Trump Administration Officials Join Summit Discussing Executive Control Over 2026 Midterms
Washington, Saturday, 28 February 2026.
High-ranking Trump administration officials, including White House lawyer Kurt Olsen, attended a private summit on February 19, 2026, where activists urged a national emergency declaration to seize federal control of the upcoming midterm elections. Although the President has denied considering the circulated 17-page draft executive order—which proposes banning mail-in ballots and eliminating voting machines—the collaboration between federal staff and activists like Michael Flynn signals a notable shift in executive strategy. This integration of election-denial advocacy into the machinery of government introduces significant institutional uncertainty, a critical risk factor for markets monitoring the stability of the rule of law.
The Architecture of the Summit
On February 19, 2026, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn convened a summit in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the Gold Institute for International Strategy [1]. The event brought together conservative activists and six federal officials, including White House lawyer Kurt Olsen and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official Heather Honey [1]. While a White House official characterized such engagement with outside advocates as “common practice,” the gathering has drawn scrutiny regarding the boundaries of federal involvement in partisan election strategies [1]. Notably, Mac Warner, a Department of Justice official, resigned the day following the event after failing to secure the necessary ethics approvals to participate, highlighting the procedural tensions currently present within the administration [1].
Inside the Draft Executive Order
Central to the controversy is a 17-page draft executive order reported by The Washington Post on February 26, 2026 [1][2]. The document proposes sweeping changes to the electoral process under the guise of a national emergency, including the elimination of voting machines in favor of hand-counting and a ban on mail-in ballots [1][2]. Furthermore, the proposal suggests requiring all voters to re-register for the 2026 midterm elections through their counties, mandating proof of citizenship as a prerequisite [2]. Peter Ticktin, an attorney associated with the effort, confirmed the document’s circulation among the President’s supporters, arguing that the executive branch possesses the authority to “take charge” if foreign interference is suspected [2].
Divergence Between Official Stance and Agency Action
President Trump has explicitly denied considering the declaration of a national emergency to oversee the midterms, stating on February 26 that he is not mulling such a draft order [2]. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also dismissed concerns regarding the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to polling sites, labeling such inquiries as hypothetical [2]. However, administrative actions suggest a parallel track of policy promotion; on February 24, 2026, DHS official Heather Honey pitched the “SAVE” program and hand-counting methodologies—practices criticized by experts for higher inaccuracy rates—directly to election officials [2]. This occurred just days after the summit where similar strategies were discussed [1].
Constitutional Debates and Systemic Risk
The push for executive intervention has ignited a debate over constitutional limits. Max Flugrath, a spokesperson for Fair Fight Action, asserted that no statute permits the President to seize control of state-run elections via an emergency declaration [2]. Conversely, proponents like Ticktin maintain that the National Emergencies Act provides sufficient latitude for the President to act against “surreptitious” foreign threats [2]. For the financial sector, this friction represents a tangible “rule of law” risk; the potential for an executive overhaul of election administration introduces unpredictability into the political landscape, a variable that historically correlates with market volatility as investors gauge the stability of democratic institutions [1][2].