SPECIAL REPORT — Nine ways the Trump administration could interfere with the midterms

(For more Reuters Special Reports, click on SPECIAL/ ) By Mike Spector, Linda So, Peter Eisler and Ned Parker Oct 14 (Reuters) — US President Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire to exert control over upcoming midterm elections. He has urged Republicans to “nationalize” voting, pressed for restrictions on mail-in ballots and deployed federal law enforcement to pursue discredited fraud claims. ” All of that raises a question: If Trump wanted to follow through, could the president disrupt the election? And how?

To answer that question, Reuters interviewed more than 50 election officials, voting experts and election lawyers, and reviewed Trump's public statements, court filings and actions by federal agencies. Their assessments point to a range of scenarios, outlined below, in which the administration could test the boundaries of federal authority. To be sure, the US Constitution gives states broad authority over election administration, and courts have reinforced that power by blocking many of Trump’s initiatives. Election officials generally expect those guardrails to hold, citing rulings since the 2020 election that favored states seeking to retain control over elections.

Recently, courts ruled against administration efforts to restrict mail-in voting and access confidential voter-roll data. Still, election officials across the country are taking the possibility of disruption seriously. Reuters previously reported that many are preparing for potential federal interference in November’s elections, which will determine control of the US Congress and many key state offices.

Many said the greatest risk may not be any single intervention changing an election outcome, but a series of investigations, legal challenges and disputes over voting that could disrupt certification of the results, undermine public confidence and throw close races into turmoil. The White House says its goal is to safeguard election integrity and voting security. Responding to Reuters’ questions about the scenarios outlined in this article, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis accused Democrats of undermining confidence in US elections by opposing the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo identification to cast a ballot.

“President Trump is absolutely right,” said Bis. ” The legislation has stalled in the Republican-controlled Congress. Trump has a long history of challenging election outcomes and encouraging supporters to contest results he views as unfavorable. After losing in 2020 to Democrat Joe Biden, he asked Georgia’s top election official to “find” enough votes to reverse his loss in the state and urged supporters to attend a rally on January 6 that preceded the storming of the US Capitol.

Trump has denied responsibility for the violence, saying he told supporters to march “peacefully and patriotically” and that his remarks were protected speech. More recently, his administration has launched probes involving election offices in several battleground states, scaled back programs intended to guard against cyberattacks and foreign election interference, and unsuccessfully sued states that refused to provide sensitive voter data. Reuters distilled the views of election officials and experts into nine scenarios they see as the most significant potential flashpoints before and after Election Day.

Trump alleges election fraud or compromised voting machines For years, Trump has cast doubt on election results he dislikes, often alleging fraud without proving it in court. Election officials and experts are bracing for similar claims during the midterms. Many fraud claims follow familiar patterns: claims that noncitizens voted illegally, voting machines were manipulated, election workers tampered with ballots, or late-counted votes were suspicious. Such allegations can spread quickly, even if later disproved, and provide fodder for challenges.

In June, Trump alleged without evidence that California's election system was "rigged" after his preferred candidates for governor and Los Angeles mayor appeared headed for defeat. Trump and his allies have long promoted debunked claims that fraud cost him the 2020 election, including allegations that foreign or domestic enemies accessed voting systems to alter votes and accusations that Georgia election workers secretly counted bogus ballots. Georgia investigators found no wrongdoing, but the claims fueled harassment of election workers and efforts to overturn Trump's loss in the state. Voting machines have also become a frequent target.

Since last year, some Trump allies have urged the president to ban them, arguing they are inherently unreliable and vulnerable to manipulation and calling instead for hand counts, which election experts say are less efficient and less secure. The White House says the measures it promotes are designed to improve election security, arguing that concerns raised after the 2020 election prompted reviews of voting processes, data security and voter-registration practices across multiple states. Independent researchers and government agencies acknowledge that voting systems, like other critical infrastructure, contain vulnerabilities.

But there’s been no evidence those flaws have been exploited to alter votes. Pressuring election officials to change or cancel results Trump or his administration could pressure election officials, legislators or other state authorities to reject certified results or delay certification based on allegations of fraud or foreign interference, some election experts say. They point to Trump’s efforts after the 2020 election as a potential roadmap. In a call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Trump urged him to “find 11,780 votes,” the number needed to overturn his loss in the state.

Raffensperger, a Republican, refused. In the weeks after his defeat, Trump’s lawyers and allies also pressured state lawmakers in Michigan, Arizona and Pennsylvania as part of a wider effort to overturn the election, according to the bipartisan House committee that investigated the January 6 attack on the Capitol. The White House has said Trump is committed to ensuring Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections and that the executive branch has authority to ensure states comply with federal election laws.

The apprehension about election interference is heightened by the rise in the number of state officials who have embraced Trump's 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. Seizing ballots or voting equipment Some election officials are also uneasy about the potential seizure of voting records and equipment.

With a court-approved warrant or a subpoena, federal agents could seize or demand ballots, voting machines or election records, potentially disrupting vote counts, breaking the chain of custody of election materials, and delaying certification. "There’s a very good reason why we have strict chains of custody in our elections, and it’s because if you cast a ballot, you want to know that it’s protected and that it will be counted accurately," said Kathy Boockvar, a former Democratic secretary of state in Pennsylvania who now heads Athena Strategies, a group working to strengthen voting rights.

In January, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents raided election offices in Fulton County, Georgia, seizing hundreds of boxes of 2020 election records after Trump officials revived previously debunked claims of irregularities. " Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels said a federal magistrate judge found probable cause for the Fulton County warrant and that another court declined to return the seized materials. “This is the epitome of regular investigative practice,” she said. An FBI spokesperson said the agency followed proper procedures.

Some officials also point to Trump's own statements. In January, Trump told The New York Times he should have ordered the National Guard to seize voting machines in swing states after his 2020 loss. Federal election monitors interfere with voting The Justice Department plans to deploy 1,000 federal election monitors in the midterms, the largest number in its history and nearly double the 590 deployed in the 2024 election. ” The Justice Department has long sent monitors to polling places to assess compliance with civil rights and voting laws, such as requirements to help voters with disabilities.

Election officials and voting-rights advocates say recent events have raised questions about whether monitors could go beyond that traditional role. They point to Wyoming, where 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 the requests. Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels disputed that the monitors acted improperly and said Dhillon recently held a "cordial" and "helpful" meeting with Gordon and other Wyoming officials.

Amy Edmonds, a spokesperson for Gordon, said the meeting was "cordial and helpful" but that concerns about the monitors' actions remained. "Both parties agreed to disagree," she said. Pels said monitors will observe the midterms, protect voters' rights and ensure compliance with federal law, and that lawful voters don’t have “anything to fear" from the effort. In Michigan, where a closely watched US Senate race could help determine control of the chamber, state election officials said they will ensure federal monitors remain within legal limits.

“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,” said Aghogho Edevbie, Michigan's Democratic deputy secretary of state. ICE presence near polling sites Some election officials and legal experts see federal immigration enforcement as another wildcard, fearing it could become entangled with election administration and depress turnout, particularly in immigrant communities and Democratic-leaning areas.

Sending armed federal agents directly to polling places would likely violate federal laws, according to legal experts, though agencies such as US Immigration and Customs Enforcement could conduct law-enforcement operations in nearby areas. ” A Homeland Security spokesperson said ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations, but that agents could be deployed to assist local law enforcement in the event of a major incident, regardless of where it occurs. Troops at polling places Some legal experts view the possible deployment of military forces as among the most dramatic and potentially unlawful election scenarios.

Trump could seek to invoke the Insurrection Act, which gives the president broad power to address riots and other domestic crises, claiming that left-wing activists interfered with the election or that state officials allowed noncitizens to vote. Stationing troops near polling places or in surrounding communities could depress turnout, particularly in areas with lots of Democrats, and trigger immediate legal challenges, according to the election officials and legal experts. The Insurrection Act provides an exception to a federal law forbidding military involvement in domestic law enforcement.

Yet even under those circumstances, other federal laws forbid troops from deploying to polling locations, interfering with election administration or intimidating voters. ” A White House spokesperson did not address the issue in response to questions. In an August letter to a Democratic US 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. “I have neither received nor anticipate receiving any unlawful order” related to such a deployment, he wrote.

Emergency declaration Some Trump allies have urged him to consider the dramatic step of declaring a national emergency over alleged voter fraud or foreign election interference, arguing that doing so could provide a basis for greater federal involvement in how votes are counted, including requiring hand counts. Trump has declined to rule out the idea. Many legal experts say a national emergency declaration would not give the president constitutional authority to take over the administration of elections, which is largely a state responsibility.

But they warn that an attempt to do so could trigger confusion, litigation and delays in certifying results while courts determine the limits of presidential power. In a Time magazine interview published in October, Trump left open the possibility of declaring a national emergency related to the 2026 midterms. “I don’t rule anything out or in,” he said. Asked about concerns that the administration could invoke emergency powers in connection with the election, the White House did not directly address the scenario.

Instead, spokesperson Lauren Bis defended the administration's election-security agenda, arguing that voter-ID requirements and efforts to prevent noncitizen voting are needed to strengthen public confidence in elections. Federal investigations and charges against election officials Trump’s Justice Department sent letters in July to every state’s chief election official warning that state and local election administrators could face prosecution if federal authorities conclude they knowingly allowed noncitizens to vote or failed to take adequate steps to keep them off voter rolls.

Election officials from both parties have characterized the warnings as baseless intimidation, but say they are prepared to respond if federal authorities move forward with investigations or prosecutions. “You can stop threatening your friends in Idaho,” wrote James Craig, a lawyer in the office of Idaho’s Republican attorney general, in a July 10 letter to Justice Department officials that his office shared with Reuters. ” The letters were sent to remind election officials “of their obligations under federal law to maintain accurate voter rolls,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in a statement to Reuters.

” Still, investigations alone can carry consequences, some election officials said. Responding to subpoenas, document demands and interviews could consume the time and resources of already stretched election offices. Congress refuses to seat election winners Trump could pressure Republican leaders in Congress to use procedural maneuvers to delay or challenge the seating of Democratic candidates in close races, attempting to keep a Republican majority while legal disputes play out in court, according to election law experts. Many legal scholars, however, consider it unlikely that congressional leaders could simply refuse to seat duly certified winners.

The debate focuses largely on a hypothetical scenario in which House Speaker Mike Johnson replaces the House clerk with a Trump ally who delays recognizing Democratic victors. The clerk is elected by the House as its administrative manager and responsible for recognizing new members elected by the states, but the speaker can dismiss the clerk at any time and appoint an acting replacement. Still, many election law scholars say the clerk has a statutory duty to recognize candidates certified by states and that courts would likely intervene if that duty were ignored.

The greater concern, they say, is that unresolved election disputes or delayed certifications could leave seats unfilled when the new Congress convenes on January 3. In a narrowly divided House, even a small number of unfilled seats could influence the election of the speaker and temporarily affect control of the chamber while legal challenges are resolved. The most likely result, one legal analysis concluded, would not be a successful overturning of election results but significant confusion and political turmoil.

Taylor Haulsee, a spokesperson for Speaker Johnson, dismissed such scenarios as speculative, saying that Johnson had successfully presided over the seating of a new Congress in January 2025.