey court orders or an explicit dismantling of constitutional processes has not been established.
- Checks and balances: Even amid disputes over executive authority, courts can enjoin unlawful actions, and Congress and states set and administer election rules. This framework limits unilateral executive control over elections.
Election-related concerns vs. a “coup” claim
- Interference risks: A civil‑rights and democracy watchdog has cataloged actions they describe as a campaign to undermine election integrity (e.g., rhetoric, pardons, proposed rule changes, pressure on election officials). Their analysis argues these moves are unprecedented and in some cases illegal, and emphasizes that the executive does not have authority to set state election rules or supervise local officials. This is presented as a strategic threat to free and fair elections, not proven evidence of a coup plan.
- Institutional resilience: Prior federal elections (2020–2024) proceeded securely despite intense pressure, and the legal assertion remains that only Congress and states can set election rules. The watchdog’s conclusion is that vigilance and legal action are required, not that a coup is predetermined or confirmed.
Bottom line
- No confirmed coup plan: Claims of an imminent coup are not supported by verified evidence.
- Real risks to norms: There are documented efforts to expand presidential power and to alter or pressure election administration, which have prompted legal and institutional responses. Those risks should be evaluated through facts, court rulings, and statutory limits on executive authority.
I asked AI "track current court challenges and legislative actions related to executive election interference and summarize what each could change before the fall."
Current court cases and legislation on executive election interference
Key court cases now in motion
- Georgia election interference (State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump et al.):
- Status: After DA Fani Willis was disqualified for an “appearance of impropriety,” Peter J. Skandalakis (head of Georgia’s Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council) appointed himself special prosecutor on Nov. 14, 2025, preventing dismissal and setting a Dec. 1 status hearing. Judge McAfee has already quashed several false-documents counts; racketeering charges remain against multiple defendants. Proceedings against a sitting president are unlikely to advance, but co‑defendants’ cases can proceed.
- What could change before fall: A superseding indictment decision, narrowing or dismissal of charges, and potential scheduling for non‑presidential co‑defendants. The case’s trajectory will shape accountability for state‑level conduct tied to 2020 election efforts.
- Supreme Court limits on “universal injunctions” (Trump v. CASA, Inc.):
- Status: On June 27, 2025, the Court granted partial stays, signaling universal injunctions against executive orders likely exceed federal courts’ equitable authority; relief must be tailored to plaintiffs. The ruling doesn’t decide the underlying order’s constitutionality but directly affects how challengers can block nationwide application.
- What could change before fall: Future challenges to executive election‑related orders may yield narrower, plaintiff‑specific injunctions, requiring multi‑jurisdiction litigation to constrain nationwide effects.
Executive actions under challenge
- Executive Order: Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections (Mar. 25, 2025):
- Content: Directs tighter citizenship verification for the federal registration form; asserts ballots must be cast and received by Election Day; pressures voting system re‑certification via the EAC.
- Critiques: Watchdogs argue the order attempts to usurp state authority and coerce an independent commission, potentially burdening voters and imposing costly machine replacements.
- What could change before fall: Litigation could curtail enforcement provisions (especially EAC directives), but nationwide blocks are less likely due to the Supreme Court’s injunction ruling. Compliance timelines for equipment changes and registration rules may slip or be stayed in part.
State developments tied to 2020 efforts
- “Fake electors” and related prosecutions:
- Georgia: The Georgia case remains active for several co‑defendants (e.g., Giuliani, Meadows) with some plea deals already entered; three false‑document charges were dropped, but racketeering counts stand.
- Broader context: Parallel proceedings and appeals in other states continue; recent reporting notes activity in Nevada’s case involving alternate electors.
- What could change before fall: Additional plea agreements, targeted charge reductions, or trial scheduling for non‑presidential defendants could advance. Outcomes may influence other states’ approaches to elector‑related cases.
Federal legislative proposals
- Protecting Election Administration from Interference Act (H.R. 2803):
- Scope: Extends retention requirements to electronic records and equipment; sets CISA standards for preservation and transfer; strengthens criminal penalties for interference, including intimidation of officials processing or certifying votes; authorizes DOJ and candidates to seek court orders compelling compliance.
- What could change before fall: If enacted or partially adopted via committee action, federal standards on record preservation and protections for election workers would tighten, and DOJ’s inspection powers over electronic records and equipment would be clarified and expanded.
What these actions could change before the fall elections
- Injunction strategy and litigation footprint:
- Impact: Expect more targeted injunctions (plaintiff‑specific), requiring coordinated filings across circuits to constrain election‑related executive actions nationally. This raises the cost and complexity for challengers.
- Federal–state election administration balance:
- Impact: Courts may scrutinize attempts to direct the EAC or impose federal deadlines beyond statutory text. Successful challenges would reaffirm state control over administration while permitting federal enforcement of existing laws (citizenship, Election Day statutes) within constitutional bounds.
- Operational burden on jurisdictions:
- Impact: If EAC‑linked re‑certification is enforced, jurisdictions could face procurement and compliance pressures; delays or stays would mitigate immediate upheaval. Legislative moves (H.R. 2803) could simultaneously standardize preservation and bolster worker protections.
What to watch next
- Georgia case decisions: Superseding indictment announcement, charge narrowing, and scheduling for co‑defendants.
- EAC and CISA responses: Guidance changes, compliance timelines, and potential legal challenges to the executive order’s directives.
- New filings post–Supreme Court ruling: Tailored injunctions against election‑related executive actions in multiple districts.
- Congressional movement on H.R. 2803: Hearings, markups, and potential bipartisan amendments on record retention and worker protections.
