Karoline Leavitt’s Excuse for Trump’s ‘Cancel the Midterms’ Bombshell Is Even Worse Than the Remark Itself
Karoline Leavitt has come under intense criticism for what many are calling one of the weakest and most revealing explanations yet offered by the Trump administration when confronted with one of the president’s most alarming public statements this year.
When Donald Trump suggested in a Reuters interview that the United States “shouldn’t even have” the 2026 midterm elections citing his own administration’s performance as justification — Leavitt did not clarify, contextualize, or distance the White House from the idea. Instead, she laughed it off as a “joke,” repeatedly insisting the comment was “facetious” and attacking the journalist who dared take it seriously.
The controversy stems from Trump’s January 14 Reuters interview, where he acknowledged potential Republican midterm losses and then casually boasted: “When you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.” The remark echoed a similar comment he made earlier to House Republicans at the Kennedy Center, warning that a Democratic takeover could lead to his impeachment.
During Thursday’s press briefing, The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg pressed Leavitt on whether Trump genuinely found the idea of canceling elections amusing — especially given the sacrifices made throughout American history to defend the right to vote.
Leavitt’s response was immediate and sharp: “Andrew, were you in the room? No, you weren’t. I was in the room.” She doubled down: “Only someone like you would take that so seriously.”
She then offered her official interpretation: “He was saying, ‘We’re doing such a great job, we’re doing everything the American people thought. Maybe we should just keep rolling.’ He was speaking facetiously.”
That explanation has not satisfied critics. Instead of reassuring the public, it has amplified concerns by portraying a potentially anti-democratic statement as harmless humor — while simultaneously attacking the journalist for failing to “get the joke.”
A Pattern of “It Was a Joke” Defenses
Leavitt’s response fits a recurring tactic used by Trump administration officials to defuse incendiary presidential statements: label them “facetious,” “joking,” or “sarcastic,” then pivot to attacking the messenger for taking the words at face value.
The strategy has been deployed repeatedly: When Trump refused to rule out nuclear force to acquire Greenland, officials called it “hyperbole.” When he posted a doctored Wikipedia image declaring himself “acting president of Venezuela,” aides described it as “trolling.” Also, when he suggested skipping midterms, Leavitt now insists it was lighthearted exaggeration.
Critics argue this pattern does not calm fears — it normalizes ridiculing democratic processes. By refusing to clearly repudiate or contextualize the president’s words, the administration leaves open the possibility that such statements reflect genuine sentiment rather than mere humor.
Did You Know?:Trump Faces Voter Exodus as New Supporters Abandon Ship One Year Into Second Term
Trump’s History of Questioning Electoral Norms
The midterm comment is not an isolated slip. Trump has a long record of statements challenging the necessity or legitimacy of elections: Repeated suggestions of a third term, despite the 22nd Amendment’s clear prohibition. Also, adding “TRUMP 2028” merchandise to the White House gift shop. More so, former chief strategist Steve Bannon’s public claim: “He’s gonna get a third term… There’s a plan.”
In March 2025, Trump told NBC News he was “not joking” about a third term, saying: “A lot of people want me to do it.”
These comments — combined with the “cancel the midterms” remark have alarmed democracy advocates who see a pattern of testing public tolerance for executive overreach.
The Constitution mandates regular elections for Congress (Article I) and the presidency (Article II). Any attempt to “skip” midterms would face insurmountable legal, political, and institutional barriers.
Leavitt’s “joke” defense has been seized by Democrats as campaign ammunition, portraying Trump as a threat to democratic institutions. Republicans have largely echoed the “facetious” line or stayed silent, avoiding direct engagement with the substance of the comment. With Republicans holding narrow majorities, a Democratic wave could enable investigations, subpoenas, and potential impeachment proceedings.
Trump’s suggestion to “cancel” elections — joke or not — fuels fears of electoral interference and authoritarian leanings.
Social media users and political commentators mocked Leavitt’s explanation relentlessly: “Gaslighting level: expert. We all watched the same speech. He said elections shouldn’t happen. She says it’s a joke. Pathetic.”
“She’s not defending the president — she’s defending a lie. This is what happens when loyalty trumps truth,” another wrote. “When the president jokes about ending elections, the press secretary’s job isn’t to laugh along — it’s to explain why that’s not the policy.”
The exchange has also become political fodder. Democrats have highlighted it in fundraising appeals, framing Trump as a danger to democracy. Some Republicans privately express frustration over the optics. As midterms approach, Leavitt’s handling of the controversy shows the administration’s defensive posture. Whether her explanation calms concerns or amplifies them will shape public perception of Trump’s commitment to democratic norms.
TOP STORIES
- Karoline Leavitt Branded ‘Pathetic’ After Being Caught ‘Lying’ About Trump’s Latest Greenland Slip
- Gamblers Accuse Karoline Leavitt of ‘Insider Trading’ After Abrupt Stage Exit
- ‘Evil Ages Like Milk’: Karoline Leavitt Shares ‘Behind-the-Scenes’ Photos After Being Mocked for Her Viral Lip Close-Up
For an administration already facing backlash over enforcement tactics, economic claims, and foreign policy, the midterm “joke” has become a serious liability — a reminder that even offhand remarks can carry heavy political weight when they touch on the foundations of American governance.
Leavitt’s job is to communicate the administration’s position clearly. What she communicated instead is that when the president makes a potentially anti-democratic statement, his defenders will hide behind “he was joking” — and attack anyone who dares take him at his word. In the current political climate, that explanation has done little to reassure and much to alarm.
Discover more from STITCH SNITCHES
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.