As the 2026 midterm elections approach, voting rights expert Ari Berman is sounding the alarm about what he describes as the most perilous aspect of the electoral process for those opposing President Donald Trump: the aftermath of voting.

Berman, the national voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones, appeared on the inaugural episode of the “Stress Test” podcast with hosts David Corn and Garrison Hayes. He emphasized that while much of the attention has been on pre-election activities, the real danger lies in the vote counting and certification periods once ballots are cast.

“We’re in the pre-election phase. There’s the voting period, followed by the vote counting, and finally, the election certification,” he explained. “What we saw in 2020 is that all hell broke loose after voting ended.”

Berman’s comments pose a critical warning about potential vulnerabilities in the election process, particularly in intensely contested races. He predicts that Trump-aligned forces are likely to focus their energies on manipulating results during this crucial phase.

“That’s likely where they would try the most targeted interference,” Berman cautioned, noting that close margins in key races could present an opportunity for manipulation.

His warnings highlight not only the tactics that could be employed but also the institutional responses expected from federal agencies like the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Berman suggests that, in a close election with suspicious circumstances, these agencies might mobilize to influence outcomes unfairly.

Despite the ominous potential for interference, Berman noted that Trump’s previous attempts to affect election outcomes have been largely unsuccessful so far. “The Justice Department is 0 and 25 in federal court trying to get states to hand over their voter rolls,” he pointed out.

Moreover, Berman clarified that Trump’s efforts to “rig the midterms” have fallen short, as he has largely not found support for extreme measures such as declaring a national emergency or imposing martial law to disrupt the voting process.

Amidst this backdrop, Trump made headlines last month when he addressed a crowd at a Republican midterm convention, lightheartedly vowing to “cheat like hell.” Berman suggested that such comments reveal more about Trump’s mindset than any genuine plan, calling it “projection.”

“Don’t give Trump any more power than he actually has,” Berman asserted, emphasizing that, in reality, Trump’s influence over elections is limited.

Looking ahead, Berman predicts that the electoral battle will culminate not in a dramatic showdown but rather with Trump retreating from the scene. “At the end of the day, Trump’s going to see his party losing, blame someone else, and decide to fight the next fight, and go golfing,” he said.

His insights resonate deeply as the nation gears up for midterm clashes that could significantly alter the political landscape. The stakes are especially high in battleground states where a slight shift in voter sentiment could swing outcomes.

As preparations for the elections intensify, the public remains vigilant about ensuring that democracy functions transparently and fairly. Advocates for voting rights continue to call attention to the potential threats posed by individuals who aim to manipulate the electoral process.

The intricate and potentially precarious post-election period is further underscored by Berman’s observations on how past elections have unfolded. The chaos following the 2020 elections serves as a sobering reminder of the challenges that lie ahead.

It remains to be seen how political allies and opponents of Trump will navigate these volatile waters, particularly as midterms approach amid heightened scrutiny and ongoing debates about election integrity.

In summary, as voters prepare to head to the polls, awareness of possible post-voting disruptions is critical. The insights from Berman serve as both a warning and a guide for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process during this crucial period.

The broader implications of these predictions might echo through future elections as well; how we respond to threats against democracy today could shape the political landscape for years to come.