The U.S. Department of Justice plans to send election monitors to every state ahead of Election Day, expanding a long-standing practice that’s spurred concern this year among Democrats and voting rights advocates because of President Donald Trump’s push to influence elections.

The Justice Department for decades has deployed monitors across the country to watch the voting process. During President Joe Biden’s administration, the DOJ sent monitors to 64 jurisdictions across 24 states for the 2022 midterm elections.

The 2026 monitoring program is larger, with the Justice Department announcing it will have a presence in all 50 states. DOJ spokesperson Kiersten Pels told States Newsroom on Monday that about 1,000 monitors will be involved but that the department won’t disclose the full list of monitored locations until Election Day — Nov. 3.

“Every monitor will merely observe and report any potential violations of federal law to the Department, which will be reviewed after Election Day,” Pels said in a statement.

Lawsuits prompt unease

While election monitors, who watch polling places and election officials for compliance with federal voting rights laws, have long been a feature of U.S. elections, the Trump administration’s extraordinary moves to assert federal authority over state-run elections have left many Democrats and even some Republicans uneasy about this year’s expansive effort.

The Justice Department has sued dozens of states in an attempt to force election officials to turn over voter lists that contain sensitive personal data, such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. The DOJ has lost 27 cases so far, and won none.

Less than two weeks ago, the Justice Department sued California to block election officials from counting ballots from roughly 20,000 voters it says are suspected noncitizens. 

And on Friday, the DOJ sued Alaska to preemptively prevent the certification of its U.S. Senate election if the Republican incumbent loses by less than the number of votes received by another candidate of the same name, citing the potential for voter confusion.

But concerns about DOJ monitors began building in August after Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, expressed reservations about monitors, calling their actions “very odd” after DOJ personnel watched voting in the state’s primary election. 

Andrew Walchuk, senior policy director and counsel for voting & fair representation at the watchdog group Common Cause, told reporters last month that monitors in and of themselves are nothing new, pointing to the long history of the DOJ’s monitoring program.

“But with this administration, we will be watching their activity very closely,” Walchuk said.

1,000 monitors, 95,000 polling places

Election experts have emphasized that even with a 1,000 monitors, the Justice Department presence across the country will be far too small to interfere with voting on a wide scale. For example, the 2024 election included more than 95,000 polling places, according to survey data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

“The math just ain’t mathing,” Harry Black, a senior counsel at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, said during a panel discussion on the midterms earlier this month at the University of Pittsburgh.

In early October, the NAACP sued the Justice Department for records about the election monitoring program. In their complaint, lawyers for the NAACP argued that the “unprecedented deployment” of federal officials could jeopardize the election and interfere with the right of voters to cast their ballots without intimidation.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, an appointee of President Joe Biden in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., denied a request by the NAACP for an emergency order directing the DOJ to immediately begin producing records. The underlying lawsuit remains pending.

Local announcements of locations

While the full location list for the election monitors remains closely held, the Justice Department last week began notifying counties that will have monitors. In turn, some state and local election officials have announced where monitors will be present.

In Washington state, DOJ monitors will deploy to King County, which includes Seattle. In Oregon, they’ll be sent to the Portland area.

Salt Lake County in Utah will receive at least one monitor. Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican who has clashed with the Trump administration after she refused to hand over voter data, told reporters last week that the Justice Department offered assurances about how the monitors will act.

“They won’t be approaching voters. They won’t be wearing any sort of insignia,” Henderson said.

In Maine, DOJ monitors are expected to be present in Portland and Lewiston. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, has said her office “will monitor the monitors very carefully to ensure that they don’t cross any lines.”

Pels said all monitors must meet the same legal and ethical requirements, which includes not interfering in the voting process.

“Every monitor has the same role: observe for potential violations of federal law and report concerns to the Department, which the Department will review after Election Day and act where appropriate,” Pels said.

Reporting contributed by Maine Morning Star’s Lauren McCauley and Utah News Dispatch reporter Alixel Cabrera.

As Election Day approaches, top Democrats on the intelligence committees in Congress are preparing for the possibility that President Donald Trump will allege foreign interference to discredit unfavorable results.

And they want leading U.S. intelligence officials to be immediately reachable if he does.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia and Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees, outlined the scenario — one of among 50 they say they’ve considered — with reporters on Wednesday, less than two weeks before voting ends in the midterm elections.

“So when the president makes that announcement, you answer your cellphone to give us information about what’s happening,” Himes said the Democrats have told Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has ramped up efforts targeting noncitizen voters, with arrests across the country, and is attempting to block suspected noncitizen voters from having their ballots counted in California. Democrats and voting rights advocates have warned for months that Trump could try to interfere in voting in the midterms.

All of it comes as Trump stares down the possibility that voters will place Democrats in control of Congress — an outcome that could doom his legislative agenda and mire him in investigations.

“We’re making the assumption that the president is not going to accept the results of what looks to be a very challenging election for him and his party,” Himes said.

But amid the highly publicized campaign against noncitizen voting, Democrats have kept an eye on the possibility that Trump could instead invoke a foreign threat to justify an attempt to assert control over elections or undermine the results, even as the Trump administration has cut federal support for election security.

China ‘election meddling’?

When Trump delivered a primetime address on election security in July, he spent a significant portion of the speech describing what he called China’s “sinister election meddling.” He said China had acquired 220 million voter files and the White House released declassified intelligence reports on the vulnerability of voting machines to foreign hacking.

Trump floated the possibility that vote totals could be electronically manipulated or that voting machines could change results. He suggested that election websites, poll books and voter registration databases could be vulnerable to exploitation by foreign adversaries.

“This evidence shows that the election system we have dangerously exposes and really exposes, like levels never thought possible, to hacking, exploitation, and foreign interference,” Trump said in the July speech.

The speech was met with sharp criticism from election security experts, who noted that the United States maintains a decentralized election system that makes any attempt at widespread interference extremely difficult. 

For instance, every state except Louisiana uses paper ballots or generates some form of paper record for each ballot cast, according to data compiled by Verified Voting.

“Can we pre-bunk the notion that he may come up with a fabricated or single piece of intelligence that could be used as a reason to take illegal action?” Warner said, describing the Democrats’ thinking.

As a hypothetical, Himes outlined a scenario in which Trump announces at noon on Election Day that Iran has kicked off an operation to interfere in the election. Himes said he would go on TV and say he has received no briefings and no information, giving him no reason to believe the president’s comments are accurate.

“Now, does that end the crisis? No, but that’s the first step,” Himes said.

Doubts about interference

Warner and Himes belong to the Gang of Eight, a bipartisan group of high-ranking lawmakers who receive classified briefings on matters of intelligence and national security.

The pair drew a sharp distinction between foreign interference — which includes things like messing with voter rolls and attempting to alter results — and foreign efforts to influence elections, such as social media bots spreading certain messages. 

Himes said that, as of now, “we are not seeing either the capability or the intent to interfere.”

He also said lawmakers haven’t received pre-election reports about the election threat landscape required by law. 

In July, Himes, along with Democratic Reps. André Carson of Indiana, Joaquin Castro of Texas and Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, wrote in a letter to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, that the intelligence community had missed a report on election security vulnerabilities and foreign intelligence threats to federal elections that was due on May 7.

The ODNI didn’t respond to questions from States Newsroom on Thursday.

White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said in a statement that Trump had done more than other previous president to ensure free and fair elections. She said the president is making clear that anyone who votes illegally “will be held accountable.”

“While extreme Democrats and the media continue to dismiss concerns about voter fraud, the Trump Administration is taking decisive action to protect our elections including prosecuting election crimes, strengthening election infrastructure security, and protecting vulnerable voters from fraud and coercion,” Bis said.

Reductions in workforce

The Democrats’ planning for a claim of foreign interference comes as the Trump administration has reduced cybersecurity resources for state and local election officials. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which typically plays a large role in election security efforts, has lost roughly a third of its workforce since Trump began his second term.

Trump has attacked CISA — a component of the Department of Homeland Security — under the leadership of previous director Chris Krebs, who worked to debunk misinformation after the 2020 election. Trump fired Krebs less than a month after the election. DHS has previously proposed eliminating CISA’s election security program, a $39 million initiative. 

Jennifer Morrell, CEO and co-founder of The Elections Group, a nonpartisan organization that provides trainings and other resources to election officials, said the Trump administration “essentially decimated” CISA. Morrell said she had been a contractor for the agency.

“We lost years of work building our cyber and physical security infrastructure,” Morrell said Thursday during a University of Pittsburgh panel discussion on election integrity.

In September, Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, and Rep. Joseph Morelle, a New York Democrat, wrote in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and CISA Acting Director Nicholas Andersen that CISA hadn’t provided any funding to its Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, despite instructions from Congress to continue funding the program.

Padilla and Morelle noted that the center had for years provided security services to local election offices at no cost before funding was abruptly cut in early 2025. While the center continues to provide some services through a paid membership model, they wrote that it lacks its former reach.

Briefing urged

On Wednesday, Himes and Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, urged Mullin to brief lawmakers on election security efforts. In a letter, they wrote that state and local election officials “are under tremendous pressure this election cycle.”

Homeland Security didn’t answer questions from States Newsroom on Thursday.

In some of the country’s largest jurisdictions, the consequences of the federal pullback have been muted. Big counties, with hundreds of thousands or even millions of residents, often have their own sophisticated cybersecurity programs.

Monica Gordon, the clerk of Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago, praised her information technology team. In a call with reporters, the Democratic official said her office was fortunate to have the latest innovations to protect voters’ information.

“We’ve been very fortunate but I am concerned about some of our smaller counties that have less resources,” Gordon said.

Tammy Patrick, chief programs officer at Election Center, an organization overseen by the National Association of Election Officials, said on the same call that states this year are leaning on their own resources because of the changes at CISA. Election officials have also relied more on help from nonprofit groups, she said.

State and local officials have done a great job of finding needed funding to replace some of those services and ensure sensitive systems are protected, said Morrell.

“But state officials and local officials cannot gather intelligence about threats from foreign nation states,” Morrell said, adding that “we’ve lost sort of the ability to be quickly alerted to that type of intelligence.”

A federal judge on Wednesday night blocked the Department of Homeland Security from conducting election-related field operations that could sweep up U.S. citizens in nine states.

Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, an appointee of President Joe Biden in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, issued a preliminary injunction after voting rights advocates alleged that Homeland Security was sending armed agents to homes to question residents about their voter status. 

The injunction bars operations in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin until polls close on Election Day, though the administration may appeal in the coming days.

The decision marks a legal setback to the Trump administration’s intensifying campaign this fall against noncitizen voting ahead of Election Day. It comes as the Department of Justice is suing California to force state and local election officials to not count the ballots of some 20,000 voters the federal government says it suspects are noncitizens.

President Donald Trump has long decried the threat of noncitizen voting, which studies have shown rarely occurs. He now faces political peril, as Democrats appear increasingly likely to retake the U.S. House and possibly the Senate in the midterm elections.

Martínez-Olguín found that the importance of the public voting free of intimidation outweighed the Trump administration’s interest in rooting out noncitizen voting. But she paused her order until Friday, presumably to give the Trump administration time to appeal.

The evidence in the case, she wrote, leads to an “objectively reasonable fear of law enforcement entanglements that intimidates citizens from urging or aiding others in exercising their right to vote.”

The lawsuit was filed by San Francisco, Santa Clara, the California Nurses Association, National Nurses United and the Voto Latino Foundation. 

“Today, the courts affirmed a vital principle of our democracy: Voting is a fundamental right that citizens – whether born here or naturalized – should be able to exercise without armed government agents harassing them,” Beau Tremitiere, a lawyer at the legal advocacy group Protect Democracy, which represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

Martínez-Olguín wrote that the “ongoing intimidation that CNA/NNU members experience and the direct impediment it plays in their effort to engage voter outreach, education, and engagement efforts, are irreparable harms that are appropriately addressed by preliminary injunctive relief.”

A Homeland Security Investigations internal memo dated Aug. 31 describes a “surge initiative” beginning Sept. 1 that includes conducting field interviews. The memo, which was filed in court, identifies California, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin as targets of the surge during September. Additional locations are redacted in the document.

Homeland Security said in a statement Thursday that it has “no plans to question or investigate people we believe to be U.S. citizens.”

In a previous court filing, Department of Justice lawyers representing DHS have argued that the federal government has the authority to investigate potential voting by noncitizens. 

“Enjoining the government from even investigating such criminal violations would damage the public interest, not serve it,” they wrote.

Democratic groups and top Democrats in Congress filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to block Trump intimidating election officials.

National Democrats are suing President Donald Trump, accusing his administration of intimidating election officials and asking a federal court to block him from interfering in the midterm elections.

The lawsuit, filed late Tuesday in Washington, D.C., comes as the Trump administration mounts a highly public offensive against voter fraud in California just two weeks before Election Day and as federal agents face allegations they are questioning people at their homes about their voter status.

The Department of Justice has sued state and local officials, demanding they not count the ballots of roughly 20,000 California voters that the DOJ alleges are noncitizens and suggesting they will face prosecution if they do. The Trump administration is currently scrutinizing an additional 17,000 California voters, according to a court filing.

Jeffries, Schumer sign on 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who’s in line to become speaker if his party retakes the House, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with other Democratic groups and a California voter, allege in their lawsuit that the Trump administration has engaged in a pattern of intimidation intended to frighten officials into complying with unlawful demands to thwart voting.

The executive branch has no authority to assert authority over states’ maintenance of their own voter rolls and determinations of who is qualified to vote, they say. The U.S. Constitution assigns states the responsibility of administering elections.

“Thwarted in Congress and the courts, the administration has now simply disregarded the tools Congress provided it and fashioned its own cudgels instead,” lawyers for the Democrats write in their legal complaint.

The lawsuit names Trump, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the leaders of both agencies as defendants.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Justice Department said in a statement that it enforces federal election law and that election integrity is a top priority. Every action the DOJ has taken related to this year’s elections, the statement said, “is grounded in law and being litigated in open court.”

Homeland Security called the lawsuit a “political stunt.”

Dozens of states unsuccessfully sued by DOJ

Noncitizen voting is a rare phenomenon, studies have consistently found. The Justice Department this week charged 38 noncitizens in California with election crimes, an infinitesimal percentage of registered voters. 

Even if all 20,000 individuals on the DOJ list are noncitizens, it would represent only about 0.08% of the nearly 23.2 million registered voters in California. 

For more than a year, the Trump administration has attempted to influence how states run elections. The Justice Department sued dozens of states — all unsuccessfully — to force them to hand over sensitive data on voters. Homeland Security refashioned a powerful computer program called SAVE into a tool that can verify citizenship, though critics say it falsely flags U.S. citizens.

Trump pushed Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would have required voters nationwide to prove their citizenship. The legislation passed the House but encountered bipartisan opposition in the Senate, where a handful of Republicans and Democrats prevented it from advancing.

Trump also attempted to use the U.S. Postal Service to impose national restrictions on voting by mail. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Postal Service rules from taking effect ahead of the midterms.

The broad effort has played out as Trump’s political fortunes appear to be dimming. Just 36% of likely voters approve of Trump’s performance, according to a New York Times-Siena University poll released Wednesday. If Democrats retake the House or Senate, they will likely initiate a myriad of investigations into Trump and his administration that could consume the final two years of his term.

New blitz in California

Against that backdrop, the Trump administration has in recent days launched a new voter fraud blitz targeting California, a blue state that mails ballots to all voters. 

Last week the Justice Department provided state and local officials with 20,000 names that it said Homeland Security had identified as likely noncitizens. After giving state officials just 48 hours to act on the list, the DOJ sued. 

On Monday, DOJ attorneys asked for a temporary restraining order that would immediately force California to comply with their demands that these individuals not be provided mail ballots and that their ballots not count unless they offer proof of citizenship. It also suggested in a court filing that Homeland Security could accuse more California voters of being noncitizens.

Nicolas Bartell, associate director of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a sub-agency of Homeland Security, said in a declaration filed in court on Tuesday that USCIS “has identified a separate batch of more than 17,000 voting records potentially tied to noncitizens after an initial review of voter rolls.”

But Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan is casting doubt on the reliability of Homeland Security’s review — and arguing complying with the DOJ’s demands would severely disrupt the election locally.

Logan’s office analyzed a sample of 200 names of the 20,000 provided by the Justice Department. In a court filing, lawyers for Logan wrote that his office found that 25.8% of the sample recorded a U.S. birthplace, a guarantee of citizenship except in extremely limited circumstances. About 71% had never voted.

Monica Flores, the assistant registrar-recorder for the Candidate and Voter Services Bureau, wrote in a court declaration that if forced to comply with the Justice Department’s demands, “it would be virtually impossible to timely certify the election results in compliance with state law.”

‘Fearmongering and intimidation’

California state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Democrat, at a news conference on Tuesday called the Trump administration’s efforts an attempt to silence voters. She urged voters not to be afraid.

“This is a federal administration that operates through fearmongering and intimidation,” Gonzalez said.

San Francisco, Santa Clara and several advocacy groups sued Homeland Security in September in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that DHS has authorized broad election-related field operations. Armed agents have been sent to homes to interrogate residents about their voter eligibility, the lawsuit says.

The California Nurses Association, National Nurses United and the Voto Latino Foundation joined the local governments in suing.

A Homeland Security Investigations internal memo dated Aug. 31 describes a “surge initiative” beginning Sept. 1 that includes conducting field interviews. The memo, which was filed in court, identifies California, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin as targets of the surge during September. Additional locations are redacted in the document.

“DHS’ stated intention of questioning Americans at their homes weeks before an election is voter intimidation, and protections against this form of harassment extend beyond the polling place,” Hayden Johnson, a lawyer at Protect Democracy, a legal advocacy group representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement when the lawsuit was filed.

Justice Department lawyers have responded in court filings that the plaintiffs haven’t identified a single affected voter. The allegations of intimidation also lack specifics, the DOJ says.

The federal government has statutory authority to investigate potential voting by noncitizens,” DOJ lawyers wrote in a filing. “Enjoining the government from even investigating such criminal violations would damage the public interest, not serve it.”

A hearing on a preliminary injunction in the case was held Monday. No decision was immediately issued.

The U.S. Department of Justice is demanding California not count ballots from voters it says are suspected noncitizens, a move by the Trump administration to apply last-minute pressure as voting begins in the midterm elections.

The Justice Department on Tuesday gave California election officials 48 hours to remove voters on a list contained on a thumb drive provided to Los Angeles County, the most populous county in the country. The DOJ also wants election officials to withhold mail ballots from these voters. 

The demand appeared in letters to the California Secretary of State’s Office and the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk. The DOJ gave the state until noon Eastern on Thursday to comply, threatening legal action if that deadline is not met.

The letters set the stage for a courtroom confrontation between the Trump administration and the largest state in the country ahead of Election Day. The Justice Department’s demand marks an extraordinary effort to dictate to state officials who will be allowed to cast a ballot even as voting is underway.

“The United States hopes that you share our commitment to ensure that only American citizens participate in our federal elections. Allowing noncitizens to vote cancels citizen votes,” R. Trent McCotter, an acting deputy U.S. attorney general, wrote in a letter to California Democratic Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean C. Logan said in a statement that his office received the thumb drive, along with a handwritten note containing a password. Workers in the office did not seek to open the thumb drive, which would have violated data security protocols, he said.

He said he would work with Weber and the state attorney general to determine next steps.

“Maintaining accurate voter registration records is a fundamental responsibility of our office,” he added. “Federal and state laws are clear on how voter eligibility is established – and any action to remove a voter from eligibility must be based on verifiable information, not assertions of unconfirmed data matching.”

In a statement late Wednesday, Weber said the DOJ’s actions “only serve to cause chaos and fuel public distrust in our elections.”

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press account on social media called the Trump administration’s actions “completely unacceptable and inappropriate.” 

Questions linger

It’s not clear whether the Justice Department plans to send letters to additional states. The Justice Department provided copies of the letters to States Newsroom on Wednesday but didn’t answer a question about whether other states would receive them.

In the letters, McCotter asked California election officials to segregate the mail ballots of the suspected noncitizens until their citizenship status is determined. The individuals shouldn’t be sent mail ballots if they haven’t already been sent one, McCotter added, and any returned ballots should not be tabulated until citizenship can be determined.

McCotter did not say how many individuals are on the DOJ’s list or how the federal government came to believe they aren’t citizens. He wrote that the Justice Department would “seek emergency relief” if California didn’t comply. 

Voter roll changes prohibited during election season

Federal law prohibits most states from conducting systematic purges of voters less than 90 days before an election. If the Justice Department sues to force California to remove the suspected noncitizen voters, a judge would likely grapple with whether the DOJ-provided list represents the kind of mass removal that’s not currently allowed.

Voting rights groups and Democratic election officials, as well as some Republicans, have warned that Trump may try to interfere in the midterm elections. If Democrats retake control of the U.S. House or Senate, the final two years of the president’s term could be mired in investigations and legislative gridlock.

Federal courts have uniformly blocked the department’s efforts to force states to turn over their voter rolls, including sensitive personal information such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. And a federal judge last week ruled against the DOJ’s use of voter data even from states that voluntarily provided the information.

The U.S. Supreme Court also blocked Trump’s attempt to restrict voting by mail through the U.S. Postal Service, leaving the president with few remaining avenues to assert authority over elections, which are administered by the states under the U.S. Constitution.

“Donald Trump’s attempt to invalidate votes in California is an attack on every voter across the country. The president is abusing his position in a callous attempt to take away the power of everyday people, but here in California we’re not going to let him,” Jonathan Paik, a leader with Can’t Stop California, a nonpartisan voter mobilization group, said in a statement.

Trump has long complained about California elections, especially the speed of ballot counting in the state. California’s long count is a well-known feature of its elections, with election officials given about a month to process and tally all ballots and doesn’t indicate fraud.

The Justice Department has followed Trump’s lead in scrutinizing California’s elections. The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles has linked suspicions about California’s elections to the state’s refusal to turn over its unredacted voter roll.

Three weeks before Election Day, the Trump administration’s sprawling project to send sensitive personal information on millions of voters to the Department of Homeland Security has been declared illegal by a federal judge.

The blistering court decision comes after the Department of Justice pressured or sued states for their voters’ information and then, according to court records and federal documents, turned over the data it obtained to Homeland Security Investigations — a sub-agency of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

The decision, issued late last week, marks the latest rebuke of the Trump administration during more than a year of legal confrontations with dozens of states and voting rights groups over President Donald Trump’s efforts to assert authority over voting ahead of the midterm elections. 

If Republicans lose control of one or both chambers of Congress, Trump’s final two years in office could be consumed by Democratic-led investigations into his administration and opposition to his legislative agenda.

The Justice Department’s legal arguments suggested that “every American citizen who registers to vote is the subject of a voter fraud investigation underway in the (Justice Department’s) Civil Rights Division simply because they registered to vote,” wrote Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of District of Columbia District Court, an appointee of President Joe Biden.

“Behind all the window dressing, the challenged policy represents the federal government’s attempt to decide who gets to vote,” Sooknanan wrote. “But Congress has left that authority where our Constitution has always placed it: with the states.”

SAVE program

The Justice Department has already lost at least 23 district court lawsuits seeking to force states to provide voter data. The U.S. Supreme Court also blocked Trump’s plans to use the U.S. Postal Service to restrict voting by mail. 

While the Supreme Court cleared states to use a supercharged Homeland Security computer program called SAVE to seek out noncitizen voters, its effects on the midterms have been minimal because most states are restricted by federal law from conducting mass purges of registered voters so close to an election.

SAVE’s opponents point to multiple examples of the program falsely flagging Americans as possible noncitizens. Sooknanan previously ruled against SAVE’s use in a June decision, which the Supreme Court overturned in September when it allowed states to access the program.

Asked about Sooknanan’s latest decision, Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels in an email to States Newsroom said only that the department was “reviewing the ruling.”

More noncitizen voting charges

In recent weeks, the Justice Department has filed a series of cases alleging noncitizen voting, which studies have consistently shown rarely occurs. The DOJ on Monday announced voter fraud charges against 16 individuals, including 13 noncitizens. In September, prosecutors secured grand jury indictments against 10 noncitizens in Minnesota.

“The law is clear, only American citizens may vote in American elections, and enforcing this law is fundamental to our democracy. That should not be a partisan concept,” U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said at a late September news conference.

Sooknanan’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed in April by the voting rights group Common Cause and a group of voters. While both Republican and Democratic-led states had fought the Justice Department individually, the new lawsuit targeted the entire voter roll collection project — a choice aimed at protecting voters living in states that had shared or might share their data with the Trump administration voluntarily.

“This is a victory for voters and yet another loss for the Department of Justice. It’s time the Trump administration stop these desperate attempts to seize voters’ private data and take control of our elections,” Virginia Kase Solomón, Common Cause president and CEO, said in a statement.

16 states provided voter rolls

Despite the courtroom losses, the Trump administration still obtained records on tens of millions of voters. At least 16 states voluntarily provided the Justice Department with their voter rolls, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which has tracked the DOJ’s actions.

Those states include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

Court filings and internal government documents show the Trump administration put the information to use. Last week, the watchdog group Democracy Forward released internal HSI reports showing the agency received nearly 51 million Justice Department records as part of its “election integrity” investigations.

The HSI reports didn’t describe the nature of the Justice Department records. But Sooknanan wrote the DOJ had given records on millions of voters to ICE. Sooknanan ruled the transfers violated the Privacy Act, a federal law that restricts how federal agencies collect and share information on individuals.

Sooknanan referenced a letter from the acting director of ICE to the Justice Department asking for the state voter lists as part of an initiative to combat voter fraud. In the March 6 letter, Todd Lyons asked for the data “in order for HSI to conduct appropriate investigation of potential violations of federal election law.”

DOJ attorney Eric Neff replied to Lyons on March 12 to confirm the data sharing. He wrote that Homeland Security and the Justice Department would “take reasonable efforts to limit impacts to the privacy and civil liberties of United States citizens.”

However, Sooknanan found that the DOJ sought to investigate every registered voter without a specific reason to believe they committed voter fraud or that their states violated federal election laws. She warned that the department cannot evade the free speech protections within the Privacy Act by launching a “dragnet” investigation of the whole country.

‘Not only ill-conceived, but illegal’

Justin Levitt, who served as senior policy adviser for democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House and is now a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, said not much in Sooknanan’s decision will directly affect the 2026 elections. 

Writing in Election Law Blog, Levitt noted that most states never turned over their voter files to the Justice Department, and of the states that did, only a few appeared to have pledged to act on whatever “unreliable garbage” data the DOJ sent back.

“But even without a direct impact on anything happening in the next month, this is an important declaration that the whole program was not only ill-conceived, but illegal,” Levitt wrote.

The Trump administration may still be allowed to compile lists of voting-age citizens in each state as part of a sweeping executive order on voting by mail signed by Trump in March. But court-mandated notice requirements mean the lists won’t be available before the midterms.

The so-called state citizenship lists are the only major element of the executive order not currently blocked by the courts. The order directs Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration to develop the lists and provide them to state officials, though it doesn’t require states to do anything with the information.

Maryland judge to consider citizenship lists

U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis, an appointee of President Barack Obama in Maryland District Court, is set to decide what the Supreme Court’s Sept. 25 decision allowing the use of SAVE means for the fate of the citizenship lists. 

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, a public interest research organization, sued the Trump administration over the lists in August. While Xinis hasn’t ruled in the lawsuit, she has ordered the DOJ to provide at least 30 days notice of any effort to move forward with the initiative or provide the lists to states.

With less than a month before Election Day, the notice requirement effectively means the lists won’t be available before the midterm elections, even if they are upheld in court. Still, the eventual outcome holds potential consequences for future elections if states use the information to purge registered voters.

EPIC and the Justice Department have submitted dueling briefs to Xinis on what the SAVE decision means for the citizenship lists.

Lawyers for EPIC argue that key differences exist between the state citizenship lists and the SAVE system. While the SAVE system discloses information on requested individuals, they noted, the executive order mandates providing information on all U.S. citizens by state.

“Critically, states or localities must initiate a request for verification of specified individuals’ citizenship status in order to utilize” SAVE, the attorneys wrote.

Lawyers for the Justice Department called the argument a “red herring.” In their brief, they argue that state officials would have to log into a federal portal to download the citizenship data.

“That affirmative conduct would be materially similar to sending a request to DHS: either way, the State would itself initiate the transfer of data,” the DOJ brief says.

Xinis could rule at any time.

As President Donald Trump refuses to rule out taking extreme action in the midterm elections, voting rights advocates and civil rights leaders are bolstering their voter protection efforts in anticipation of possible federal interference.

The focus by activists comes amid uncertainty among advocates and election officials over what Trump may do before, during and after Election Day. Some organizations are preparing to deploy volunteers to the polls to help assure voters in places where fear of federal intimidation may run high.

On Tuesday, several groups — including the Save America Movement, the American Federation of Teachers labor union and the National Action Network — launched Vote Safe, an initiative that will put local volunteers at polling locations in areas where they say pressure on Black, Latino and Asian voters is highest. 

The program will include Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio. The volunteers will document any intimidation and serve as a reassuring presence for voters, organizers said.

“The fear is the point and we must do something about it,” Mary Corcoran, executive director of the Save America Movement, a nonpartisan pro-democracy group, said on a call with reporters. “Left unaddressed, fear does the work of keeping people home without a single agent setting foot at a polling place.”

Volunteers will include clergy members, veterans, teachers and others trained to provide clear answers on voters’ rights, Corcoran said.

In Ohio, where Vote Safe will launch on the first day of early voting, Republican Sen. Jon Husted is facing former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country. Springfield, Ohio, also has a large Haitian immigrant population that has been repeatedly attacked by Trump, who is seeking to deport them.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, a civil rights leader who founded the National Action Network, suggested on Tuesday’s press call that some Americans in Ohio fear they could also be detained or even deported by ICE because of their skin color.

“‘You don’t understand, any Black looks like a Haitian in Ohio,’” Sharpton said, recalling a previous conversation with a journalist in Ohio. “You’ve got to prove you were from Alabama, not Port-au-Prince, after you’re deported.”

ProPublica reported on Tuesday that more than 500 U.S. citizens have been detained by immigration agents during the second Trump administration. About a dozen citizens, mostly children, have been deported.

What Trump has said

Trump, who has long made false claims about stolen elections and voter fraud, has maintained ambiguity surrounding what election-related actions he may take after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked his plan to use the U.S. Postal Service to restrict mail ballots. Congress also didn’t pass the SAVE America Act, a measure he championed that would require voters to offer documentary proof of citizenship.

In a recent TIME magazine interview, Trump said he hadn’t thought of deploying Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents to the polls. 

But he also left open the possibility of declaring a national emergency, which legal experts say would give him no power over elections. Under the Constitution, states administer elections, not the federal government.

Earlier this year, Trump told reporters he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said ICE agents can serve warrants at election sites, despite a ban on armed federal personnel at polling places. At the same time, DHS has denied any plans to target polling places.

DOJ election monitors

The Department of Justice’s plans to deploy 1,000 election monitors at polling places has also fueled concern among Democrats and voting rights advocates — and some Republicans. 

While the DOJ regularly dispatches monitors each election cycle, the scope of the effort and Trump’s history of pressuring election officials has led to unease about how the monitors will behave. 

Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, earlier this year expressed reservations about Justice Department monitors, calling their actions “very odd” after DOJ personnel watched voting in the state’s primary election. 

On Monday, the NAACP sued the Justice Department for records about its election monitor program, alleging the DOJ didn’t comply with Freedom of Information Act timelines.

“Americans deserve to know whether the Justice Department is abusing its law enforcement powers to the detriment of voters and the election officials tasked with running our elections,” Kristen Clarke, the NAACP’s general counsel, said in a statement.

Justice Department spokesperson ​​Kiersten Pels wrote in an email to States Newsroom that monitors comply with all legal and ethical requirements. Pels added that they don’t interfere with the voting process and that their work “is consistent with longstanding Department practice of monitoring elections for compliance with federal law.”

U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche dismissed concerns about the monitors in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” While confirming plans for about 1,000 monitors, he emphasized that the department sends out monitors every federal election.

“They’re not going to Republican states, they’re not going to Democrat states. They’re going to every state to make sure that our elections are carried out legally, fairly and appropriately,” Blanche said.

After Election Day

The preparations by civic groups also include post-election planning for potential disruptions to vote counting or attempts to overturn losses.

The FBI seized ballots from the 2020 election in Fulton County, Georgia, in January. The then-director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was present at the raid at Trump’s request, underscoring its importance to the president. 

The Justice Department also spent months seeking information on election workers in Fulton County during the 2020 election before a federal judge quashed the subpoena in July.

The raid raised questions among activists and election experts about whether federal law enforcement would seek search warrants to obtain ballots after Election Day.

Ballot seizures are a point of concern, said Andrew Walchuk, senior policy director and counsel for voting and fair representation at Common Cause, a voting rights group. The raid was “an alert” to election offices that a seizure is something they need to prepare for, Walchuk said.

“It is definitely something that groups across the country are ready for, that we’re watching,” Walchuk told reporters last week.

Like other groups, Common Cause’s election preparations include training a network of volunteers who can help voters and identify potential problems. In Texas alone, more than 400 volunteers are already, said Marliza Marin, Common Cause’s Texas program manager. 

“It’s kind of unheard of to have this many volunteers already trained,” Marin said.

When Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin declared in September that Immigration and Customs Enforcement could serve warrants on individuals at polling places this fall, officials in Denver, a liberal city where roughly 14% of residents are foreign-born, quickly sued.

“Every day we find new things to be astonished about but I think that we just want residents to not be afraid to vote because that’s ultimately what the president was after,” Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, a Democrat, said in an interview.

Johnston and other local and state officials across the country are bracing for possible federal election interference from now through Nov. 3 — even as they remain unsure of what will actually happen.

One month from Election Day, President Donald Trump’s long-running pressure campaign over elections is approaching a decisive moment. For the past year, the Trump administration has sought to bend the U.S. election system to the president’s will across multiple fronts, despite the Constitution’s guarantee that states administer elections.

Interviews and public comments by more than a dozen current and former election officials, legal experts, lawmakers and others ahead of the midterms reveal anxiety over what Trump may do. Election administrators often plan for natural disasters, bomb threats and other possible problems, but this year many are also thinking about possible disruptions driven by the federal government.

Potential scenarios range from armed federal personnel deploying at or near the polls to Trump declaring a national emergency — ideas widely condemned as illegal by election law experts. Homeland Security denies it plans to specifically target polling locations.

Others include efforts to discredit voting machines or federal law enforcement obtaining search warrants to seize ballots, a fear that’s grown since the FBI took 2020 election ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, earlier this year.

Barb Byrum, the county clerk in Ingham County, Michigan, which includes much of Lansing, said that when she became a clerk 13 years ago, she and other officials conducted table-top exercises to plan for power outages and tornadoes. Now it’s moved on to “federal misbehavior,” she said.

“It’s really unfortunate that’s where we are. But that is, in fact, where we are,” Byrum, a Democrat, said in an interview.

Memories of 2020

Fears of election interference are at least partly rooted in previous efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn his 2020 election loss in key swing states, culminating in a mob of his supporters storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The riot led to Trump’s second impeachment in the House on a charge of inciting an insurrection, but the Senate acquitted him.

Nearly six years later, Trump’s approval ratings are sagging and Republicans are fighting to retain control of Congress amid encouraging polling for Democrats. Loss of the House or Senate would effectively end Trump’s legislative agenda and lead to investigations that consume his final two years in office.

“A desperate Trump is a dangerous Trump,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said during an appearance at the progressive Center for American Progress in September. 

At the same time, Americans’ trust in elections is eroding. Just 49% of respondents said they expect the midterm elections to be free and fair, according to a national survey of more than 5,000 adults in early September conducted by the University of California San Diego Center for Transparent and Trusted Elections.

Still, election officials and legal experts remain largely confident any interference effort ultimately won’t succeed. The United States has a decentralized election system run by state and local officials that guards against large-scale efforts to steal elections or prevent voting, they say, predicting courts would swiftly rule against the deployment of federal agents. 

Many votes are also cast by mail, sidestepping any Election Day show of force. More than 1 million votes have already been cast, according to data compiled by the University of Florida’s Election Lab.

“It’s not going to happen,” David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, told reporters on Tuesday. “You’re not going to have to run a gauntlet. You’re not going to see troops or armed individuals at the polls.”

‘I don’t rule anything out or in’

Trump and his aides refuse to flatly rule out interfering in the midterms. In an interview with TIME magazine published Thursday, Trump declined to take extreme measures off the table. Asked about sending ICE to the polls, he said only that he hadn’t thought of it.

“I don’t rule anything out or in. We’ll see,” Trump said of a national emergency.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dismissed questions about sending troops to the polls as “another gotcha hypothetical,” though the Department of Defense has said it has no plans to deploy active-duty troops or federalized National Guard members. 

Some Republicans have suggested they would welcome the presence of soldiers if state and local authorities want them. “If that’s something that they decide that they need to look at, then that’s fine with me,” Rep. Mike Collins, a Georgia Republican, told reporters in September.

Mullin, the Homeland Security secretary, last month sought a Department of Justice investigation into whether ballot tabulation machines that read barcodes or QR codes comply with federal law, raising concerns that the Trump administration could create a pretext to dismiss the validity of some ballots. 

The Georgia State Election Board’s executive director recently called on the DOJ to potentially intervene in the state over the use of QR code-based tabulation.

Earlier this year, Mullin also warned that election officials who don’t “participate in securing the elections” could face prosecution. He promised to “hold election officials accountable.”

Roadblocks to interference

But with Election Day nearing, Trump has been stymied on every major initiative to influence the election process this year:

• Congress didn’t pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship. 
• The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the U.S. Postal Service from imposing new rules on mail ballots. 
• The Justice Department has lost more than two dozen lawsuits seeking to force states to turn over sensitive voter data. 
• A DOJ push to prosecute noncitizen voters has led to only a few dozen prosecutions, reflecting studies that consistently found that noncitizen voting happens extremely rarely. In the most recent action, U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche in late September announced indictments against 10 noncitizens over allegations of unlawfully voting.

The White House did secure a recent victory when the Supreme Court allowed states to use a supercharged version of a Homeland Security computer program that can identify possible noncitizen voters. But the decision will have minimal impact on the midterms because, under federal law, it’s too close to Election Day for most states to purge large numbers of voters off their rolls.

In response to questions from States Newsroom, White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis in a statement accused “extreme liberal Democrats” of preventing Americans from having full confidence in their elections by not supporting the SAVE America Act, though the legislation faced bipartisan opposition in the Senate. 

“President Trump is absolutely right: we fix this now, or we lose our country,” Bis said.

ICE at the polls?

Trump’s failure to advance his signature election-related policies has left him with few options to exert control outside of increasingly audacious and potentially illegal options. So when Mullin said that ICE can execute warrants at polling sites, the remarks provoked a swift backlash from voting rights activists and Democrats.

“The only reason why we would be at polling places is if there is a threat to that polling place or we’re serving a warrant on someone that we have been actively tracking down,” Mullin said during a news conference on Sept. 1.

On Friday, Homeland Security sent an unsigned statement to States Newsroom denying any plans to target polling locations, adding that Mullin has answered the question “dozens of times.” 

DHS said ICE agents are part of trained special response teams that can rapidly respond to major incidents if necessary to aid local law enforcement, regardless of location.

“Any ‘anxiety’ among election officials is the unfortunate result of fake news reports of ‘federal interference’ despite the Secretary’s numerous clear statements to the contrary,” the DHS statement said.

Notably, the statement does not address Mullin’s remark about serving warrants.

At least three lawsuits seek to block any possible deployment of federal agents to election sites. The oldest case, filed on Sept. 10 by Denver and several voting rights groups, points to Mullin’s comments and alleges ICE has already conducted law enforcement operations at polling places this year.

ICE agents “swarmed” a parking lot of an active polling site in San Antonio in May to detain someone, the suit says. In June, agents visited a Ventura County, California, polling place and accosted an election worker at a Syracuse, New York, polling place, it says.

Preparing for the worst

Tina Barton co-chairs the Committee for Safe and Secure Elections, a nonprofit group that helps elections and officials and law enforcement think through how to protect election workers and voters from violence, threats and intimidation. She said the organization has about 138 events on its calendar this year, compared to 67 in 2024.

In communities with concerns about a possible federal presence, the organization has officials work through a scenario involving ICE activity near a polling place that affects voters coming to the area, allowing local leaders to think through questions about what their legal options would be, how they would respond and what they would tell the public.

“Their conversation and how they choose to move forward, that’s owned by them and their community and how they choose to handle that. What we encourage is relationship-building ahead of time with them, conversations ahead of time,” Barton said.

Local election officials receive an “incredible” amount of training in how to handle crises, said Kamryn Hoadley, who advises Michigan election officials for Keep Our Republic, a pro-democracy nonprofit. “They are truly as prepared as somebody could be for anything that will happen on Election Day,” Hoadley said.

In Los Angeles County — the most populous county in the country, with more than 10 million residents — election officials have studied the potential for disruptions to the election. 

But Dean Logan, the Los Angeles registrar-recorder/county clerk, emphasized in a statement that scenarios concerning federal agents at polling sites and the seizure of ballots haven’t occurred in his area and haven’t been upheld in court.

“We’ve engaged in scenario and tabletop planning with our partners so that if an unexpected situation arises, roles are clear and our response is calm, coordinated, and focused on voter access and participation, rather than politically reactive,” Logan said. 

“Voters should know the behind-the-scenes work is thorough, and the fundamentals of a secure election are sound,” he said.

Voting rights groups and Democratic officials are looking to defend against what they see as possible election interference from the Trump administration ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, now that they’ve won a major battle over mail ballots.

Common Cause, a nonpartisan pro-democracy organization, announced a “voter protection” campaign Thursday that would place thousands of volunteers at polling sites in 25 states.

The initiative is designed to counter potential administration moves to intimidate voters, such as ordering troops or law enforcement officers to polling places.

The Democratic Party is also upping its voter protection efforts, launching its own initiative this week to deploy 10,000 volunteers to assist voters at polling locations in all 50 states plus seven U.S. territories.

Both efforts are described as preemptive efforts to head off any possible attempts by President Donald Trump to skew election results. Trump for years has alleged, without evidence, U.S. elections are beset by myriad attempts at fraud.

He has used that pretext in attempts to enact policies to restrict voting, including the order limiting vote-by-mail that the U.S. Supreme Court blocked for this election. 

‘Breathing down our neck’

Voting rights advocates say they are preparing for more efforts to dissuade voters from casting ballots. 

Voters are “facing aggressive and deliberate threats from this administration and anti-voter forces that are tied to this administration,” Common Cause CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said. “Whether it be voter intimidation at the polls, the attacks on mail-in voting or attempts to collect your personal data, the barriers that voters are facing right now … are not only real, they are urgent. And they are intentionally designed to make everyday Americans give up.”

The Democratic plan, led by the Association of State Democratic Conferences, a coalition of the 57 state and territorial party leaders, was also in part a reaction to Trump, ASDC Chair Jane Kleeb said in an interview.

“We had to react to the threat that was breathing down our neck,” Kleeb, who is also the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, said in an interview.

Trump has broadly accused Democrats of trying to cheat, and has placed particular focus on the possibility of noncitizens voting.

White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis wrote in a Thursday email that the administration would continue to guard against that possibility.

“Despite extreme Democrats and the media claiming it never happens, the evidence of non-citizens registering and voting in our elections continues to pile up,” Bis wrote. “Any non-citizens found registering and voting in our elections will be arrested and held accountable. Only Americans should be electing American leaders.”

The Justice Department has charged a handful of voter fraud cases of foreign nationals in recent months. 

The administration has also argued a software glitch in New Jersey that registered 6,600 noncitizens showed why tighter regulations on voting are needed.

“There continues to be a narrative and a concern that noncitizens are voting,” Ari Mittleman, the executive director of the civic education group Keep Our Republic, said, adding that examples like the New Jersey glitch kept the issue “on the minds of many.”

Troops at the polls?

Common Cause officials and Kleeb highlighted the possibility of federal troops or law enforcement, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at polling places as a strong concern.

“We don’t know exactly what Donald Trump is going to do,” Kleeb, whose interview was conducted before the Supreme Court’s mail voting decision on Sept. 14, said. “But if we take him at his word, he will disrupt the vote-by-mail process, and he will have people outside of polling locations to intimidate voters.”

Administration officials have dismissed the idea of sending federal agents to the polls, but have not completely ruled it out. 

FBI Director Kash Patel repeatedly dodged the question during a U.S. Senate hearing Wednesday.

At a press conference this month, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said ICE would not have a sizable presence at election sites, but could deploy as part of the agency’s routine duties.

“ICE isn’t there to patrol the polling places,” Mullin said. “We’re there to enforce specific threats. The only reason why we would be at polling places: Because there is a threat to that polling place or we are serving a warrant on someone we are actively tracking down.”

And then-White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called a question about sending ICE agents to the polls “disingenuous” at a February press briefing.

“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,” she said. “But what I can tell you is I haven’t heard the president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations.”

Disinformation, distrust

Trump’s relentless focus on election regulations has contributed to a distrust of elections. Only 34% of adults in a AP-NORC and USAFacts poll this month said they trust government certifications of election results “a great deal” or “quite a bit.”

Solomon said on the Thursday press call announcing the voter protection drive that the administration and its allies were seeking to sow distrust in the election.

The program, which the group said was the country’s largest nonpartisan election protection effort, hopes to counter that narrative by installing voter advocates at polling stations.

Volunteers will receive about an hour to 90 minutes of training on their state’s voting laws and how to help voters. ASDC volunteers will also receive about an hour of training. 

“They are trained to check for things like signage, polling place accessibility, long lines,” Common Cause Director of Policy Carol Evans said. “They are trained to be a positive and joyful presence at the polls to make the experience better for voters. And importantly, they are our eyes and ears on the ground to alert us to serious issues.”

In another voter education initiative, Keep Our Republic has launched a series of town hall-style events in the five states in which it operates — Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — to give election officials a platform to speak to voters and increase trust in the election process, Mittleman said.

WASHINGTON — FBI Director Kash Patel sidestepped questions about FBI agents at polling places in the midterm elections at a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday that also featured a tense exchange between GOP Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey.

With the November midterm elections fast approaching and the parties jockeying for control of Congress, several Democratic senators wanted assurance from Patel, under oath, that the FBI would not send agents into polling places.

“Do you pledge that you will not, in any way, interfere in the will of the American people when they go to the polls in November?” Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, asked.

“I pledge unequivocally that I will not participate in your charade of lies,” Patel told Welch.

Patel in addition faced questions during the five-hour hearing from members of the Judiciary Committee about recent changes to the agency’s hiring requirements, an ongoing probe into 2020 election ballots seized in Georgia, and how the FBI plans to handle crimes committed by AI agents. 

‘We have a lackey here’

A boiling point came when Booker spoke beyond his allotted time and name-called Patel a “thug” who “wouldn’t qualify” to be an FBI special agent. 

Booker accused Patel of not answering questions about whether the agency was improperly targeting journalists. The FBI subpoenaed multiple New York Times reporters in July after the outlet published accounts of security deficiencies on President Donald Trump’s new Qatari-donated jet now used as Air Force One. The DOJ dropped the subpoenas later that month after a federal judge pressured the agency.

“My concluding remark is we don’t have an FBI director. We have a lackey here who is using government, and frankly, he’s not even a good lackey. He’s an incompetent lackey. He’s like an 18-year-old kid who wants to join a fraternity that he could never be a member of, doing keg stands and chugging with friends,” Booker said, before continuing the exchange for roughly four minutes more.

“Are you ready to shut up?” Grassley, of Iowa, asked Booker with a raised voice.

 

 

Patel brushed off Grassley’s offer during the exchange to respond to Booker.

“I don’t have much to say. This guy called me a thug. It’s kind of ironic. He’s running for president of the United States. He just got his 20-second ad campaign,” Patel said. “Next.”

Booker told NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker” in March that he’s “definitely not ruling out” a presidential run in 2028.

Grassley thanked Patel for “putting up with what you had to put up with.”

“And I’m sorry I couldn’t control some of them more than I already did,” he said.

Democratic probes promised

Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, warned a Democratic-led Congress would investigate the FBI’s actions under Patel’s leadership. 

That includes the alleged firing of agents who worked on investigations of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack and President Donald Trump’s alleged hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago following his first term.

“The FBI is being sued for wrongful termination. I will remind you, director, because you probably need reminding, that while this Congress is not going to investigate the wrongful termination of potentially hundreds of agents for working on properly predicated investigations, the next Congress will,” Schiff said.

The panel’s Republicans praised Patel for his record at the agency.

Patel said his agency “has made America safer than it’s ever been.”

“Across six America 250 events and this year’s World Cup alone, we welcomed over 12 million visitors to the United States to attend these events. Not one single incident occurred at any single one of these events,” he said during his opening remarks.

Bizarre exchange over FBI hiring

One topic that drew scrutiny from both sides of the aisle was a recent reported change at the FBI that lifted previous disqualifying behavior for special agent recruits, including theft from employers, prostitution and bestiality.

Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, said he understands “the game” of Democrats broaching the subject of bestiality to “make you look bad,” but said he was also “trying to get to the bottom of this.”

In a bizarre and unexpected exchange for a Senate hearing, Kennedy asked hypothetically, “If ‘Joe’ participated in bestiality, not as the animal, but as the human, don’t you think he ought to be disqualified?” 

“If he voluntarily did it, sure,” Patel said.

Kennedy interrupted, “Okay, how do you involuntarily do that?”

Patel said some people are trafficked and forced into “degrading acts of all kind,” but later want to join the FBI.

“But you’re not telling us today that if a human being (voluntarily) had sex with an animal that they can still be an FBI agent?” Kennedy asked.

“No,” Patel responded.

“In fact, they ought to be in jail, right?” Kennedy shot back.

“They all are,” Patel said.

“Yea, well, okay,” Kennedy said.

FBI at polling locations

On the topic of an FBI presence at the polls on Nov. 3, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told Patel he was “dissatisfied that you are unable to give us an unequivocal, clear, unambiguous commitment that the FBI will be kept out of election interference.”

“You are involved in seven voter-related subpoenas issued to the Nevada Secretary of State’s office, you were involved in seizure of election records from Fulton County, Georgia. Clearly, the FBI has been involved in possible election interference,” Blumenthal said.

FBI agents seized 2020 presidential election ballots in Fulton County in January.

The Trump administration served voter-related subpoenas earlier this month in Nevada.

Welch told Patel he’s concerned about what he’s “willing to do for the president in this year’s midterm elections that the president is already saying are going to be rigged if he loses.”

Moments later Welch asked, “Last month, Congressman and Michigan gubernatorial candidate John James said to podcaster Benny Johnson, quote, ‘I’ve already had a good conversation with my friend Kash Patel, who has said already that the FBI will have a presence leading up to Election Day in Michigan, in both West Michigan and Southeast Michigan.’ Is that true?”

“We have an election crimes community coordinator in all 56 field offices, so you bet we’re going to have them there and manning the posts for election interference,” Patel said.

The exchange continued for several minutes, growing more contentious, as Welch pressed for an answer and Patel said he would not take part in a “charade of lies.”

“Then why are you being such a panderer to President Trump, who’s still claiming that he won the 2020 election, and who has said the only way Democrats can win in 2026 is if they cheat. Do you believe that?” Welch replied.

“I believe in the rule of law. … I want to know how your wealth increased 4,000% since you became a United States senator?” Patel shot back.

“Let’s knock it off,” Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, chimed in after taking over the hearing for Grassley.

AI hacking

Sen. Josh Hawley, who has shown skepticism of the skyrocketing growth of artificial intelligence, used part of his time to ask how the FBI will handle illegal hacking incidents by AI agents.

Several incidents this summer involved AI agents hacking into other systems, including OpenAI agents that broke into tech company Hugging Face, without explicit instructions to do so.

The recent explosive development of AI has dominated headlines and conversations on Capitol Hill in recent days after top tech executives warned development was moving too quickly to adhere to safety guardrails. Congress has yet to pass overarching AI regulations.

“What’s the role here for the bureau? How, how do you wrap your head around these kind of crimes?” asked Hawley, a Missouri Republican.

“This is a great question. It’s literally the new frontier, and nobody’s really talking about it, so thank you. So a couple things: The president has issued his AI directive on what the government can and can’t use, and that’s the right first step because you don’t want 77 different large language models,” Patel said.

The FBI, he said, has reviewed 140 “test case models” to measure their capabilities and “make sure they are cooperating and following underlying federal statutes.”

“What we need to do on a resource basis is go after the people that created these models that are going rogue,” Patel said.

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.