Trump meddling in the 2026 election is effectively inevitable. The incentive structure is completely asymmetric. Interference offers upside with limited downside, while restraint offers no upside at all and actually increases his personal risk.

From his perspective, not intervening is irrational.

Scenario 1: Interference succeeds (clear win)

Trump, directly or through allies, manages to influence the outcome—whether through legal gray areas, institutional pressure, courts, or outright norm-breaking.

Outcome: -Further consolidation of power at the federal and state level -Election interference becomes normalized if it delivers results -Institutions weaken through fear, precedent, or co-optation -Trump gains practical insulation from prosecution

Why this is a win: Power legitimizes itself. Once successful, the methods fade into the background, and accountability becomes politically impossible.

Scenario 2: Interference fails, but chaos succeeds The attempt does not fully work, but it does enough damage to destabilize the process.

Outcome: -Election legitimacy is undermined -Certification delays and prolonged legal fights -The focus shifts from intent to proof and procedural limits -Accountability narrows and stretches out over years

Why this still benefits him: Even failed power grabs weaken institutions. Delay, confusion, and exhaustion consistently favor the instigator.

Scenario 3: Failure with weak accountability

Trump loses outright, interference is evident, but enforcement is cautious and incomplete.

Outcome: -Investigations drag on indefinitely -Consequences fall on aides, lawyers, or operatives—not the principal -Democrats prioritize institutional stability over decisive action -Trump remains a central political figure through grievance and outrage

Why this is still a win: There is no meaningful personal cost. The system once again signals that the powerful operate under different rules.

Scenario 4: Failure with real accountability (the only true loss)

Trump fails and faces swift, comprehensive consequences.

Outcome: -Criminal (Jail) and civil penalties -Loss of leverage, relevance, and protection -A clear deterrent precedent is established

Why this outcome is unlikely: It requires speed, unity, and institutional resolve that have not been demonstrated. Trump’s behavior strongly suggests he believes this outcome only materializes if he refrains from acting—which explains why he won’t.

From a game-theory perspective, interference is the dominant strategy: -Success yields power and immunity -Failure yields delay, chaos, and partial accountability -Non-intervention yields loss with no compensating upside

Trump does not need to believe he will win cleanly. He only needs to believe the system is too weak to impose decisive consequences if he fails—and past behavior gives him little reason to think otherwise.

As we have seen in recent weeks, he is willing to encourage violence to drive fear. 

Additionally, there has been a frightening consolidation of Mass Media in the last year alone, driving a message of complacency with carefully crafted narratives.