Democrats have been speculating about and prepping for the numerous ways in which President Donald Trump could meddle with forthcoming midterms, but according to a new piece from The New York Times, there is one person he could fire that would completely upend the results — and it is completely legal.
Writing on Monday for the Times, veteran reporter Jeffrey Toobin stressed that Trump's "obsession" with preventing a GOP wipeout in the midterms remains a very live threat, even as his efforts to spread claims about election fraud have fallen flat so far. Toobin spoke with Rep. Joe Morelle, a New York Democrat, about his efforts to game out various scenarios, including ways that the president could try to block the certification of certain results after the elections, an idea that has gotten less attention recently as Trump has focused on efforts to control who is allowed to vote.
"The process for installing a new House of Representatives begins when the states certify the results in each of the 435 races. The rules vary by state, but most require election officials to certify by late November or early December," Toobin explained. "In recent years, Trump-aligned local officials have frequently used false claims of fraud or noncitizens voting as justification to decline to certify election results. Since 2020, more than 30 local officials in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina and Pennsylvania have refused to certify election results, many in hopes of forestalling Democratic victories."
Morelle said that the plan for this possibility is to take Trump to court over it, something the "Democrats have had success" with recently, using courts to force local officials to certify results.
Still, there is another person that Trump could potentially target as a way to halt the process of swearing in a new Democratic-majority: the House of Representatives Clerk, who has "the job of assembling the 'roll' of new members to be sworn in on Jan. 3, 2027." The current clerk, Kevin McCumber, is widely considered to be a "nonpartisan" figure, and would be unlikely to go along with demands from Trump to interfere with the swearing-in process.
"One disaster scenario, according to Mr. Morelle, would be this: After results show the Democrats winning a majority in the House, the president declares that the election is full of fraud and the winners don’t need to be certified," Toobin explained. "Mr. Trump could then demand that Speaker Mike Johnson fire Mr. McCumber, which Mr. Johnson has the legal right to do. Under the procedures of the House, the speaker can install a more compliant successor — that is, a G.O.P. toady. In this scenario, Speaker Johnson’s designee, at Mr. Trump’s instigation, would produce a roll of new House members that included Republicans in races that Democrats believed they had won."
He added: "While the speaker does have the unilateral power to remove the clerk, his choice for a permanent replacement would have to be approved by a vote of House members. Mr. Morelle said that in that case, Speaker Johnson might not be able to persuade his slim Republican majority to replace Mr. McCumber."
“You’d have a number of members who are retiring, who I think would no longer be beholden to Johnson or the president, who I think would take a very, very dim view of efforts to overturn the election," Morelle said.