WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said earlier this year he’d “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections” this fall, declining to rule out sending the National Guard or federal law enforcement officers to polling locations throughout the country.

Those comments came a few months after Trump casually and briefly mentioned canceling the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. 

Any such actions would lie outside the bounds of presidential power and the law, according to experts interviewed by States Newsroom. Nonetheless, one Democratic U.S. senator is sending letters to numerous members of the administration asking for commitments troops won’t be sent to the polls, and state officials are readying plans to keep voting secure.

“The president can say whatever he wants, but his powers are extraordinarily limited in this way,” said Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows. 

With two months until voting ends on Nov. 3, the administration’s only publicly disclosed plan to monitor elections is a decades-old Justice Department program that sends federal workers throughout the country.

Michigan Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie said there are strict rules for the people who participate, including that they can only observe if state election officials allow it or if a court orders it. 

Edevbie said his state will allow DOJ monitors during this fall’s elections to observe but not to interfere. 

“Their job is not to interrogate individual voters,” he said. “Now outside of the polling location, outside of the 100 feet, if they want to talk to a voter, they absolutely can. But if those interactions tip over into actions that we deem to be actions of intimidation, we will revoke our permission for them to be here.”

The Department of Justice declined an interview request from States Newsroom, writing in a statement the administration hopes “to have the largest monitoring effort in the Department’s history,” totaling around 1,000.

DOJ election observers have been dispatched to monitor primary elections throughout the year without much fanfare, though Wyoming Republican Gov. Mark Gordon said in late August that their behavior in his state was “a bit aggressive.” 

“It just was irregular, and I have asked the attorney general to start looking into, you know, kind of the nature of the visits and all that sort of stuff,” Gordon said, according to reporting from WyoFile, an independent nonprofit newsroom.

Will ICE be sent to the polls?

White House staff have sent somewhat mixed messages on what else the president may try to do. A White House spokesperson wrote in an email they wouldn’t “engage in hypotheticals,” adding that “Anyone breaking the law will be held accountable.”

The spokesperson pointed to comments former press secretary Karoline Leavitt made in February when she said she hadn’t heard the president say he would consider sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to polling locations. 

Trump has repeatedly raised concerns that noncitizens may try to vote in the elections, despite it being illegal. There, however, isn’t much evidence of that having happened, with the Bipartisan Policy Center writing, “there is no evidence that noncitizen voting has ever been significant enough to impact an election’s outcome.”

Leavitt added, “I can’t guarantee that an ICE agent won’t be around a polling location in November. I mean, that’s frankly a very silly hypothetical question. But what I can tell you is I haven’t heard the president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations. It’s a disingenuous question.”

A few months later, Trump was asked whether he would rule out sending the National Guard or ICE officers to polling locations. He did not answer the question directly. 

“I’d do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections. We have to have honest elections,” he said.

Trump has repeatedly raised grievances about the outcome of the 2020 election without providing any evidence of fraud significant enough to change the outcome. He hasn’t expressed doubts about election integrity in 2016 or 2024 — the years he won despite a Democratic president running the country at the time. 

This year, Trump has said he believes Democrats can only win if they cheat without releasing any proof of fraud or plans for sabotage. At the same time, he’s acknowledged that, historically speaking, Republicans are likely to lose seats in Congress during the November midterm elections.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said during a press conference in early September that ICE officers “will be where we need to be” when serving warrants. He did not rule out an ICE presence under some circumstances.

“ICE isn’t there to patrol the polling places. We’re there to enforce specific threats. The only reason why we would be at polling places, if there is a threat to that polling place or we’re serving a warrant on someone that we have been actively tracking down,” he said. “ICE’s job is immigration (and) custom enforcement. That’s their job and so if we’re doing something, we’re doing that specifically.”

‘Egregious history’ 

Federal law enforcement officers cannot enter polling places under most circumstances, according to Steve Huefner, the C. William O’Neill professor in Law and Judicial Administration at Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University.

“There’s this really egregious history of uniformed police officers intimidating Black voters in the Jim Crow era, and so today we have laws that prohibit uniformed officers from being observers at the polling place,” he said.

Additionally, there’s a federal law from the Civil War era that bars any federal official with a weapon from showing up at polling locations, unless that “force is necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.”

Those prohibitions apply at the polling site and usually within 100 feet of that location, sometimes more. But there could be a loophole beyond that radius, Huefner said. 

“If they just happen to be very close to a polling place, but not within 100 feet, it probably gets much trickier to figure out whether the president can have military troops in that kind of circumstance,” he said. 

Any attempt to place either federal law enforcement, the National Guard or military members at or near polling locations would likely end up in the court system, which Huefner said would in many ways be “uncharted territory.”

“It’s being characterized as an effort to help states, but states aren’t asking for this help,” he said. “States don’t feel like they need this help. States feel perfectly adequate to run safe, free, fair elections. And so it’s uncharted in the sense that we’ve never seen this kind of tension between states and the federal government. And this worry that what’s happening is an effort to intimidate voters on the part of the federal government.”

Slotkin letters

Members of Congress have also raised concerns the president may try to send members of the military or National Guard to polling locations. 

Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin sent letters to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine in August, asking they provide assurances the government wouldn’t “send Federal troops to the polls or to seize election materials of any kind.”

Slotkin requested the two “confirm that deploying the military to polling places for political purposes would undermine the integrity of our free and fair elections, pose an existential threat to our democracy, and taint the military as a politicized institution.”

Caine replied in a letter released by Slotkin’s office that the joint forces had and would continue to act ”in accordance with the Constitution and the law.”

“Election administration and security remain the fundamental responsibility of state and local officials,” he wrote. “The Joint Force has no plans to send Federal military personnel or Federalized members of the National Guard to polling places during the 2026 elections. Likewise, the Joint Force has no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material.”

Hegseth hadn’t responded as of early September and a Pentagon spokesperson wrote in a statement that as “with all Congressional correspondence, the Department will respond directly to the member.”

States make plans

Bellows, the Maine Secretary of State, said she and other elected officials are planning for several scenarios that could come up during election season, building on past experiences. 

“We have run free, fair and secure elections through pandemics, through heightened threats in 2024. In Maine, for example, there were six swatting incidences at polling locations and voting continued uninterrupted,” she said. 

Despite the president’s comments throughout the year, Bellows said the Constitution and law “are crystal clear that federal law enforcement, ICE or otherwise, are strictly prohibited at polling places.”

Maine law also makes it illegal to interfere with anyone’s voting rights, which Bellows said she and others in state government will be watching closely this fall. 

“If any federal armed officer were interfering with a citizen’s right to vote on Election Day, we would take every available legal action to disrupt and prosecute that because that is criminal and prohibited,” she said. 

Director of Elections for Washington state Stuart Holmes said the Constitution and court rulings have made it clear that only state legislatures and Congress have the ability to regulate elections. 

“And until either of those act, it’s business as usual,” he said. 

The Department of Justice could send election observers to Washington state this fall, Holmes said, but those people wouldn’t have any more authority or access than the regular citizens who are also allowed to observe certain aspects of the election. 

“They can come in and they can watch and observe the process,” he said. “But the county auditor or elections director in that county is the administrator of that process and can set the rules based on the safety and operations of their facility.”

It is illegal for anyone to interfere with a voter’s ability to cast a ballot, regardless of whether they’re near or inside a polling location. That would include an observer asking voters to show their identification, Holmes said. 

“Doing something like that could be seen as intimidating or interfering with their ability to cast their vote freely,” he said. 

Despite the speculation around what Trump may or may not do, Holmes said he and other officials in Washington state are preparing much like they would for any other midterm elections. 

State Democratic officials are preparing for chaos at the polls this November, as President Donald Trump casts doubt on election security and pushes for more federal involvement in local voting. 

“We’re no longer talking about hypothetical situations,” said Nick Brown, Washington state’s Democratic attorney general, noting the president’s push to nationalize election administration and to question the integrity of upcoming elections.

Brown is among the many Democratic state officials raising alarms over how Trump may seek to interfere with or challenge the results of November’s midterms. At stake is not only whether Republicans will maintain their grip on Congress, but also the control of state legislatures across the country. Democratic gains at either the state or national levels could provide a new check on Trump, who has sought to significantly expand executive power in his second term.

State lawmakers have introduced new legislation this year with the aim of protecting polling places this November. And behind closed doors, Democratic attorneys general and local election officials have sought to anticipate and prepare for ways the federal government could interject itself into local elections.

In recent months, Democratic attorneys general have been meeting to prepare for worst-case scenarios — including the possibility of federal immigration officers patrolling polling locations or the FBI visiting county election offices. Those AGs are gearing up to immediately fight potential intimidation or interference efforts in court, Brown said, and are working to educate local election administrators on basics of election law.

“Absent some very unusual circumstances, you can’t send the military to polling locations just to hang out. You can’t do those sorts of things,” he said.

The White House did not respond to Stateline’s questions. Republican state officials told Stateline they will respect voting laws and the outcomes of local races — no matter how the president reacts. Some Republicans have opposed Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting and resisted requests for private voter data.

Brown said he’s less worried about a White House effort to cancel or attack the legitimacy of elections across the country. Rather, he fears a more targeted effort to interfere with or challenge results in a few states that could determine the balance of federal power.

The president still refuses to acknowledge his 2020 electoral defeat, and Brown noted some fellow election deniers now hold power in state and local governments. At least 25 county election officials who align with the broader election-denier movement have taken office across the country since the last federal election in 2024, according to a recent New York Times analysis.

“That is what worries me, is a half a dozen local elected officials saying I have doubts about the election because the president said there was something shady, and I’m not going to certify it,” Brown said. “And we’re just in a chaos moment. And I think that’s a very real possibility.”

He added: “The struggle I have often in this job, and particularly on this issue, is raising the alarm for people about these possibilities, while not sounding like an alarmist, but I think we really need to in this circumstance.”

Utah Republican Gov. Spencer Cox said elections have always had “some issues,” but he said there’s no evidence of anything coming close to major voter violations of election laws in the recent past. He said he expected Republican and Democratic secretaries of state to continue their long tradition of conducting elections with integrity.

“I feel confident in the election system in this country, and I hope that politicians will be responsible,” he told Stateline, “that you’ll win the right way, and there’s a right way to lose, too, and I hope we’ll see more of that.” 

Election officials preparing

Midterms generally favor the party that doesn’t control the White House, but this cycle looks particularly competitive for Democrats as the president’s popularity sinks and consumer angst grows over high prices. 

In New Hampshire, both Republican-controlled legislative chambers are considered competitive this November, along with key U.S. House and Senate races. 

New Hampshire Republican Secretary of State David Scanlan said voters in his state generally trust local election officials to administer and count ballots. And he said the Trump administration would have to “have facts” to refute any unfavorable results.

“The results are going to speak for themselves,” Scanlan told Stateline. “And the results are factual.”

Scanlan has heard concerns about the prospects of federal agents showing up at the polls, but said he has no indication that will actually occur. While federal officials could arrive unannounced, he said he’d expect some kind of communication from Washington.

“At this point, if something were to happen, we would be prepared for it. I won’t say what that preparation is at the moment, but when you conduct an election you have to be ready for whatever gets thrown at you, whether it’s a fire in the polling place, or really bad weather, or some type of natural disaster. We prepare for those things.”

Katy Owens Hubler, director of elections and redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said local election officials have spent months running through tabletop exercises about all manner of potential disruptions, including the potential for federal involvement. 

“There is more rhetoric coming from the federal government than we have typically seen,” she said. 

While federal law prohibits ordering armed forces to polling places in most circumstances, lawmakers in multiple states this year introduced and passed legislation to prevent the presence of immigration officers or troops at voting locations, according to NCSL tracking.

Democratic governors in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Virginia signed new laws this year to limit law enforcement and military presence at voting sites and ensure more protections against voter intimidation.  

Last month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said they were not planning an aggressive campaign at voting sites. In a statement to States Newsroom, the agency said it conducts “intelligence-driven targeted enforcement” that could bring officers to polling places if they were endangered by a public safety threat.

“ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations,” the statement said. 

Broad election concerns

Many Republican lawmakers have embraced the president’s push to purge noncitizens from voting rolls. Experts say noncitizen registration and voting, already illegal under federal law, are rare. But since 2018, 15 states have adopted constitutional amendments to verify citizenship status, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. And several states have passed similar laws this year.

Those include a Mississippi law signed in April that requires election officials to verify proof of citizenship with documents such as birth certificates and passports when registering voters — which raised major concerns from voting rights advocates about restricting voting access for citizens without the proper documentation. 

Republican state Sen. Jeremy England, who sponsored that measure, said he sought to balance election security against voting access. He said media attention of even one case of a noncitizen voting in an election can cast doubt on the entire election system.

“At least the last couple of presidential elections have really led to a lot more questions,” he said, “and a lot of I would say probably a lot less confidence by the people.” 

Still, England rejected Trump’s call for the federal government to take over elections. The U.S. Constitution grants states primary responsibility for election administration.

“This idea of federalizing the election system, I don’t think the people of Mississippi would support that,” England said. “And we’re a red state with a Republican president.”

In July, Trump raised the alarm over election security in a primetime address from the White House. The president said Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and some other groups could compromise the country’s election infrastructure. Without evidence, Trump cast doubt on the integrity of the Los Angeles mayoral race and the state’s recent gubernatorial race. 

And in an interview with a conservative commentator this week, the president did not rule out declaring a national security emergency and federalizing control over November’s elections. 

England was among a bipartisan group of state leaders who discussed election preparations at last month’s National Conference of State Legislatures summit in Chicago. Joining him on a panel discussion was Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat.

Fontes urged state leaders to exercise more self-discipline when talking about and regulating elections.

“This should not be a partisan issue. That’s the hill that I’m willing to die on,” he said during that panel.

If states want to beef up election integrity, Fontes said lawmakers should provide local election officials with more funding to improve security — rather than making it more difficult to vote. And he held up the right to vote as among the most sacrosanct in society, giving ordinary people their constitutional right to check government power.

“That’s the real issue here,” he said. “The one chance citizens get, the one chance the governed get to keep us in our place, is being the most heavily regulated.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not planning an aggressive campaign at voting sites during the upcoming midterm elections, the Department of Homeland Security said Thursday in response to a States Newsroom inquiry about a letter from U.S. Senate Democrats voicing concerns about armed federal agents at polling places.

ICE, an agency within DHS that has sustained intense criticism since the start of the second Trump administration for its aggressive and sometimes deadly tactics, has no plans to target polling sites in November, a DHS official told States Newsroom in an email. 

The official left open the possibility, though, that the agency’s plans could change based on available intelligence.

“ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations,” the DHS official said. “ICE conducts intelligence-driven targeted enforcement, and if an active public safety threat endangered a polling location, they may be arrested as a result of that targeted enforcement action.”

The email came from a general DHS media account and did not name the official. The statement did not specify anything about DHS agencies other than ICE.

While DHS made similar statements earlier this year, this one responded to a request for comment about a letter this week from a dozen U.S. Senate Democrats to three Cabinet members demanding to know more about the administration’s possible plans to send federal law enforcement officers to polling places across the country. 

The group, led by Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, sent a letter Tuesday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in which the lawmakers asked whether armed federal agents would be deployed at election sites, which they said would be prohibited under federal law. 

“Congress has enacted longstanding criminal prohibitions against sending federal personnel to polling places and using federal power to interfere with elections,” they wrote. “Americans should never have to wonder whether the federal government intends to police the ballot box with armed agents.” 

Democrats have voiced increasing worries that President Donald Trump is seeking to control elements of election administration, which is a state responsibility under the U.S. Constitution. 

The issue is at the center of lawsuits brought by Democratic campaign and nonpartisan voting-rights groups challenging an executive order restricting mail-in voting. And U.S. House Democrats say the administration is withholding disaster relief funds as leverage to force states to change their election laws.

“The letter reflects my and my Senate colleagues’ deep concerns that Donald Trump appears to be planning to steal the upcoming election, which Republicans cannot win on the merits,” Markey said in a Thursday statement to States Newsroom. “We know that no unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional act is beyond him and we must be ready for it.”

Joining Markey on the Tuesday letter were Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Gary Peters of Michigan, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Andy Kim of New Jersey, Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Maria Cantwell of Washington.

Growing concern 

The senators’ concerns, they said, arise partly from findings revealed earlier this month that came out of an investigation launched in 2025 by the Democratic National Committee. 

Last October, the committee sought records regarding the possible deployment of federal law enforcement officers to polling stations, ballot-drop sites and election offices. The departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense initially did not produce any documents, and during ensuing litigation, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement represented it had found “no responsive records,” according to the July 28 letter. 

But after the DNC challenged the search results, ICE admitted to finding “more than 11,000 potentially responsive pages,” while U.S. Customs and Border Protection, another DHS agency, said it located nearly 117,000, lawmakers wrote. 

The Department of Defense declined to comment Thursday on the senators’ letter, telling States Newsroom that it will instead follow its typical protocol of responding directly to the authors themselves. 

The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump’s focus on elections  

Democrats’ inquiries into the administration’s plans also stem from comments President Donald Trump has made in recent months about election integrity.

When a PBS Newshour correspondent asked Trump in May if he would send ICE agents or National Guard troops to polling sites for the midterms, he said he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.”  

And earlier this month, during a nationwide primetime address, he again reiterated claims about the country’s voting systems being vulnerable to hacking and disputed his 2020 presidential loss, sowing doubts about the entire election process despite having a lack of evidence to back up his words.  

“President Trump’s statements, coupled with his repeated threats to invoke the Insurrection Act — which authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence — only heighten concerns,” the senators added in their letter. 

“The Administration now has a choice,” they wrote. “It can continue to fuel the appearance that it is laying the groundwork for an unprecedented federal intrusion into state-run elections, or it can finally provide Congress and the American people with the transparency they deserve.”

The lawmakers requested that Blanche, Mullin and Hegseth provide details about any possible plans to deploy federal troops at election sites in November and identify who may have authorized such deployments, setting a deadline of August 11. 

They also asked that the federal agency leaders produce records “concerning the possible deployment of federal law enforcement personnel or troops to polling places or other election sites.” 

The nation’s election infrastructure is vulnerable to cyberattacks by foreign actors, President Donald Trump said during a primetime address Thursday night, citing a batch of documents he declassified — but providing no proof broad interference actually occurred or affected an election outcome.

Democrats and advocates quickly criticized the remarks as another attempt by Trump to give Republicans an advantage in crucial midterm elections and sow distrust of results, following his firing of members of the Election Assistance Commission, demands by his administration for state voter rolls, an executive order limiting mail-in ballots and more.

Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and some non-state groups “have the capability to compromise U.S. election infrastructure,” Trump said, quoting one of the documents, which were compiled by White House and intelligence community staff. The document said its authors did not know if any adversaries planned to interfere in elections.

Trump claimed that voter rolls in at least 18 states were “bought, stolen, or hacked by China” ahead of the 2020 election. The attempted methods of interference, he said, ranged from influencing voters to trying to produce fake ballots in favor of Democratic nominee Joe Biden.  

Standing behind a lectern at the White House, Trump said during the 2020 election, the People’s Republic of China carried out the “largest compromise of election data in history,” and said varyingly that China had illicitly accessed tens of millions or up to 220 million voters’ personal data. 

“Our purpose in disclosing this information is not to weaken confidence in (elections), but to earn that confidence by confronting vulnerabilities and correcting them very, very quickly,” he said. “And that’s what we’re doing.”

Trump announced he was immediately declassifying five sets of documents that he said proved foreign interference in the election and 2018 midterms, as well as “shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure.” 

“Just as disturbingly, this vital information has, for many years, been covered up and hidden from you, the American people,” he said.

He claimed that the election vulnerabilities were known by members of the “deep state” who included top members of the intelligence community and worked to hide “the extent of China’s sinister election meddling,” including while he was president prior to and during the 2020 election. 

He further accused Biden’s Department of Justice of killing any investigation into the matter and preventing its disclosure. 

The documents were posted on a whitehouse.gov webpage Thursday evening.

Trump also said the vulnerabilities were another reason to pass the SAVE America Act, a bill that in its various versions would restrict voter access by adding requirements to register and cast ballots, including photo IDs. The bill, which is stalled in the U.S. Senate, does not include funding for election security infrastructure. 

Midterms impact

Many Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said the remarks were not about the 2020 cycle, but were ultimately meant to undermine confidence ahead of this year’s midterms.

“Trump knows he has lost American families,” Schumer said in a statement following the address. “He knows he has made their lives more expensive, endangered their friends & families with an unnecessary war, and embarrassed the country on the global stage. And rather than pivot his policies, he is working to rig the midterms before a single vote has even been cast. We won’t let him.”

Former vice president and 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris wrote shortly before Trump’s speech that he wanted the American people to believe their vote does not matter. 

“He wants you to lose confidence in our electoral system so you stay home this November,” she wrote on X. “He knows how discontent the American people are, and he wants to make sure that you do not vote.” 

Election forecasters say the most likely result of the midterms is that the GOP retains control of the U.S. Senate and Democrats gain a majority in the House.

Chinese meddling attempts

During his roughly 25-minute-long remarks, Trump avoided explicitly repeating his debunked claims the 2020 election was rigged, only implying it at one point.

“We’re taking swift action to ensure that sensitive voter data is better protected so we can never be bought, we can never be hacked, and we can never watch a stolen election again,” he said.

Instead, Trump said the documents showed U.S. elections are “vulnerable to being rigged and stolen.”

He said China did try to meddle with voter registration and influenced public opinion against him by paying U.S. journalists “large sums of money to write more negative articles about him.” He did not say that was the reason he lost the election and he did not identify the journalists.

According to the Election Assistance Commission, voter rolls are sometimes commercially available and are often obtainable through public records requests. 

Trump said another set of documents revealed a scheme by a get-out-the-vote group in Muskegon, Michigan, to file fraudulent voter registrations. He did not say the scheme, which has been discredited, affected any votes counted in Michigan’s 2020 election.

In a statement, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, said the state’s elections “are safe and secure.”

“Any suggestion otherwise is designed to undermine our voters’ basic rights,” she said.

Trump also claimed that 278,000 non-citizens are registered to vote in the U.S., citing a Department of Homeland Security report released shortly before his speech. That figure may be higher, he claimed, because Democratic-led states have not shared their voter information. 

The White House documents released Thursday link to a one-page document created by the department, which cites a “review” of voter information in four states: California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Nevada. It does not reference any specific data. 

Throughout his speech, Trump took aim at the media, including NBC News and ABC News, which had both said they would not broadcast his speech live. CBS ultimately broadcast a portion of his speech in a special report after it began. 

2020 claims

Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election began almost immediately after his loss. 

Trump and his allies filed dozens of lawsuits challenging the results of the election, nearly all of which were dropped or thrown out for lack of evidence. 

The post-election campaign culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack by Trump’s supporters on the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to disrupt Congress’ certification of Electoral College results. A U.S. House committee investigating the attack concluded Trump was responsible for inciting it by knowingly lying to his supporters about the election results. 

The investigation also found Trump sought to use Department of Justice resources and his influence among state-level Republicans to reverse the results.

Trump also faced a federal indictment for his conduct leading up to the riot. That prosecution was dropped when he won the 2024 election. After returning to office last year, Trump also pardoned everyone convicted of charges related to the attack.

Dems push back: ‘totally bogus’ 

Immediately after Trump’s remarks, Democrats slammed the president’s claims about China’s election interference. 

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner said in a post on X that the “shocking ‘bombshells’ about China are totally bogus.” 

“The fact is our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that China did not even try to change a single vote in the 2020 election,” he wrote. “A single concurring opinion suggested China may have tried to sway voters’ opinions… but that’s been public knowledge since 2021.”

During his speech, Trump, without evidence, cast doubt on the integrity of the Los Angeles mayoral race and the state’s recent gubernatorial race. 

California’s primary election was Tuesday, June 2, but election officials are allowed to take roughly a month to complete vote counting. The lengthy process is a product of the state’s large population, as well as its reliance on voting by mail. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom echoed other Democratic officials and said the speech, which he described as “the ramblings of a mad king,” was about the midterms. 

“Before a single vote has been cast, he’s already laying the groundwork to rig this election and convince YOU not to trust the results if they don’t go his way,” he said. “Don’t fall for it.”