President Donald Trump's call to nationalize elections in some areas of the U.S. is exposing a rare public split with one of his closest political allies.
At a recent campaign event in Houston in which he touted the endorsement of several labor unions, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was asked directly about Trump's suggestions to nationalize elections.
"Listen, my understanding of the United States Constitution, uh, and that is elections for state positions are to be conducted by states, and I don’t think we should deviate from that," Abbott said.
Trump's comments have reignited a debate over who controls U.S. elections, placing constitutional limits, partisan tensions and practical realities into sharp focus. While the Republican president frames federal intervention as a response to election integrity concerns, legal experts and even some allies warn the Constitution gives states primary authority over elections, making any attempt to nationalize the process both legally fraught and logistically complex.
Trump has discussed the idea at least twice this month, first in an appearance on former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino's podcast on Feb. 2.
"The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over. ... We should take over the voting in at least ... 15 places.’ The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting," Trump said.
Then two days later, in an exclusive interview with NBC News, Trump denied his use of the word "nationalize" but added to his initial remarks.
"I didn't say national. I said there are some areas in our country that are extremely corrupt," Trump said. "They have very corrupt elections. Take a look at Detroit. Take a look at Philadelphia. Take a look at Atlanta. There are some areas that are unbelievably corrupt. I could give you plenty more, too. I say that we cannot have corrupt elections if we have to, if they don’t straighten out."
No formal proposal has been introduced by the administration. But according to University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus, any effort to move forward with a plan would face significant legal hurdles.
"If this was to move forward, they would have to have congressional approval," Rottinghaus said. "The president could not do this on his own through executive order or any other unilateral means. That doesn’t mean that they won’t try, because the president has definitely been muscular in his attempts to use unilateral power to affect policy change."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters the president was referring to the SAVE America Act, a legislative proposal that would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections and for mail-in ballot applicants, along with a mandate for states to ensure only U.S. citizens register to vote. The House has passed several versions of the bill, but those have stalled in the Senate.
Abbott isn't the only political conservative pushing back on Trump's idea.
"That's a constitutional issue," said Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, before emphasizing the benefits of a decentralized voting system. "It's harder to hack 50 election systems than it is to hack one."
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said the states administering elections is a "system that works well," but added, "so long as the states make it a priority to ensure the integrity of our elections and we have real concerns about some of the blue states, frankly, that have not been doing that well.”
Mixed messages
In a move reminiscent of Trump, Abbott has himself recently threatened that Texas officials could take control of Harris County elections.
In a social media post referencing a Houston Public Media report about Harris County's tax office finding more than 100 voter registrations linked to private post office boxes in violation of state laws, Abbott wrote, "Harris County is a repeat violator of election integrity" and "should be stripped of operating elections and state officials should take over."
Since 2018, when Texas' most populous county first went blue, Abbott and fellow Republicans have taken multiple steps to govern Harris County's election operations. The legislature eliminated the county's independent elections administrator and banned some new voting measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as drive-thru voting.
Abbott has accused the county of being in violation of state laws aimed at bolstering election integrity.
Rottinghaus says the specter of voter fraud has for years been used as a smoke screen to take additional control over elections.
"Vote fraud is very rare. It’s very real, but very rare," Rottinghaus said. "And that means that you’re always going to have to explain it and for those municipalities that have these issues, they’re constantly having to fight these battles in perceptions about the way that the votes are counted, and who gets to vote. And even if the problems are small, it still can amount to a lot of questions that are asked from administrative officials who see these as being troublesome."
Abbott and Trump have been tightly aligned on election issues in the past, with the governor often backing the president's priorities even if at times he's had to push past his own concerns. The Texas Tribune reported Abbott was initially resistant to the president’s push for mid-decade redistricting, but ultimately supported the rare move and called lawmakers back to the Texas Capitol to redraw congressional maps to be more favorable to Republicans.
"If the governor and the president are at odds over the voting issue, then the conflict is serious. You don’t normally see much daylight between the two," Rottinghaus said.
Abbott has also made other moves recently that appear to cede state control. Abbott ordered the Texas National Guard troops to Chicago, a move that essentially sent Texas troops on a mission for the federal government, surprising other Republican governors. In December, Texas sent the state's voter data to the Department of Justice as the administration set out to collect the data of millions of voters across the country.
Direct federal involvement in elections, however, appears to cross a line for the governor.
Abbott was also a vocal critic of former President Joe Biden's push to pass various voting rights legislation in Congress. One measure would have required several states to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice for any changes to voting laws, and another would have established some national standards for early voting, mail-in voting and voter ID requirements.
"It’s not surprising to see Abbott cool to Trump’s request to nationalize elections, both because the Constitution is so clear that this is a state power," said Joshua Blank, research director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. "It’s also the case that Republicans have long held that this is a power that should be solely governed by the states."
Beyond Trump
Against this backdrop, the debate over nationalizing elections stands apart. Publicly rejecting the president's proposal points to serious concerns about federal overreach into a core state function and illustrates how complicated federal election oversight would be in practice.
Political and elections experts say the challenge goes beyond legality. Blank says federal oversight of elections could create ripple effects well beyond federal races.
"If you say [for example] the requirement for the federal elections is that you need to have a clear citizenship check, but for state elections you don’t or vice versa, well then ultimately you’re setting up two different systems," Blank said. "And if you know anything about election administration in the U.S., you know that it’s extremely underfunded."
Blank adds the idea to nationalize elections isn't new and would unlikely directly change any procedure in time for the 2026 midterms.
"These are things that have played out, you know, over time, in various ways, but it’s not clean, and it’s certainly not something that happens in, like, six months," Blank said.
But with Republicans facing razor-thin margins in both the House and the Senate during an election year, the timing of the conversation is raising questions about political motivation.
"Republicans redistricted because they saw the writing on the wall that the only way that they might be able to hold the House is if they redistricted," Blank said. "Right now, when you think about nationalizing elections, I think they’re probably looking at the Senate map and they’re worried because there’s no other reason to even raise these issues unless you think that you know the bleeding might extend beyond the House to the Senate."
Preparing for a post-Trump future could also be part of the calculus. His second term is set to end in early 2029.
"Trump's breaking with Republican tradition and orthodoxy, and while most of the time, he’s still going to get his way, not all the time," Blank said. "And especially for someone who’s not going to be on the ballot again. All these other people have future political careers, and they’re going to have to explain discrepancies in their position."
Copyright 2026 Houston Public Media News 88.7