Donald Trump is at the centre of an explosive opinion piece claiming fear of losing power is driving his late-night social media outbursts and could shape how he responds if Democrats appear to be winning in November. The article argues Trump has already signalled how he would react, alleging he would claim the election had been rigged and move aggressively to challenge the result. According to the author, Trump would point back to his recent national address as proof that he had warned the country in advance. The piece claims he would accuse Democrats of stealing the election and justify extraordinary action by presenting it as a defence of democracy. The article alleges Trump would deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel and the National Guard's "Rapid Reaction Force" to seize ballot boxes while responding forcefully to protests that followed. It further claims he would declare a state of emergency, invoke National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), blame unrest on foreign actors or Antifa, and criminalise demonstrations. The author argues these concerns are rooted in Trump's previous efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. It claims that, unlike six years ago, key positions within government are now occupied by officials who would be more willing to carry out his directives if similar circumstances arose again. The article contends that senior officials who opposed Trump's actions after the 2020 election have since been replaced by loyalists. It argues those individuals understand the political risks they could face if Democrats regain power and launch investigations into the administration. The opinion piece also points to Trump's recent rhetoric about Democrats, stating he has labelled political opponents as traitors, communists and potential terrorists. The author argues that Trump sees retaining control of Congress as essential because Democratic majorities could pursue investigations using subpoena powers. According to the article, Trump's political survival is directly tied to remaining in office. The author speculates that losing power could expose both Trump and members of his family to criminal investigations, financial consequences and the loss of political influence. The piece further argues that Trump's concerns are reflected in his public behaviour, including late-night social media activity and references to his previous criminal trial, where he faced 34 felony charges. It also notes that Trump has publicly threatened political opponents in the past, arguing this demonstrates how he responds to perceived enemies. The author insists, however, that no such scenario could succeed without the cooperation of ordinary officials. County election workers, National Guard officers, local police, sheriffs and election administrators are described as playing potentially decisive roles if they were ever asked to carry out disputed orders. Drawing comparisons with historical examples including Germany in 1933, Selma, Kyiv and Manila, the article argues that democratic institutions ultimately depend on individuals deciding whether to comply with or resist unlawful instructions. It concludes by urging readers to engage with local election officials, sheriffs, governors, state legislators, lawyers and political organisations before November so communities are prepared if disputes arise. The opinion piece argues that the most significant events surrounding the election may unfold not in Washington but in local election offices and county meetings across the United States, where decisions by ordinary public officials could prove critical. This sheer terror is driving Trump's 2 a.m. rage tweeting | Opinion
Create an account or sign in to comment