Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an unprecedented series of interventions in the 2026 midterm elections, prompting concerns that federal actions could disrupt voting, delay the certification of results, and potentially complicate the seating of the next Congress in January.
Election law specialists remain largely confident that courts and constitutional safeguards can withstand these efforts. Yet the events surrounding January 6, 2021, have made voting rights advocates reluctant to dismiss even unlikely scenarios.
Ned Foley, an election law expert at Ohio State University, believes the risks depend heavily on how close the elections become. A decisive Democratic victory would make attempts to challenge results considerably harder, while narrow margins could create opportunities for prolonged disputes.
Although Foley considers the probability of major disruptions relatively low, he argues that even improbable threats deserve scrutiny.
The administration’s interventions began with efforts to obtain detailed voter registration records from states and have expanded into legal challenges involving ballots, voter eligibility, and election certification.
The constitutional question remains fundamental: American elections are administered by states, not the president.
Danielle Lang, a voting rights attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, describes the federal government’s current involvement as extraordinary, while emphasizing that its ability to control state election procedures remains limited.
Using emergency power
Some Trump allies have encouraged the president to invoke emergency authority to seize election operations, potentially including the seizure of voting equipment or deployment of military personnel near polling locations.
Trump has not categorically rejected those proposals.
Election experts maintain that the president has no constitutional authority to take control of elections, even under emergency powers. Courts would likely intervene against such actions.
Nevertheless, legal intervention might not prevent confusion or delays, particularly if election outcomes remain uncertain.
Stopping certification
One of the administration’s most consequential legal challenges involves Alaska’s competitive Senate race between Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan and Democrat Mary Peltola.
The controversy centers on another candidate, Dan J. Sullivan, whose similar name has generated concerns about potential voter confusion.
After Alaska’s Supreme Court permitted Dan J. Sullivan to remain on the ballot, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit on October 23 seeking to prevent certification while officials investigated whether votes for the similarly named candidate were intended for the incumbent senator.
The proposed investigation raises practical difficulties because American ballots are secret.
The dispute intensified following reporting that political operatives aligned with Peltola had helped place Dan J. Sullivan on the ballot. Democrats had previously denied involvement.
Trump subsequently accused Peltola of electoral fraud and demanded political and legal consequences.
Legal scholars have questioned the Justice Department’s argument, which relies on broad language in the National Voter Registration Act concerning election integrity.
Richard Pildes, an election law professor at New York University, suggests the lawsuit could serve a political purpose even if it fails in court: providing justification for officials to delay certification should Peltola win.
Claims About Noncitizen Voting
Another major component of the administration’s election strategy involves allegations that substantial numbers of noncitizens are registered to vote.
Research consistently indicates that noncitizen voting is extremely uncommon.
Beginning last year, the Justice Department sought access to state voter registration databases, but numerous federal judges rejected those requests.
The Department of Homeland Security subsequently began comparing publicly available voter records with federal databases, although election specialists have questioned the accuracy and transparency of its methods.
On October 13, federal officials delivered a list of approximately 20,000 suspected noncitizens to Los Angeles County election administrators and demanded that ballots associated with unverified citizenship be separated.
California refused, citing security concerns and doubts about the data.
The Justice Department sued, but a federal judge ruled against its request. The administration appealed.
Similar demands followed in Washington state, where officials were asked to investigate hundreds of voters.
Initial reviews of California’s list raised substantial concerns, including previously canceled registrations and individuals apparently born in the United States.
Election attorneys warn that unsuccessful attempts to segregate ballots could nevertheless become the foundation for lawsuits challenging results after Election Day.
Local Officials and Certification Delays
The administration’s potential influence extends beyond federal courts.
Following the 2020 presidential election, Trump and his allies pressured local election officials to resist certifying results. Although those efforts failed, election denial activists have since secured positions on election boards.
Their presence raises the possibility of renewed certification disputes.
Legal experts generally believe courts would quickly compel officials to certify valid results, as they have done in previous elections.
Still, even unsuccessful challenges could create delays and undermine public confidence.
January 3, 2027: A Potential Constitutional Showdown
The next major concern centers on January 3, when the newly elected Congress is scheduled to convene.
Under the Constitution, the House and Senate possess authority to judge the elections and qualifications of their members.
That power creates potential complications when election outcomes remain disputed.
Historically, Senate candidates holding official certification documents have sometimes been seated provisionally while challenges continue. In other circumstances, contested seats have remained vacant until disputes were resolved.
The 2008 Minnesota Senate election between Al Franken and Norm Coleman illustrates how a prolonged recount can delay representation.
Election scholars warn that a similarly disputed race could become particularly consequential if control of the Senate depends on its outcome.
Trump has suggested Republicans could refuse to seat Peltola if she wins in Alaska.
In the House, another hypothetical scenario involves replacing the House clerk with someone willing to exclude certain Democratic members-elect from the initial membership roll.
Such a maneuver could theoretically influence the election of the House speaker.
However, numerous legal scholars consider the strategy highly improbable, given constitutional constraints, potential judicial challenges, and the political coordination it would require.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has also pledged to seat Democrats who win their elections.
Immigration Enforcement at Polling Places
Concerns about voter intimidation have intensified amid uncertainty over whether federal immigration officers could appear at polling locations.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin declined to rule out every possible deployment, while suggesting officers would appear only in connection with legitimate security threats or law enforcement operations.
Justice Department officials have said there are no plans to use immigration agents or FBI personnel as election monitors.
Federal law restricts the presence of armed federal forces at polling places.
Nevertheless, election administrators and Democratic organizations are preparing responses to possible federal law enforcement activity that could discourage eligible voters from participating.
Could Federal Agents Seize Ballots?
Another source of concern stems from the FBI’s January seizure of ballots from the 2020 presidential election in Fulton County, Georgia.
Trump lost Georgia by 11,779 votes, an outcome repeatedly confirmed through recounts and audits.
Despite those findings, federal agents obtained a warrant to seize election materials years after the contest.
Voting rights advocates fear similar legal mechanisms could be attempted during the current election cycle.
However, specialists emphasize the substantial legal difference between seizing historical election records and obtaining warrants for ballots involved in an active election.
They remain hopeful that courts would reject attempts to interfere with ongoing vote counting.
The Larger Question: Can America’s Election System Withstand the Pressure?
The central concern is not necessarily that Trump’s interventions will succeed in overturning election outcomes.
Rather, it is that repeated lawsuits, disputed voter eligibility claims, threats of federal intervention, and challenges to certification could collectively undermine confidence in democratic institutions.
Election experts emphasize that the constitutional system provides substantial protections against presidential interference.
But the aftermath of January 6 has also demonstrated why previously unthinkable political scenarios can no longer be dismissed without examination.
As Americans approach the midterm elections, the decisive question may be whether election officials, courts, and lawmakers can protect the process from political pressure while ensuring that legitimate winners take office.
The outcome will test not only the strength of America’s election laws but also the willingness of its institutions to uphold them.