Trump biographer reveals fear about midterm 'crisis' — and the risk is rising

U.S. President Donald Trump points, as he delivers remarks on the economy, at the General Motors Proving Ground in Milford, Michigan, U.S. July 27, 2026. REUTERS/Carlos Osorio

On Tuesday, following news that the Supreme Court had delivered a major win to President Donald Trump’s attack on mail-in voting, a prominent biographer of the commander-in-chief took to social media to warn of a looming midterm “crisis.” According to Seth Abramson, attorney and author of three bestselling books on Trump and his legacy of corruption, the idea that the president will meddle in the elections is not only likely — it’s becoming increasingly probable every day.

“Just on a lark, I set up an LLM task to estimate the likelihood of the midterms experiencing a significant legitimacy crisis,” posted Abramson. “When I set the task 9 days ago, the estimate based on major-media reports was 58 percent. An hour ago it was 68 percent. Today's lawless SCOTUS ruling raised it to 80 percent.”

While many have forecast that Trump may attempt to challenge the midterm results or otherwise influence the outcome, some have presumed that his efforts would largely be stymied by the courts, as the White House has lost thousands upon thousands of cases over the course of the past 18 months. The latest Supreme Court decision detracts from such hopes.

“A month ago I would've said it'll require a fake national emergency, bogus Insurrection Act invocation and tyrannical — localized — use of martial law for us to lose our democracy,” Abramson continued. “I felt those things would indeed happen by early 2029. I now fear SCOTUS plans to hand him America.”

In an emergency, unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump can move forward with his executive order, which according to the New York Times “directed the U.S. Postal Service to help decide which voters should receive mail-in ballots. Under the executive order, the Department of Homeland Security will also create lists of U.S. citizens that the administration believes could be used to monitor voter rolls for noncitizens.” While the decision didn’t rule on the legality of Trump’s order, it will allow it to proceed while its validity is challenged in lower courts. Whatever that outcome turns out to be, it will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court.

“It's impossible for this lawyer to underscore how far from legitimate jurisprudence we are,” warned Abramson. “If someone told me the zealots running our SCOTUS had been threatened with death or imprisonment if they didn't submit to Trump, I'd tell you they'd be acting no differently if it were so.”

While Trump has asserted that mail-in voting is insecure and should be ended almost entirely, as Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) noted in response to the Court’s decision, “Trump voted by mail eleven days ago. Apparently it’s good enough for him, but he wants to take away your right to vote in the same way.” She added, “Trump’s voter suppression order is about making it harder for Americans to hold him accountable – it is shameful that the Supreme Court is enabling it.”

From Your Site Articles