Next Attorney General Likely an Election Denier

At a glance:

• A recent "election integrity" call featured prominent election deniers claiming influence over President Trump's AG selection.
• The DOJ has actively undermined election trust through lawsuits against states and dismantling voting rights protections.
• All leading AG candidates have promoted or supported election conspiracy theories, signaling aggressive post-2026 election strategy.

The Election Integrity Call and Its Significance

On Monday, conservative podcaster Steve Stern convened an "election integrity" call bringing together a who's who of figures central to overturning the 2020 election. Unlike similar gatherings in 2021–2022 dominated by unknown activists, this call included individuals alleged to have been part of President Trump's inner circle during that period. Speakers like John Eastman and Michael Flynn explicitly claimed ongoing access to Trump regarding election-related policies, signaling a coordinated effort to reshape DOJ priorities. This convergence underscores how election denial narratives have transitioned from fringe theories to influential policy drivers within the administration.

The call's participants framed the DOJ as having "dropped the ball" on investigating election fraud claims, despite constitutional limits on federal election oversight reserved for states and Congress. Eastman, architect of the 2020 election overturn effort, lamented that the DOJ wasn't prosecuting alleged voting machine rigging to the "fullest extent possible." Flynn echoed this, criticizing the agency for wasting a year and dismissing its personnel as "Deep State goop." Such rhetoric reflects a deliberate strategy to pressure Trump toward appointing an AG who would weaponize the DOJ against perceived enemies.

DOJ's Shift Under Current Leadership

Contrary to speakers' complaints, the DOJ has aggressively pursued actions undermining election integrity. It has filed dozens of lawsuits against states demanding unredacted voter rolls—moves criticized as eroding privacy and enabling voter suppression. More significantly, the agency dismantled the Civil Rights Division's voting rights section, replacing career attorneys with Trump loyalists who have spread election conspiracies. This structural shift aligns with the call's demands for "real changes" to election administration, though through controversial means that bypass legislative processes.

The DOJ's actions have real-world implications. Voter roll lawsuits risk exposing sensitive personal data, while the purging of experienced voting rights lawyers weakens protections against discriminatory practices. These moves have been accompanied by public rhetoric from figures like acting AG Todd Blanche, who has falsely claimed widespread noncitizen voting and advocated deploying ICE agents to polling places. Such positions contradict studies showing noncitizen voting is statistically negligible (0.0001% in 2016) and signal intent to intimidate voters and suppress turnout—particularly in diverse communities.

Pressure Points for the Next Attorney General

As Trump considers replacing fired AG Pam Bondi, election deniers have already begun lobbying for candidates who would prioritize their agenda. Wayne Root, a right-wing radio host, claimed he advised Trump to fire Bondi and suggested an executive order on mail-in voting, which was signed shortly after. Root's influence highlights how external figures are shaping AG selection, with Root's shortlist including candidates who have systematically promoted election fraud narratives. This external pressure contrasts with traditional DOJ independence, suggesting the next AG may operate as an extension of Trump's political project rather than a neutral enforcer of law.

The acting AG, Todd Blanche, exemplifies this trend. As Trump's personal lawyer in cases including Stormy Daniels and classified documents, Blanche has deep familiarity with the president's rigged election claims. His recent call to use ICE agents for polling place policing—despite no evidence of widespread fraud—signals a willingness to deploy federal power for partisan ends. If appointed permanently, Blanche would likely accelerate DOJ's shift toward election-related investigations targeting political opponents and implementing restrictive voting policies ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Front-Runners and Their Election Denial Ties

All top contenders for the permanent AG role have documented histories of promoting election conspiracy theories. Lee Zeldin, current EPA administrator, voted against certifying the 2020 election results in Arizona and Pennsylvania and backed Trump's Supreme Court lawsuit contesting Biden's victory. Jeanine Pirro, as a former Fox News host, spread baseless 2020 fraud claims cited in Dominion Voting Systems' $787M defamation settlement against the network. Ken Paxton, Texas' "election denier in chief," filed lawsuits to overturn 2020 results in four states and recently targeted Latino voter registration groups.

Senatorial candidates further cement this pattern. Eric Schmitt, former Missouri AG, led 16 state AGs in supporting Paxton's Supreme Court lawsuit to nullify 2020 results. Mike Lee, a Utah senator, has become a vocal proponent of the SAVE America Act—a bill threatening to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans through restrictive mail-in voting rules. These candidates' shared commitment to election denial ensures the next AG would prioritize investigations into nonexistent fraud over protecting voting rights, potentially setting the stage for contested 2026 elections.

Implications for the 2026 Midterms and Democracy

The AG selection process reflects a broader strategy to leverage DOJ power for electoral outcomes. As Gateway Pundit's Joe Hoft stated on the call, the priority is ensuring Republicans win the 2026 midterms, with the AG positioned to "get stuff done" on election processes. This approach risks normalizing the DOJ as a partisan tool, eroding its credibility as an impartial institution. If an election denier is confirmed, the agency could launch politically motivated investigations into voting machine manufacturers, election officials, or voter registration groups—chilling participation and deepening public distrust.

The consequences extend beyond 2026. By dismantling voting rights infrastructure and promoting false fraud narratives, the DOJ under an election-denying AG could accelerate democratic backsliding. International partners may question U.S. election credibility, while domestic faith in institutions could plummet. The call's participants made clear their intent: to use the AG's office to engineer favorable outcomes, not uphold constitutional principles. This trajectory threatens the foundational integrity of American democracy, making the AG selection one of the most consequential appointments in recent history.

FAQ

Q: Why is the DOJ being criticized by election deniers if it's already taking actions against voter rolls?

A: Election deniers criticize the DOJ for not prosecuting their specific fraud claims (e.g., voting machine rigging) while overlooking the agency's existing actions against voter rolls and voting rights protections. This discrepancy highlights their selective outrage—they demand aggressive prosecution of baseless theories while supporting DOJ policies that suppress voting access, such as sharing unredacted voter rolls or dismantling the Civil Rights Division's voting section.

Q: How would an election-denying Attorney General impact the 2026 midterms?

A: An AG promoting election denial could weaponize the DOJ by launching investigations into voter registration groups, election officials, or voting machine manufacturers. This could create a chilling effect, deterring participation and enabling voter intimidation. Figures like Todd Blanche have already signaled plans to deploy ICE agents to polling places, potentially intimidating minority voters and setting the stage for contested results that could favor Republican candidates.

Q: Are there any AG candidates without election denial ties?

A: All leading contenders—Todd Blanche, Lee Zeldin, Jeanine Pirro, Ken Paxton, Eric Schmitt, and Mike Lee—have either promoted election fraud theories, voted against certifying election results, or supported lawsuits to overturn outcomes. No prominent candidates without such ties have emerged, indicating the Trump administration's deliberate alignment with election denial narratives in this critical appointment.

Entities

• John Eastman: Architect of the 2020 election overturn effort and senior fellow at the Claremont Institute.
• Michael Flynn: Disgraced former national security adviser who echoed election fraud claims on the call.
• Todd Blanche: Current acting attorney general and Trump's personal lawyer, advocating ICE deployment at polling places.
• Lee Zeldin: EPA administrator who voted against certifying 2020 election results and backed Trump's Supreme Court lawsuit.
• Jeanine Pirro: Top federal prosecutor in DC and former Fox News host who spread 2020 election conspiracies.
• Ken Paxton: Texas attorney general dubbed the "election denier in chief" for lawsuits targeting election results and Latino voters.
• Eric Schmitt: Former Missouri attorney general and senator who led 16 state AGs in supporting election overturn lawsuits.
• Mike Lee: Utah senator and vocal supporter of the SAVE America Act, which would restrict mail-in voting.

Tags

["politics", "election integrity", "DOJ", "trump administration", "election denial", "attorney general"]

Cover Type

abstract

Cover Keyword

dark shadows over ballot boxes

Sentiment

7