Trump And The US Midterms 2026: Nine Concerns Over Election Administration

As the US prepares for the 2026 midterm elections, the Trump administration’s approach to voting, federal election oversight and the certification of results has raised questions about how the polls will be conducted and how disputes will be handled.

Reuters interviewed more than 50 election officials, voting experts and election lawyers to identify nine potential risks before and after Election Day. The elections will determine control of Congress and several key state offices. Although the US Constitution gives states broad authority over election administration, officials fear that federal interventions and legal disputes could delay certification, undermine public confidence and throw close races into turmoil.

President Donald Trump has called for Republicans to “nationalize” voting, pressed for restrictions on mail-in ballots and promoted unsubstantiated claims of election fraud. At a Republican Party convention in September, he urged supporters to “cheat like hell” whether they’re “registered or not.”

The White House says its measures are intended to protect election integrity. Courts have blocked several administration initiatives, including efforts to restrict mail-in voting and obtain confidential voter-roll data. Reuters reported that many election officials remain confident in their own states and counties, even as they prepare for possible federal interference.

Fraud Allegations And Pressure To Change Election Results

1. Fraud allegations and voting-machine claims. Trump could undermine confidence in election results by alleging fraud, including non-citizen voting, voting-machine manipulation, ballot tampering or suspicious late-counted votes.

Trump and his allies have promoted debunked claims that fraud cost him the 2020 election, including allegations that Georgia election workers counted bogus ballots. Investigators in Georgia found no wrongdoing, but the claims fuelled harassment of election workers and efforts to overturn Trump's defeat.

In June, Trump alleged without evidence that California's election system was “rigged” after candidates he supported in the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral races appeared headed for defeat. Some of his allies have also called for banning voting machines in favour of hand counts, which election experts say are less efficient and less secure.

2. Pressure on officials to change or reject results. The administration could pressure election officials, legislators or other state authorities to reject certified results or delay certification by citing alleged fraud or foreign interference.

Trump's actions after the 2020 election offer a precedent. In a call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, he urged him to “find 11,780 votes”, the number needed to reverse his loss in the state. Raffensperger refused. Trump's lawyers and allies also pressured lawmakers in Michigan, Arizona and Pennsylvania as part of efforts to overturn the result.

Reuters reported that the risk is heightened by the presence of officials who have embraced false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. States United Action, which tracks candidates who challenge the legitimacy of US elections, says such officials now hold at least one statewide office with election oversight authority in 20 states, up from 17 in the previous election cycle.

Federal Seizures, Election Monitors And Investigations

3. Federal seizures of ballots and election records. Federal agents could seize or demand ballots, voting machines or election records under a court-approved warrant or subpoena. Such action could disrupt vote counting, break the chain of custody of election materials and delay certification.

In January, FBI agents raided election offices in Georgia's Fulton County, seizing hundreds of boxes of 2020 election records after Trump officials revived previously debunked claims of irregularities.

Gary Restaino, a former US attorney in Arizona, called the raid an “off the wall” departure from longstanding Justice Department practice and a “lesson that things can happen really quickly and take a long time to unwind.”

The Justice Department said a federal magistrate judge had found probable cause for the warrant, while the FBI said it followed proper procedures. Trump told The New York Times in January that he should have ordered the National Guard to seize voting machines in swing states after his 2020 defeat.

4. Federal election monitors exceeding their role. The Justice Department plans to deploy 1,000 federal election monitors during the midterms, nearly double the 590 deployed in 2024. The department says they will protect voters' rights and ensure compliance with federal law, but election officials and voting-rights advocates question whether monitors could go beyond observing elections.

In Wyoming, Republican Governor Mark Gordon objected after Justice Department monitors sought to interview voters and inspect voting equipment in Laramie County during the August primary. Election officials denied those requests. The Justice Department disputed claims that its monitors acted improperly.

Michigan officials have also said they will ensure federal monitors remain within legal limits. Aghogho Edevbie, the state's Democratic deputy secretary of state, said, “Any member of the public can come into a polling location and observe the election process. And that is what we will allow DOJ to do. We're not going to allow them to do more than that.”

5. Federal investigations or charges against election officials. Reuters reported that the Justice Department sent letters in July to every state's chief election official, warning of potential prosecution if authorities concluded that officials knowingly allowed non-citizens to vote or failed to take adequate steps to keep them off voter rolls.

Officials from both parties characterised the warnings as intimidation, while the Justice Department said the letters were intended to remind administrators of their legal obligations. Even without charges, subpoenas, document demands and interviews could consume the time and resources of already stretched election offices.

ICE Activity, Troop Deployments And Emergency Powers

6. ICE operations near polling places. Immigration enforcement could discourage people from voting, particularly in immigrant communities and Democratic-leaning areas, election officials and legal experts told Reuters. Deploying armed federal agents directly to polling places would likely violate federal law, although immigration authorities could conduct operations nearby.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin declined to rule out such activity in September, saying agents could be deployed “if there is a threat to that polling place or we’re serving a warrant.”

The Department of Homeland Security said ICE was not planning operations targeting polling locations, although agents could assist local law enforcement during a major incident.

Jamie Shew, clerk of Douglas County, Kansas, said: “Every meeting we’ve had (with poll workers), the question has been, ‘If federal officers or ICE show up in our polling place, what do we do?’ They’ve thought about it, they’re worried about it.”

7. Troop deployments near polling places. Some legal experts believe Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act by claiming that left-wing activists had interfered with elections or that state officials had allowed non-citizens to vote.

The law gives the president broad powers to respond to riots and certain domestic crises, creating an exception to restrictions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. However, other federal laws prohibit troops from deploying to polling locations, interfering with election administration or intimidating voters.

In May, Trump told PBS News he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections” when asked whether he would send the military or immigration agents to voting locations.

In an August letter to a Democratic senator, General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military had “no plans” to send troops to polling places or seize election materials. He added, “I have neither received nor anticipate receiving any unlawful order” related to such a deployment.

8. A national emergency declaration. Some Trump allies have urged him to declare an emergency over alleged voter fraud or foreign interference, potentially seeking to justify greater federal involvement in vote counting, including mandatory hand counts.

Trump left open the possibility in an interview with Time magazine published in October, saying, “I don’t rule anything out or in.”

Legal experts told Reuters that declaring a national emergency would not give the president constitutional authority to take over election administration. However, an attempt to do so could trigger litigation, confusion and delays while courts determine the limits of presidential power.

Delayed Congressional Seating And Election Safeguards

9. Attempts to delay or block the seating of election winners. Trump could pressure Republican congressional leaders to delay or challenge the seating of Democratic winners in close races, Reuters reported.

One hypothetical scenario involves House Speaker Mike Johnson replacing the House clerk with a Trump ally who delays recognising certified winners. The clerk is responsible for recognising new members elected by the states, although the speaker can dismiss the clerk and appoint an acting replacement.

Many election law scholars consider it unlikely that Congress could simply refuse to seat duly certified candidates. They argue that the clerk has a statutory duty to recognise state-certified winners and that courts would probably intervene if that duty were ignored.

The greater risk is that unresolved disputes could leave seats vacant when the new Congress convenes on January 3. In a closely divided House, even a small number of unfilled seats could affect the election of the speaker and temporarily influence control of the chamber. Johnson's spokesperson, Taylor Haulsee, dismissed the scenario as speculative, citing the seating of the new Congress in January 2025.

What safeguards do states have?

Despite the concerns, states have measures to protect ballots and voting equipment. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 47 states test every voting machine before elections, while the others test a sample. Machines are generally secured with tamper-evident seals, and ballots are tracked as they move between polling places and counting centres.

Mail-in ballots are protected by additional measures, including surveillance of drop boxes, signature verification in most states and records tracking when ballots are collected or accessed. Nearly all votes cast in the US — 98% — generate a paper record that can be used to verify electronic vote totals, according to the Brennan Center.

The White House says its election-security agenda is necessary to protect voting. Spokesperson Lauren Bis defended the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo identification to cast a ballot. The legislation has stalled in the Republican-controlled Congress.

The central concern is that investigations, legal challenges and disputes could delay certification, drain election offices of resources and undermine public confidence even if the administration fails to overturn the results.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said: “Election officials right now live in an environment where they are for the first time, not just in their careers but in American history, considering the possibility that the federal government might not only not be a partner but might be an adversary looking to actively interfere. They’ve never had to do that before.”

Norm Eisen, executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund, said: “My nightmare scenario is that voters are confused by everything that’s happening.”