Can Trump cancel elections if he has complete ilicit control of all checks and balances in his power?

Your question describes a hypothetical scenario where the President has "complete illicit control" over all branches of government, the Supreme Court, the military, and most federal and state courts. In such an extreme and unprecedented situation, the normal constitutional checks and balances that prevent a president from becoming an autocrat or canceling elections would be severely compromised or rendered ineffective.

In a truly functioning democracy with a strong rule of law, the following would prevent such actions:

* The Constitution: The U.S. Constitution clearly defines the powers and limitations of each branch of government. It establishes that elections are to be held at specific times and does not grant the President any authority to cancel or postpone them. It also does not allow for a President to declare themselves "king."

* Checks and Balances:

* Legislative Branch (Congress): Congress has the power to make laws, control the budget, and can impeach and remove a President from office. They would be the primary legislative barrier to any attempt to seize illegitimate power or cancel elections.

* Judicial Branch (Supreme Court and Lower Courts): The judiciary has the power of judicial review, meaning they can declare executive actions or laws unconstitutional. They would immediately rule any attempt to declare oneself king or cancel elections as illegal and unconstitutional. Federal and state courts operate with a degree of independence designed to uphold the law impartially.

* The Military: The U.S. military's oath of office is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," not to any single individual or political party. Military leaders and personnel are legally bound to follow lawful orders that align with the Constitution. An order to cancel elections or support a coup would be unlawful, and military personnel would be obligated to disobey it.

* State Governments: States have significant authority over their own elections. Even if the federal government were compromised, state election officials and state courts would likely resist any federal attempt to cancel or postpone elections.

* The Rule of Law: The fundamental principle that everyone, including the President, is subject to the law.

* The Public and Civil Society: Widespread public opposition, protests, and civil disobedience would be expected. Media, advocacy groups, and other civil society organizations would play a crucial role in mobilizing resistance and exposing abuses of power.

However, in the hypothetical scenario you've described ("complete illicit control"):

If a President truly had "complete illicit control" over all these institutions, it would mean that the checks and balances have already been subverted, the rule of law has been effectively dismantled, and the institutions designed to protect democracy have been corrupted or incapacitated. In such a dire and extreme theoretical situation, where the system has fundamentally failed and all avenues for accountability are illicitly controlled, the traditional safeguards would, by definition, not be able to stop such actions.

This hypothetical scenario describes a breakdown of democratic governance and the rule of law, where the constitutional framework has been bypassed through illegitimate means. It's a scenario that the U.S. system is designed to prevent through its robust separation of powers and independent institutions.