As the American midterm elections approach, Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut has stepped forward not merely to report on foreign threats, but to preemptively contest a narrative he believes is already being written — one in which electoral defeat becomes, by presidential decree, electoral theft. In the long tradition of democracies wrestling with the legitimacy of their own outcomes, Himes draws a careful line between interference, which intelligence agencies have not found, and influence, which is the permanent condition of modern political life. Meanwhile, adversaries like Iran and Ch
Himes warns Trump may falsely claim foreign interference in midterm elections
The Iranians now control what happens on Election Day
Mark
So Himes is saying Trump will claim foreign interference even if it didn't happen. How confident is he that he can actually stop that claim from taking hold?
Mimi
He's positioning himself to provide real-time fact-checking, but he's honest about his limits. He has assurances from intelligence officials, but he doesn't fully trust the system will hold up under pressure.
Luke
That's the gap worth naming. He has assurances, but assurances aren't guarantees. And if the administration fires people who disagree with the president, how much weight do those assurances actually carry?
Mark
He makes a distinction between interference and influence. Why does that matter?
Mimi
Interference is the machinery itself—voting systems, vote counts. That's what the intelligence community says didn't happen. Influence is buying ads, spreading narratives. That's constant and harder to stop.
Luke
Right, but the public won't necessarily make that distinction. If Trump says "foreign interference" and people hear it, they hear voting machines were hacked, even if what he means is something vaguer.
Mark
The Iran point seems almost more important than the direct election-hacking claim. He's saying Iran can swing elections by controlling oil prices.
Mimi
Exactly. By attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran can drive up gas prices, which hurts vulnerable incumbents. It's indirect but potentially more powerful than any claim about voting machinery.
Luke
But that's speculative, isn't it? He's saying Iran *could* do this, that they *understand* they have this leverage. We don't know they will. And we don't know how much an oil price spike actually determines an election outcome.
Mark
Why aren't Iran and China negotiating now?
Mimi
Because they're waiting. After the election, the president will be weaker politically. They'll have more leverage then.
Luke
That assumes the president loses. Himes seems confident about that, but it's still an assumption baked into his analysis.
Mark
What about the AI communications channel with China? Is that real progress?
Mimi
Himes calls it a step forward, but he's careful. Nothing meaningful came out of the visit. Talking is valuable, but it's not a breakthrough.
Luke
And he notes that Scott Bessent set this up weeks before Xi's visit, so it wasn't a product of the meeting itself. The pageantry matters less than the groundwork that was already laid.
The Pulse
- Himes warns that Trump is likely to claim foreign actors seized control of voting systems in key states — a narrative he says the president has been previewing since July, regardless of what intelligence actually shows.
- The congressman's partial confidence in the system is itself a signal: in an administration where dissent leads to dismissal, the assurances of intelligence officials carry weight only until they don't.
- Iran's most potent electoral weapon may not be a cyberattack but a chokehold — ordering Houthi strikes on Strait of Hormuz shipping could send oil to $120 a barrel and diesel to $8 a gallon, flipping vulnerable congressional seats without a single vote being touched.
- Neither Iran nor China has any incentive to negotiate before November; a weakened post-election American president is a far more favorable counterpart than the one currently in office.
- A new bilateral AI communications channel with China represents the thinnest membrane of diplomatic contact — useful for avoiding accidents, but far short of the meaningful commitments both sides have yet to make.
As the American midterm elections approach, Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut has stepped forward not merely to report on foreign threats, but to preemptively contest a narrative he believes is already being written — one in which electoral defeat becomes, by presidential decree, electoral theft. In the long tradition of democracies wrestling with the legitimacy of their own outcomes, Himes draws a careful line between interference, which intelligence agencies have not found, and influence, which is the permanent condition of modern political life. Meanwhile, adversaries like Iran and China appear content to wait, understanding that patience itself is a form of power.
With thirty-seven days until the midterms, Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut appeared on Face the Nation to address a concern central to his work on the House Intelligence Committee: that President Trump will claim foreign powers interfered with voting machinery, regardless of what the intelligence actually shows.
Himes had just received a classified briefing and released a statement confirming that U.S. agencies found no evidence of interference with election infrastructure or vote tallying. His reasoning for speaking out was blunt — Trump has a pattern of denying the legitimacy of elections that go against him, and with polling suggesting significant losses ahead, Himes said flatly, "We know that he's going to deny its legitimacy." He had already heard a preview of this strategy in a July presidential address.
Because of his intelligence access, Himes is positioning himself to fact-check such claims in real time, with assurances from officials that they will provide him live data as events unfold. But he admitted his confidence was only partial — in this administration, disagreeing with the president tends to end careers.
Himes was careful to separate interference from influence. Tampering with vote counts is one category; foreign actors running social media campaigns is another, older, and ongoing reality. The intelligence community had found evidence of neither in the current cycle.
More striking was his warning about Iran's indirect leverage. By instructing Houthi allies to attack shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran could drive oil to $120 a barrel and diesel to $8 a gallon — enough to cost vulnerable incumbents their seats without touching a single ballot. "The Iranians are not stupid people," Himes said. They have been negotiating for millennia and understand that controlling a critical waterway now means controlling American electoral outcomes. This is precisely why Iran is not negotiating with the Trump administration before November.
China is playing the same waiting game. President Xi Jinping will find a more favorable negotiating partner in a president weakened by electoral defeat. A new bilateral channel for AI incident communications, established during Xi's recent Washington visit, represents a floor of contact — but Himes was clear-eyed: nothing meaningful emerged. Both Beijing and Tehran are playing a longer game, one that begins after the votes are counted.
With thirty-seven days until the midterm elections, Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut sat down on Face the Nation to discuss a concern that has occupied his work on the House Intelligence Committee: the possibility that President Trump will claim foreign powers interfered with voting machinery or vote counts, regardless of what the actual intelligence shows.
Himes had just received a classified briefing on foreign threats and released a statement asserting that U.S. intelligence agencies had found no evidence that any adversary had interfered with or attempted to interfere with American election infrastructure or vote tallying. When asked why he felt compelled to make such a statement if nothing had changed, Himes was direct. He pointed to a pattern: Trump denies the legitimacy of elections that go against him. In 2016, when Trump won, he still claimed the popular vote had been stolen from him. As the current election approaches and polling suggests substantial losses for the administration, Himes said, "We know that he's going to deny its legitimacy." The congressman anticipated that Trump would likely claim foreign actors—Iranians, Russians, or Chinese operatives—had seized control of voting systems in states like Florida or North Carolina. Himes had already heard a preview of this strategy in a July speech the president delivered to the nation.
Because Himes has access to classified intelligence, he is positioning himself to fact-check these claims in real time. He said he has received assurances from U.S. officials that they will provide him real-time intelligence as events unfold. But when pressed on whether he actually believes those assurances will hold, Himes hesitated. He noted that in this administration, disagreeing with the president often results in dismissal. His confidence in the system, he admitted, was only partial.
Himes was careful to distinguish between interference and influence. Interference means tampering with voting machinery or altering vote counts. Influence campaigns—like foreign actors buying Facebook advertisements to oppose a candidate—happen constantly and are a different category of concern. The intelligence community had found no evidence of the former. The latter remains an ongoing reality of modern elections.
Beyond the direct threat of false claims about voting machinery, Himes raised a more subtle but potentially more consequential vulnerability: Iran's ability to influence American electoral outcomes through its control of oil shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. He explained that if the Iranian regime wanted to damage specific congressional candidates—he named Mike Lawler in New York's 17th district and Ashley Hinson in the Midwest—it could instruct its allies, the Houthis, to attack ships in the strait. Oil prices would spike to $120 a barrel. Diesel, already at record highs, would climb to $8 a gallon. Vulnerable incumbents would lose their seats. "The Iranians are not stupid people," Himes said. They have been negotiating for thousands of years and understand that they now hold leverage over American electoral outcomes simply by controlling the flow of oil and fertilizer through a critical waterway. This is precisely why Iran is not negotiating with the Trump administration before the election, Himes argued. Why would they surrender that power?
The same logic applies to China. President Xi Jinping is waiting. In thirty-seven days, he will face a president weakened by electoral defeat and diminished political standing. Neither Iran nor China has incentive to make meaningful commitments now. A bilateral communications channel for artificial intelligence incidents, established during Xi's recent visit to Washington, represents progress of a kind—talking is better than not talking, and avoiding misunderstandings has value. But Himes was clear-eyed about what actually happened: nothing terribly meaningful emerged from the conversation. Both Beijing and Tehran are playing a longer game, one that begins after November.
Notable Quotes
We know that he's going to deny its legitimacy. And I say we know it because he always does that when an election goes against him.— Rep. Jim Himes, on President Trump's likely response to electoral losses
The Iranians are not stupid people. They've been negotiating literally for thousands of years. And they understand that they now have a massive impact on what happens in November.— Rep. Jim Himes, on Iran's strategic position regarding U.S. midterm elections
Want the full story?
Read the original at CBS News ↗