We Have Strategic Warning - The Midterms and Political Repression

We may not know the plan. We know enough about the intent and capability to recognize the threat.

Department of Homeland Security's National Operations Center. (DHS Photo by Benjamin Applebaum/Released)

Intelligence analysts rarely get to see an adversary’s complete plan before it is executed. They look instead for intent, capability, and preparation. After four decades assessing foreign militaries, I would judge that the United States now has strategic warning about the potential for election interference and political repression.

The administration has the broad strategic intent to undermine the midterm elections, prevent Democrats from taking power, and crack down on political opposition. It is building the capability to execute such actions. What is lacking are specific indications of intent and details of plans.

Regardless, as a long-time military intelligence analyst, I would judge that we have “strategic warning.”

As a military intelligence analyst for much of my four decades in government, I assessed the intent and capability of foreign militaries. Standing questions always included “what is country X going to do with its military” and “can it execute its plans?” We rarely had direct access to leadership decisions or detailed contingency plans, but we generally understood a country’s capability and its leadership’s strategic intent. The same framework applies to the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine the mid-term elections, to prevent a Republican loss of Congress, and to crack down on its opponents.

Strategic Intent to Undermine Democratic Process A growing body of public statements and press reporting directly indicates a desire to challenge the electoral process to prevent losing; for example, efforts to limit mail-in ballots, mid-cycle redistricting, and purges of voter rolls. This has recently been described in the Steady State assessment, “Accelerating Authoritarianism: A Warning Assessment Through the 2026 Midterm Elections.”

Deeper factors also indicate intent. The administration’s repressive immigration policy is based on the view that certain categories of people are unfit to be in America; judged not just by the status of their legal paperwork, but largely by race, ethnicity, and religion. This identity-based othering sets a political-psychological precedent for expanding it to other groups the administration deems similarly unfit. The administration’s use of brutality, arbitrary round-ups, and abuse of due process all set a precedent for actions against those it deems unfit and views as a threat.

The administration has already identified those unfit people and groups via such documents as the National Security Policy Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), designation of “Antifa” as a terrorist organization, and the growing right-wing chorus attacking “communists.” NSPM-7 identifies as threats those whom the administration deems anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, extremist on migration, race, and gender, and those who are hostile to traditional American views of family, religion, and morality. Taken at face value, this could include most of those on the American left and a sizeable portion of those who self-identify as centrist (and probably some anti-MAGA GOP). For an administration that has already sought to undermine free and fair elections, it is a short walk to expanding the administration’s concept of who is unfit.

Developing Capability for Authoritarianism Beginning in January 2025, the administration has been slowly but steadily building the capability to crack down on its political opponents. Central to this effort is purging perceived disloyal people from federal law enforcement, national, and homeland security organizations and replacing them with loyalists, as repressive governments elsewhere have done. Over 10,000 people have left the Department of Justice since January 2025, while thousands more have been purged or were driven out of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Intelligence Community. In addition, while the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) largely failed to save money, it has intimidated the rest of the federal government: keep your head down and toe the line.

The second dimension is the vast expansion of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol, which are becoming paramilitary organizations loyal to the administration’s political agenda. ICE personnel increased by 120%, and its budget grew by 85% in 2025 alone. Large and expanding paramilitary security forces are seen, by analysts who study foreign armed forces, as key indicators of a government’s repressive intent; they view the people inside the country as great or greater than external threats.

The administration has also been practicing its repressive authorities and processes. Even if some efforts have been half-baked efforts, the Trump administration is testing how to manipulate legal systems and structure management processes; the same pattern of experimenting and learning seen in repressive regimes abroad. For example, the administration, has been able to develop a workable method of designating alleged drug cartels as “terrorists” and then conducting lethal strikes against individuals without any legal due process. After the initial outcry, this activity has largely melted into the background.

Intent and capability are always intertwined. One key question is whether the administration is willing to use illegal, unconstitutional means and violence to undermine the midterms and carry out repression. Based on the immigration precedent, if circumstances presented themselves, the administration would not shy away, although there are likely some limits, primarily its worry about a backlash as seen in Minnesota in January. There is a similar risk from pro-Trump/Republican state and local police and non-governmental groups, possibly coordinating informally with people in the administration. State governments in Texas and Florida, for example, have their own desired results and the capability to meddle.

We Have Strategic Warning. The question is whether there is a “plan.” As is often the case in elections we have seen in other countries, we are unlikely to know until it is executed, but I suspect there are plans on the shelf. The administration would have learned from 2020 that putting something together at the last minute is not the way to succeed (even if they came close then). Having watched other countries, I also suspect the plans may not be fully coordinated, as those planning may be uncertain how far top leadership wants to go and whom to trust.

Absent exceptional investigative journalism or a patriotic leaker, there is unlikely to be “tactical warning” of the administration’s actions. Moreover, under this president’s erratic style, actions are likely to be driven by “seat-of-the-pants” decision-making in reaction to events and social media.

Regardless, the strategic intent and capability exist for the administration and its GOP allies to significantly threaten free and fair mid-term elections, prevent Democrats from successfully sitting if they win a majority, and initiating repression against a wide array of its political opponents.

Harry Hannah retired after four decades of experience in the Intelligence Community. He retired from the CIA in 2018. About half that time was focused on analyzing the capability of multiple foreign militaries in direct support of US military planning and operations and national level decision making. He is a member of The Steady State.

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the US Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 450 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.