Issuu

In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections How the Trump-Vance Administration’s Voter Suppression Tactics Have Failed So Far, and How We Can Stay Ahead OCTOBER 2026

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | Public Records and Our Investigation Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

01. ICE’S “VOTER FRAUD” INVESTIGATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Weaponizing ICE Against Voters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 In the Records: ICE’s Scrutiny of Voters and Nonprofits . . . . . . . . . . 8

02. FEDERAL OFFICIALS AT POLLING PLACES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Stoking Voters’ Fears with Armed Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 In the Records: The Illegality of Armed Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . 19 DOJ Election Monitors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 In the Records: Deployment of Criminal Prosecutors . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | Trusted Voting Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

03. SAVE AND VOTER ROLL PURGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 The Unlawful Expansion of SAVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | Protecting Voting Rights: League of Women Voters v. Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 In the Records: SAVE’s Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

04. DOJ’S EFFORTS TO COLLECT STATE VOTER ROLLS . . . . . . . 28 Federal Demands to States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 In the Records: States’ Responses to DOJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | Election Deniers Influencing the Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

05. NEW TARGETS OF FBI ELECTION WORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Investigating the 2020 Presidential Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 In the Records: FBI’s Expanded Inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 HOW TO STAY AHEAD OF THESE VOTER SUPPRESSION TACTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 ENDNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

Executive Summary The Trump-Vance administration is deploying a wide range of new and intensified tactics in the run-up to the midterm elections that harness the president’s longstanding and baseless conspiracy theories in pursuit of discovering so-called “election fraud.” These actions are reckless and run the risk of intimidating and disenfranchising voters.

Our public records investigation has uncovered evidence that the administration is weaponizing law enforcement agencies, overhauling government-wide priorities, and misusing large-scale government data systems to a degree not previously known. Documents obtained by Democracy Forward Foundation (Democracy Forward) show that in the months before the midterm elections, the TrumpVance administration has aggressively expanded work on “voter fraud”: they have amassed roughly 100 million records, including at least 50 million voter records, for use in federal law enforcement investigations; designated “priority” states for both obtaining voter data and pursuing investigations; and scrutinized hundreds of civic engagement nonprofit groups. These actions are ostensibly in service of preventing “election fraud,” but they rely on and work to bolster the president’s unsubstantiated claims. This is part of a broader pattern of threats, one exacerbated by the prospect of armed federal agents at the polls and a president who asked his supporters to pledge to “cheat like hell” in the upcoming midterm elections. 1 These attempts to destabilize our elections have thus far been unsuccessful, meeting resistance from the states, courts, and election officials. Nonetheless, they represent an unprecedented attack on election systems by the executive branch with potential reverberations for years to come. This report summarizes findings from our public records investigation. Each section begins with brief historical and legal context and then spotlights records obtained by Democracy Forward that illustrate the administration’s actions and priorities. Each section concludes by examining the potential implications for voting rights and the upcoming elections.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

Introduction Our right to vote is the most foundational element of our representative democracy. Yet, politicians and far-right advocates have long sought to suppress voting rights to influence the outcome of elections. Now the Trump-Vance administration is harnessing the power of the federal government to reshape elections, with significant implications for the midterms and American democracy. Democracy Forward’s public records investigation has uncovered evidence that the administration is weaponizing law enforcement agencies, overhauling government-wide priorities, and misusing largescale government data systems to a degree not previously known. Documents obtained by Democracy Forward show that in the months before the midterm elections, the Trump-Vance administration has aggressively expanded work on “voter fraud”: they have consolidated roughly 100 million records, including at least 50 million voter records, for use in federal law enforcement investigations; designated “priority” states for both obtaining voter data and pursuing investigations; and scrutinized hundreds of civic engagement nonprofit groups. These actions are ostensibly in service of preventing “election fraud,” but they rely on and work to bolster the president’s unsubstantiated claims. This is part of a broader pattern of threats, one exacerbated by the prospect of armed federal agents at the polls and a president who asked his supporters to pledge to “cheat like hell” in the upcoming midterm elections.2 Conspiracy theories promoted by President Trump have shaped the administration’s efforts to rationalize his electoral losses and influence future elections. He has repeatedly claimed that millions of immigrants illegally voted in the 2016 presidential election, falsely attributing his loss of the popular vote to those votes.3 After losing the 2020 presidential election, President Trump’s allies launched a broad effort to overturn the results, claiming that ineligible voters cast ballots and that votes were manipulated by poll workers, foreign governments, and others.4

These earlier attempts to undermine our elections provide a glimpse into what the administration may be planning for this election cycle.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

The election denial movement will not retreat from the lie that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from President Trump. Election denialism has gripped the president and far-right circles for years,5 with many supporters given high-ranking positions in the TrumpVance administration.6 This movement persists despite an overwhelming factual record to the contrary. Election officials,7 law enforcement,8 independent audits,9 Congress,10 and the courts11 have all found that there is no evidence to support claims of widespread election fraud. Yet, from the start of President Trump’s second term, the administration has leveraged debunked conspiracies to justify unlawful federal overreach, using the specter of fraud to attempt to manipulate the results of the upcoming midterms in its favor. Transparency is integral to a functioning democracy — but the TrumpVance administration has continuously hidden their work, refusing to disclose to the public how they are attempting to reshape election administration and results.12

Through our investigation, Democracy Forward has enforced the public’s right to access government records, sought to expose attacks on voting rights, and worked to hold the Trump-Vance administration accountable. We use Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and state records requests to investigate this administration’s attempts to interfere in the midterm elections, submitting more than 700 requests to federal agencies and to state election and law enforcement offices across the country since the start of the administration. To date, we’ve obtained more than 13,000 pages of records that shed light on how the administration is laying the groundwork to assert greater federal control over elections. We have thoroughly reviewed the records received and, in this report, include descriptions and images of a selection of the documents that illustrate our findings in each In the Records section.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

When the administration has failed to comply with our lawful records requests, we’ve sued. We have cases pending against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),13 Department of Justice (DOJ),14 Election Assistance Commission (EAC),15 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),16 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),17 Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI),18 Social Security Administration (SSA),19 and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).20 Government agencies are required by law to release these records, and we will continue litigating to ensure the public’s right to transparency. The midterms are an early test of how far the Trump-Vance administration will go to guarantee its electoral power, but the damage to democratic safeguards could outlast any one administration. These attempts to destabilize our elections have so far failed, meeting resistance from the states, courts, and election officials. Still, they represent an unprecedented attack on election systems by the executive branch with potential reverberations for years to come.

PUBLIC RECORDS AND OUR INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY The public has a right to access government records through FOIA and state public records laws. Documents cited in this report were obtained through record requests made by Democracy Forward; our investigation also relies on media reporting, expert commentary, and other publicly available materials. For more information on Democracy Forward’s oversight work, see our report Demanding Accountability: Democracy Forward’s Investigations in the First Year of the Trump-Vance Administration.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

01. ICE’s “Voter Fraud“ Investigations

ATLANTA, GA — March 23, 2026: ICE Agents inside of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Photo: Nathan Posner/Shutterstock

Weaponizing ICE Against Voters The Trump-Vance administration has repeatedly and falsely claimed that noncitizens are voting en masse and influencing the outcome of elections.21 Federal agencies like ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) have been charged with investigating individual voters to gather proof of this conspiracy.22 In service of this prioritized mission, the Trump-Vance administration has redirected ICE HSI away from other traditional responsibilities:23

• ICE HSI’s recent efforts to identify ineligible voters began in July 2025, when an election denier special agent proposed harnessing HSI’s technology to analyze state voter rolls. Career officials reportedly viewed the proposal as a “little insane” and raised concerns that the mass collection of voter data may violate privacy protections. However, HSI’s initiative swiftly advanced as the administration’s other attempts to find evidence of voter fraud faced significant roadblocks by the courts.24

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• ICE HSI issued a memorandum directing “employees to ‘review all open and closed voter fraud cases’ involving immigrants who registered to vote, or actually voted, before they became naturalized U.S. citizens.”25 HSI agents were given thousands of investigative leads to pursue, resulting in a massive investment of resources at the expense of HSI’s other work.26

• In August 2026, the agency announced plans to award an up to $5 million contract to obtain voter registration and voter history files,27 and ICE HSI launched a “coordinated criminal voter fraud surge initiative” in nine states.28 ICE HSI’s efforts have already produced severe consequences including deportations and criminal prosecutions.29 Senior DHS officials have issued instructions to pursue deportations of alleged “noncitizen voters” even when people did not knowingly register to vote or never cast a ballot.30

In the Records: ICE’s Scrutiny of Voters and Nonprofits Democracy Forward obtained thousands of pages of federal, state, and local documents illustrating the expansion of ICE’s investigative work. Amid reporting that shows ICE HSI outreach into dozens of states in 2026,31 these records provide details of ICE’s efforts to access state voter data in Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah — including through the use of subpoenas. Records show that HSI has acquired massive amounts of data from a range of sources — roughly 100 million records, including at least 50 million voter records, according to HSI documents received by Democracy Forward — an incredible investment of resources to pursue a false narrative.

• July 2025-August 2026: In Missouri, an ICE HSI special agent emailed the Secretary of State’s office in July 2025 seeking voter records and information about proving violations of federal law necessary to pursue prosecutions. The Missouri Director of Elections indicated that they had received a similar inquiry from the FBI — HSI stated that “We were informed by HQ this would be a joint effort between HSI and FBI.” After more than a year had passed, HSI emailed again in August 2026, stating that they “may be receiving another batch of suspect voter fraud cases from our HQ” and, a few days later, stressed the deadline, since “agency HQ and the Dept. of Justice is heavily leaning into this.”32

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• February 2026: In Charleston, South Carolina, an ICE HSI agent emailed election officials asking whether one alleged noncitizen “was just registered to vote or actually voted” and requested copies of their voter registration documents.33 The agent stated that they had made similar requests for records in 2025.

• February 2026: In Davis County, Utah, ICE HSI issued a subpoena for a voter’s records. The special agent noted that “There are several identifiers in the subpoena” and asked if the office “could please search each of them.”34

• April 2026: In Texas, an ICE HSI criminal analyst requested information from the Secretary of State’s office on how to obtain voter records as part of ongoing investigations, and indicated that ICE was considering the use of administrative and grand jury subpoenas to collect this sensitive data.35

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• April 2026: In Fort Bend County, Texas, ICE HSI issued an administrative subpoena to the county elections administrator seeking a broad range of records on 23 voters.36

The records show that a Fort Bend County election official later asked ICE HSI for the middle names of two voters to ensure they were identifying the correct people; the HSI agent responded, “At this time, the information I sent is all we have. […] We may have to do additional checks on our end.”37

• May 2026: In Webb County, Texas, ICE HSI reached out seeking “the voter registration document(s) and voter record” of seven people.38 The Webb County Elections Administrator told Axios of HSI’s outreach, “There’s nothing there. […] To me, they could use their resources for something else that’s more useful.”39

• May 2026: In Salt Lake County, Utah, an ICE HSI special agent asked for assistance regarding a “voter fraud lead” involving a noncitizen “suspected of registering to vote.” The county clerk confirmed that the individual “never returned a ballot nor voted in a Utah election.”40

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• May 2026: ICE HSI obtained 48.4 million records from DHS Senior Counselor Counselor Heather Honey’s “independent sources of information” as a “strategic line of effort” to pursue voter fraud investigations.41 Heather Honey’s deep connections to election denial networks,* as well as the fact that these records were seemingly not obtained through formal government channels — based on the characterization of “independent sources” alongside other governmental sources in a weekly report — raise concerns that these records may be flawed or compromised. Documents also show that Heather Honey is serving as a senior advisor to the ICE director, in addition to her position as senior counselor to the DHS secretary.42 Honey’s new senior role at ICE underscores the extent to which ICE is newly prioritizing work on elections.

• May 2026: In support of voter fraud investigations, ICE HSI obtained “26,235 USCIS-derived records for downstream vetting,” resulting in thousands of leads disseminated to HSI field offices. For USCIS data, ICE identified “top states” as Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.43 HSI also “ingested” 50.6 million voter roll records from DOJ, noting that “Priority states include Texas, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey, Minnesota, Michigan, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio.”44 This list of “priority states” includes some states that have not willingly shared copies of their voter rolls with DOJ.45 HSI has also coordinated with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) and other agencies on pursuing voter fraud cases.46

For additional information on Heather Honey’s election denial activism, see Election Deniers Influencing the Administration on p. 33.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• May-July 2026: ICE HSI has sought to enter state voter roll data into Palantir’s ELITE app.47 As of July 2026, voter data from Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, and New Mexico were “enriched by the iLab” and “pending Palantir entry into ELITE.”48 ELITE is a Palantir app that compiles information on individuals, mapping out the locations of potential deportation targets for ICE agents.49 Notably, none of these listed states have voluntarily provided their full voter rolls to the federal government, and many have won court victories preventing disclosure.50

• June 2026: In Utah County, Utah, an ICE HSI special agent emailed an election official with a request for information from a “federal prosecutor.” The prosecutor was interested in identifying a “state employee who can lay [the] foundation” for an individual’s driver license application, voter registration form, and absentee ballot voter history. The prosecutor also sought to request a copy of the ballot the individual would have filled out “from a knowledgeable state official.”51 Also in June 2026, a second ICE HSI special agent emailed seeking to verify if an individual “voted in any elections” and a “copy of the registration form(s).”52 Documents obtained by Democracy Forward show that ICE HSI has expanded voter fraud investigations far beyond individual voters, an alarming escalation in advance of the midterms.

• May 2026: ICE HSI may also be investigating “voter machines” and voter fraud in “counties with 2020 results,” according to a meeting agenda distributed to David Venturella, the senior official performing the duties of ICE director.53 Voting machines have been the subject of numerous conspiracies under the Trump-Vance administration;54 HSI has previously had no publicly-known purview over election equipment. Furthermore, the mention of 2020 results raises concerns that HSI may be prioritizing investigations in particular areas where election deniers sought to dispute the results of the 2020 presidential election.

• May-June 2026: ICE HSI has investigated hundreds of nonprofits that conduct voter registration activities,55 identifying groups through search engines like CauseIQ and Guidestar’s Candid and then searching for “derogatory information” in other databases. HSI noted in weekly voter fraud reports that they were emphasizing a “network-based investigative approach, prioritizing organization and facilitation analysis over individual leads.”56 As of June 2026, HSI had researched nearly 200 organizations across Arizona, California, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington, D.C.57

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• June 2026: ICE HSI has considered using undercover agents to investigate nonprofits suspected of registering noncitizens to vote, with an emphasis on organizations based in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.58 HSI noted that they may utilize undercover agents to “gather evidence, disrupt activities, and trace financial backing and support structures” to “initiate prosecutions” against nonprofit groups.59

• July-August 2026: ICE HSI has also closely monitored primary elections this year “to identify emerging trends, vulnerabilities, or indicators that may impact election integrity” and to “support operational planning.”60

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) has also been involved in investigations into voters, an unprecedented expansion of OPLA’s purview beyond their traditional work representing the government in removal proceedings against individuals.61 Democracy Forward has uncovered evidence that ICE OPLA has sought voter records across the country and supported criminal prosecutions of alleged voters as part of the broader effort to escalate deportations of noncitizens:

• November 2025: In Forsyth County, North Carolina, an ICE OPLA assistant chief counsel emailed county election officials about two voters. The ICE OPLA official specifically sought a voter registration application from 1995, 30 years prior, and “any information that you have to show this individuals [sic] history regarding voting.” The Forsyth County official described the difficulty in locating decades-old records, as “No one on the current staff was employed with this office during that time and are uncertain of the access to the old system and the filing system in our office basement.”62

• December 2025: ICE distributed a broadcast message to OPLA personnel in accordance with Executive Order 14248, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” providing an overview of relevant statutes for prosecuting cases of voting by alleged noncitizens. OPLA leadership noted that “In cases in which the evidence is insufficient to support a criminal prosecution, the conduct at issue may nonetheless render the alien removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).”63

• July 2026: In Loudoun County, Virginia, an ICE OPLA counsel requested records for “law enforcement purposes,” seeking copies of a voter registration application and provisional ballot form for one individual.64

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• July 2026: In response to news that a New Jersey software glitch had led to 6,600 noncitizens being registered to vote,65 ICE Deputy Principal Legal Advisor Adam Loiacono provided legal analysis of the inadmissibility and deportability of the affected individuals, repeatedly emphasizing that “There is no requirement that the alien have knowledge that he or she has illegally voted, and no conviction is required.”66 WHAT’S AT STAKE ICE’s sprawling investigations have often forced election officials on a wildgoose chase to find evidence in support of spurious claims. Records obtained by Democracy Forward illustrate the nationwide scope of ICE’s requests, at times for decades-old data, and the strain these requests put on election officials at a time when they are already overworked and under intense pressure.67 That ICE has acquired millions of records from potentially flawed or questionable sources for use in voter fraud investigations is further troubling. In the case of Fort Bend County, Texas, ICE’s inability to provide the full name of someone they were investigating raises questions about where ICE obtained these names to pursue for investigations, the quality of that information, and whether voters might be incorrectly identified because of a lack of verifiable data. In advance of the midterms, ICE has broadened their work to target civic engagement nonprofits, going so far as to consider using undercover agents in investigations. This represents a baseless attack, with severe implications for civil society as the administration continues to wield its power to chill groups that promote democratic participation. The stakes of ICE’s work this election cycle could not be higher. Reporting indicates that ICE HSI agents were instructed to consult prosecutors before issuing subpoenas on election-related cases, signaling the threat of criminal charges.68 ICE’s investigations are almost certainly intended to bolster the Trump-Vance administration’s conspiracy theories about “noncitizen voting” while also aiding the administration’s mass deportation campaign.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

02. Federal Officials at Polling Places

MINNEAPOLIS, MN — January 10, 2026: Federal Agents increase immigration enforcement In Minneapolis. Photo: Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/Shutterstock

Stoking Voters’ Fears with Armed Agents In an attempt to assert more federal power over elections, intimidating voters and interfering in the local administration of elections in the process, the Trump-Vance administration initially obscured whether they plan to send ICE or other armed agents to polling places during the upcoming midterm elections. Eventually, they developed and confirmed a policy purporting to allow them to send armed federal officers to polling places to carry out immigration and law enforcement operations. Under federal law, armed federal agents are explicitly prohibited from election sites, with only one narrow exception: if that force is “necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.”69 Numerous federal and state laws ban voter intimidation.70 Outside that single narrow exception, ICE and other federal armed agents have no place at poll sites, and any policy of authorizing such deployment is unlawful.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

Concerns of federal agent presence are compounded by the conduct of ICE agents driving the administration’s mass deportation campaign, which has featured record numbers of arrests by ICE.71 In the course of these arrests, ICE agents have regularly racially profiled civilians,72 used excessive force,73 and exceeded constitutional and statutory authorities.74 Over time, federal officials have made contradictory statements on the issue. For example, in February, then-DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Election Integrity Heather Honey said, “There will be no ICE presence at polling locations,” characterizing any suggestion otherwise as “disinformation.”75 But over the course of 2026, the Trump-Vance administration developed a policy. Initially, they spoke of it in ambiguous, contradictory, or evasive terms, and avoided clarifying its scope:

• Then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche stated, “Why is there objection to sending ICE officers to polling places?”76 Months later, then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche avoided directly answering senators’ questions and said only that he would “follow the law”;77

• President Trump said, when asked if he would deploy ICE and National Guard to voting locations, that he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections”;78

• Then-White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that she “can’t guarantee that an ICE agent won’t be around a polling location in November”;79 and

• Then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said that she currently had “no plans to have ICE officers at our polling locations,” but refused to rule out deploying ICE to polling places in response to supposed plans to facilitate voting by noncitizens, doubling down on conspiracies espoused by the president.80 In September, administration officials publicly confirmed this new policy:

• DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin stated that ICE may be deployed to polling places to respond to specific threats or to serve a warrant on individuals, followed by a confirmatory written press statement from DHS.81

• Days later, White House Border Czar Tom Homan, when asked “whether there’s been an order […] for enforcement to stay away from [polling] locations?”, responded, “there is no sensitive location policy, there is no sanctuary for significant public safety threat or national security threat, we’ll go where we gotta go to apprehend these people. […] If you’re a criminal alien, you’re a national security threat, there’s no sanctuary.”82

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• FBI Director Kash Patel, when asked by a senator, “I thought you said you weren’t going to be sending people to the polls?”, responded, “When did you hear that? It’s just another lie.”83 The Trump-Vance administration’s initial hedging on this issue failed to quell voters’ fears and raised concerns that voting rights may be compromised during this year’s midterm elections. The administration’s new policy, developed over several months before being publicly confirmed by top officials in September 2026, violates federal law and risks intimidating voters and chilling turnout.84

In the Records: The Illegality of Armed Deployments Democracy Forward obtained state records showing that various state and federal officials are well aware that federal and state law prohibits authorizing the presence of armed federal agents at polling locations:

• February 2026: The St. Louis County, Missouri director of elections raised questions about the possibility of ICE being deployed to polling places. In response, an FBI special agent stated, “18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 592 prohibits federal officials from bringing armed personnel to polling locations. […] It broadly applies to any federal law enforcement and bars federal agents from coming to the polls armed in their official capacity. The law is very clear that federal law enforcement cannot show up at polling locations in an armed capacity while voting is occurring. I hope that the unequivocal nature of the law help [sic] address the concerns of those who have asked about ICE showing up to the polls.”85 The FBI agent’s assertion back in February that the law is “unequivocal” is consistent with longstanding government understanding, but does not reflect the administration’s new policy.

• February 2026: A North Carolina State Board of Elections official emailed county election directors that “federal law makes it a crime for armed federal law enforcement to be at any place where an election is held. See 18 USC 592.”86

• February 2026: The Texas Secretary of State’s office wrote county election officials that “The Election Code does not include any provisions that would authorize ICE officers or other federal immigration officials to be present in a polling place during the election process.”87

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

DOJ Election Monitors The Trump-Vance administration has significantly changed the scope and nature of DOJ’s election monitoring program, which has historically worked to protect voters’ rights and access to the ballot. Mirroring other federal attempts to exert more control over the administration of elections, DOJ has now confirmed plans to — for the first time — send criminal prosecutors to election sites in November: “department attorneys, including prosecutors, will serve as election monitors,” with DOJ noting that monitors will not identify themselves as prosecutors.88

• DOJ’s monitoring program is intended to ensure that jurisdictions are complying with federal civil and voting rights laws.89 DOJ election monitors are meant only to observe, document, and report — they are not meant to interfere in the administration of elections, or risk intimidating voters.90 DOJ monitors are limited by state laws and permissions granted by election officials, as there is no statutory authority granting them access to polling places.91

• DOJ has historically avoided sending criminal prosecutors to monitor polling places, “a deliberate choice meant to avoid sending anyone with the power to charge someone with a crime, a presence that could intimidate or influence voters.”92 Civil rights prosecutors prior to the Trump-Vance administration were not responsible for voting fraud prosecutions.93

• Yet, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has stated that this year’s election monitors may be sent to “places where there may be voter fraud issues,” noting that there will “be prosecutions in the pipeline of people who voted illegally.” 94 This is a notable change in the purpose of the program, which risks creating the kind of presence DOJ once deliberately avoided because of its potential to intimidate voters.

• Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon stated that DOJ monitors deployed to observe Laramie County’s primary election in August 2026 were “aggressive, unexpected, [and] disruptive.”95 Monitors reportedly sought to examine vote tabulator machines, and the Laramie County clerk noted that DOJ election monitors asked questions “outside the scope of federal voting rights laws.”96

• In August 2026, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced that DOJ would deploy 1,000 federal officials to monitor this year’s general election; in context, DOJ sent 289 monitors to monitor the 2022 midterm elections.97 There are roughly 100,000

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

polling places nationwide, so the chance that a voter will encounter a DOJ election monitor is relatively minimal.98 However, the significant expansion of the program, combined with its restated purpose, raises concerns that the administration may try to use the size of the monitoring program to intimidate voters.99

In the Records: Deployment of Criminal Prosecutors Through local records requests, Democracy Forward has obtained evidence that DOJ has expanded the election monitoring program, sending criminal prosecutors to observe certain polling locations for this year’s primary elections:

• July 2026: In Pima County, Arizona, DOJ sent six officials to monitor the primary election.100 Based on public reporting and DOJ press releases, it appears that four of these officials work as criminal prosecutors for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona.101

• July 2026: In Maricopa County, Arizona, DOJ sent twelve officials to monitor polling places.102 DOJ press releases indicate that at least two of these officials serve as criminal prosecutors, and another works for the FBI on detail to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona.103 Additionally, several officials have a history of concerning election subversion activity, including challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia104 and illegally accessing government election websites to investigate the “integrity of elections.”105 WHAT’S AT STAKE These actions create confusion and uncertainty that could adversely impact voter turnout. While these records show that certain federal and state officials understand that deploying ICE or other armed federal agents to polling places would be unlawful, uncertainty around the midterms may itself have a chilling effect. The administration’s shifting positions on the presence of federal immigration agents at polling places raise concerns that these efforts could intimidate voters, sow fear, and discourage participation. Furthermore, the increased number of federal monitors, the shift in focus to searching for voter fraud, and the use of criminal prosecutors as monitors — without regard for the intimidation risk that historically kept prosecutors away from the polls — demonstrate a disregard for voters’ rights that has no precedent in the monitoring program’s history.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

TRUSTED VOTING RESOURCES For additional information on your voting rights, Democracy Forward recommends these trusted resources:

•

The People’s Guide to Voting Rights, Democracy Forward

•

Election Hub, Democracy 2025

•

Voting Toolkit: How Can I Protect Elections?, Democracy 2025

•

Vote Safely in 2026, Brennan Center for Justice

•

How to Spot (and Push Back Against) Federal Voter Intimidation, Protect Democracy

•

Vote411.org, League of Women Voters Education Fund

•

Election protection hotline assistance is available in multiple languages through the following phone numbers:

•

English: 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683)

•

Spanish or English: 888-VE-Y-VOTA (888-839-8682)

•

Asian languages (including Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Urdu, Hindi, Bengali/Bangla, and Punjabi) or English: 888-API-VOTE (888-274-8683)

•

Arabic or English: 844-YALLA-US (844-925-5287)

•

American Sign Language video call: 301-818-VOTE (301-818-8683)

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

03. SAVE and Voter Roll Purges

WASHINGTON, D.C. — March 18, 2026: Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson speaks out against the passage of the SAVE America Act. Photo: Sue Dorfman/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

The Unlawful Expansion of SAVE In 2025, the Trump-Vance administration overhauled USCIS’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) service in a clandestine effort to purge voter rolls and to prove that voting by noncitizens is influencing election outcomes.106 The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), in partnership with DHS and other agencies, merged federal datasets into SAVE, which historically functioned as a data service allowing registered user agencies to query immigration-related datasets to determine individual immigration or citizenship status for qualifications for government benefits.107

• As part of this overhaul, SSA data was connected to SAVE.108 SSA officials have explicitly stated that their records “do not provide definitive information on U.S. citizenship.”109 As a result, new SAVE searches could query potentially inaccurate SSA data, raising the risk that it would return inaccurate results.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• The incorporation of SSA data enabled SAVE to allow for bulk uploads of records for states that collect Social Security numbers, rather than limiting searches to just one person at a time.110 Some election offices have uploaded their entire voter roll to SAVE.111 Before 2025, SAVE was used as a mechanism for targeted queries of records maintained by DHS, but did not facilitate mass searches, and was never designed or intended to be a comprehensive citizenship database.112

• The administration disclosed these system modifications to SAVE months after changes had already been implemented and states began using the service, despite federal law requiring advance public notice and prohibiting the creation of master government databases combining unrelated personal records across multiple agencies.113 This data-merge produces inaccurate SAVE results, with serious consequences.114 The risks of SAVE are not hypothetical — there has been widespread evidence that since the administration’s overhaul, SAVE has mistakenly identified thousands of U.S. citizens as noncitizens, in some cases resulting in citizens being erroneously removed from the voter rolls.115 Prior to the Trump-Vance administration, federal officials repeatedly raised concerns about the unreliability of SAVE’s data negatively impacting eligible voters; these modifications to SAVE exacerbate existing problems.116 In December 2025, the Trump-Vance administration claimed it had checked more than 47 million voters’ data in SAVE.117

Protecting Voting Rights: League of Women Voters v. Department of Homeland Security In September 2025, Democracy Forward, representing a broad coalition of voting rights and privacy groups and alongside co-counsel Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and Fair Elections Center, sued the TrumpVance administration over their radical expansion of SAVE to defend privacy and voting rights. The plaintiffs, including the League of Women Voters, League of Women Voters of Virginia, League of Women Voters of Louisiana, League of Women Voters of Texas, and EPIC filed the lawsuit to challenge the secret changes to SAVE made by the TrumpVance administration. The case, League of Women Voters v. Department of Homeland Security, demonstrates how federal agencies violated

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

Americans’ privacy rights and civil rights to enable mass voter purges, unlawfully connecting systems containing highly sensitive and protected data (including Social Security numbers and more) to create a national citizenship database.118 On September 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned ruling allowing the administration to use the expanded SAVE system while its appeal in League of Women Voters v. Department of Homeland Security proceeds. This alarming ruling exposes millions of Americans’ sensitive personal information to potential disclosure or misuse for an indefinite period of time. While the Supreme Court’s ruling acknowledges that it is too late for states to use the expanded SAVE to “systematically” purge voter rolls ahead of the midterm elections due to the congressionally mandated 90-day, pre-election quiet period, “individualized inquiries” may now proceed using the expanded SAVE. Our litigation has sought to protect people across the country who might have otherwise been targeted for removal from voter rolls, and this case remains ongoing.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

In the Records: SAVE’s Limitations Democracy Forward uncovered documents through state and local records requests showing the deficiencies of SAVE in verifying voter eligibility statuses, and how these flaws have impacted eligible voters.

• January 2026: In Missouri, the Secretary of State’s office sought

alien registration numbers (A-numbers) for approximately 450 voters from USCIS and DHS,119 despite knowing that SAVE had just recently produced hundreds of inaccurate responses that impacted Missouri voters’ enfranchisement.120 A-numbers are sensitive personally identifiable information, similar to a Social Security number;121 Missouri stated that this information was needed to complete verification in SAVE, as “SAVE cannot proceed on these records without an enumerator.”122

• April 2026: In Texas, then-Secretary of State Jane Nelson sent a letter to USCIS raising serious concerns about the accuracy and effectiveness of SAVE in light of numerous cases where voters were wrongly identified as noncitizens.123

According to the Texas Secretary of State’s office, as of July 16, 2026, nearly three months after the letter was sent, USCIS had yet to respond to Texas’ letter.124 The Texas Secretary of State’s office has been a strong proponent of using SAVE in the election context, claiming that it has been a “game changer” and a “critically important data set.”125 Yet, this letter to USCIS shows the tension between Texas officials’ public claims and their private concerns.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• April 2026: In Nebraska, USCIS wrote that they would be interested in any evidence that SAVE had erroneously identified voters as noncitizens, an acknowledgement that federal data newly incorporated into SAVE may produce inaccurate results. Acting Chief of the Verification Division Brian Broderick stated that “As you get responses to your notices that you are sending out, we would be very interested in any that come back with proof of citizenship. Would like to see if it is a result of missing/bad data at SSA or DHS, if we can confirm the authenticity of the doc they provide, and if legit, we can update our systems to prevent future issues.”126 Democracy Forward also obtained records showing that USCIS recently considered further modifications to SAVE to address the program’s limitations, even as SAVE faces numerous legal challenges and its use has led to the disenfranchisement of voters.127

• March 2026: In Utah, the Utah County clerk emailed USCIS asking whether citizenship grant date information would be incorporated into SAVE. Acting Chief of the Verification Division Brian Broderick responded that the newly merged datasets presented difficulties in making this update: “Unfortunately the grant date solution we were planning is running into a few challenges. SAVE first checks SSA and then DOS (for a passport) and if either of those two sources confirm someone as a USC, the case never reaches the USCIS sources, it just returns as USC. We are only able to provide the grant date from the USCIS sources, SSA and DOS do not store them.”128

• June 2026: In Arizona, the Yavapai County Recorder emailed USCIS asking for additional information from SAVE to “learn if or what databases have inaccurate or delayed information.” USCIS responded that they were exploring the feasibility of adding “Date of Death” as a field in SAVE responses.129 One of the primary concerns with SAVE has been its use of potentially outdated data; USCIS itself has indicated that this was the reason why so many voters were wrongly identified as noncitizens in Missouri.130 WHAT’S AT STAKE Using the SAVE system as directed by federal officials risks removing eligible, registered voters from the rolls. The Trump-Vance administration has continuously pressured state election officials to use SAVE. Yet, government records obtained by Democracy Forward illustrate a number of the inherent limitations of SAVE, as the system cannot effectively process bulk uploads of voter rolls, returns inaccurate results, and election offices struggle to utilize the flawed system without restricting citizens’ right to vote.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

04. DOJ’s Efforts to Collect State Voter Rolls

WASHINGTON, D.C. — March 18, 2026: A sign rests on the ground at a rally and press conference against the SAVE America Act. Photo: Bryan Dozier/NurPhoto/Shutterstock

Federal Demands to States The Trump-Vance administration escalated efforts to collect state voter data in its quest to find noncitizens on voter rolls. In addition to its attempts to influence how states maintain their voter lists (notably through the use of SAVE), the administration has also tried to claim direct control over voter list maintenance, a responsibility held by law exclusively by states:131

• Beginning in May 2025, the DOJ Civil Rights Division (CRT) started demanding states provide DOJ full, unredacted copies of their voter registration lists,132 including voters’ personally identifying information like partial Social Security and driver’s license numbers.133 DOJ has claimed that states must provide this data so the administration can enforce states’ compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Yet, crucially, the NVRA and HAVA only require states make a “reasonable effort” to remove ineligible voters from the rolls, not that voter rolls be perfected.134

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• To date, 16 states have provided — or expressed an intent to provide — DOJ with a copy of their full voter registration file.135 DOJ has asked states to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) when sharing this data. This controversial MOU requires states to remove ineligible voters identified by DOJ and resubmit the updated voter registration list to DOJ so that the administration can verify that states have taken action.136 The agreement further states that voter data may be shared with government contractors, a serious security risk that presents hacking vulnerabilities, as contractors are “not bound by the safeguards in the agreement” and the MOU “provides no framework for vetting contractors.”137 The MOU also does not prohibit the administration from using state data in non-election contexts, including immigration enforcement.138 Indeed, records obtained by Democracy Forward show that voter roll records from DOJ are set to be entered into Palantir’s ELITE app, which is used to identify deportation targets.139 Of the states that have shared data with DOJ, only Alaska, South Carolina, and Texas are confirmed to have signed this MOU.140

• In an attempt to force non-compliant states to provide this data to the federal government, DOJ has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C. for copies of their unredacted voter registration list.141 DOJ’s attempt to seize full voter rolls from state election officials has been resoundingly unsuccessful. To date, 26 of these lawsuits have been dismissed.142 One court held that DOJ’s “reading does violence” to the Civil Rights Act, and “[p]ublic statements from government officials reveal its intentions: to create a nationwide voter-database, for potential weaponization in future elections; as a ‘fishing expedition,’ hoped to advance unsubstantiated claims of non-citizen voting; and as a tool for immigration enforcement.”143 Despite DOJ’s insistence in obtaining voter data, the administration has never clearly articulated how it plans to review voter rolls beyond the maintenance states already regularly do, and has in fact made statements obfuscating its planned methods of analysis.144 Based on reporting,145 public records,146 and FOIA litigation brought by the Brennan Center for Justice represented by Democracy Forward,147 DOJ does not yet appear to have provided compliant states with the results of any analysis of their voter rolls. Within 90 days of a midterm election, no systematic list maintenance can occur without violating the NVRA,148 despite DOJ’s attempts to flout the law and pressure states to remove voters during this mandated quiet period.149 On virtually every level, DOJ’s effort to obtain and review state voter registration lists has been a failure. For additional information on DOJ’s voting litigation, see Red Line for Civil Rights.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

In the Records: States’ Responses to DOJ Democracy Forward obtained state public records that shed new light on DOJ’s campaign to seize state voter rolls, and how state officials have responded to heightened pressure and uncovered contradictions from the Trump-Vance administration:

• March 2026: In Mississippi, the Secretary of State’s office expressed confusion over whether DOJ may have misled them on voter roll collection efforts. Months after Mississippi shared its full voter list, DOJ CRT Voting Section Acting Chief Eric Neff inquired whether Mississippi planned to use SAVE to maintain voter rolls. Secretary of State Michael Watson indicated that DOJ had previously told states that using SAVE was not a replacement for sharing voter registration lists with the administration. Neff’s concern that DOJ would do “redundant work” indicates that DOJ had planned to use SAVE to review voter rolls, raising concerns that states may have been induced to share sensitive voter data with DOJ under false pretenses.150

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

DOJ has repeatedly obscured how they will analyze voter rolls, and these records make clear that even states that have worked with the administration have been left in the dark on DOJ’s plans.

• March 2026: In Missouri, DOJ sent a second letter to the Secretary of State’s office seeking a copy of their full voter roll151 after their initial request only produced the publicly available registration list.152 These records show that Missouri took DOJ’s second demand seriously, offering DOJ a compromise not previously known.

Missouri invited DOJ to audit state voter rolls in person, where DOJ would be permitted to view sensitive voter data without copying or reproducing it.153 To our knowledge, no other state has made this kind of offer to DOJ; notably, Missouri is one of only three non-compliant states that has not been sued by DOJ.154

• March-May 2026: In Texas, officials from DOJ CRT repeatedly discussed election integrity with the Secretary of State’s office, demonstrating a close working relationship between the offices. Between March and May 2026, DOJ CRT Voting Section Acting Chief Eric Neff met with the general counsel of the Texas Secretary of State’s ffice on four separate occasions; several of these calls included DOJ CRT Senior Advisor Alexander Keely.155 One meeting invitation in May noted that DOJ CRT officials planned to discuss “existing and potential data analysis efforts,” presumably connected to Texas’ voter rolls shared with DOJ. It’s noteworthy that DOJ was still discussing potential analysis in May, five months after Texas signed the MOU agreement with DOJ and provided a full copy of their voter registration list.156

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• August 2026: In Mississippi, Secretary of State Michael Watson emailed DOJ CRT officials asking “Can you please let me know what DOJ did with our [voter registration list] and what results came from the review?”157 Mississippi previously made repeated inquiries to DOJ about the status of their review of state voter rolls in March 2026.158 Mississippi’s outreach suggests that even states that have worked with the administration have sought clarity on DOJ’s work. That DOJ had not delivered results more than eight months after Mississippi shared this sensitive data raises questions about DOJ’s motivations for suing 30 states and Washington, D.C. for this information.159 WHAT’S AT STAKE It remains unclear how DOJ could use state voter records or what impact that could have on future elections. Records obtained by Democracy Forward show that DOJ’s efforts to acquire state voter registration rolls have led to close collaboration between cooperative states and the TrumpVance administration, even as states acquiescing to demands are left confused by DOJ’s statements. Concerningly, records also indicate that DOJ has potentially obtained voter rolls from states that did not voluntarily provide them, even from states that have won court rulings to that effect, raising questions about whether DOJ improperly or unlawfully acquired this data.160 DOJ’s attempt to obtain copies of state voter rolls marks an egregious overreach of the federal government, while also being largely unsuccessful. This effort is representative of the administration’s larger strategy of making aggressive claims about federal election powers without any legitimate legal basis, with the hope that state election officials yield to the pressure.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

Election Deniers Influencing the Administration President Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election has galvanized an election denial movement focused on sowing skepticism about elections and facilitating voter suppression for political gain.161 Cleta Mitchell is one of the most influential figures leading the election denial movement today. She joined President Trump on his infamous 2020 call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger where the president asked to “find 11,780 votes.”162 She later founded the Election Integrity Network (EIN) to coordinate activists nationwide,163 broadening the movement’s work beyond the 2020 presidential election to advocate for regressive anti-voter measures focused on proof of citizenship requirements,164 hand-counting ballots,165 and more.166 Dozens of senior officials in the Trump-Vance administration are supportive of election denialism,167 and it has become a common refrain at confirmation hearings for administration nominees to refuse to confirm that President Biden won the 2020 presidential election.168 Numerous activists have joined the administration as political appointees, demonstrating the continued influence of the grassroots movement.169 Among the most notable is Heather Honey, who worked on the “audit” of the 2020 election in Maricopa County, Arizona, and went on to lead the Pennsylvania chapter of the EIN.170 In August 2025, Honey was appointed as the DHS deputy assistant secretary for election integrity.171 She has since been promoted to senior counselor for Secretary Markwayne Mullin,172 and is also serving as a senior advisor to the ICE director.173

In the Records: Election Deniers’ Extensive Reach Through federal and state public records requests, Democracy Forward has obtained new evidence of the role and influence of election deniers in the Trump-Vance administration:

• May 2025-January 2026: Cleta Mitchell sent numerous emails to then-DOJ CRT Voting Section Acting Chief Maureen Riordan and current Acting Chief Eric Neff sharing documents from EIN affiliates. Many of these records were redacted as part of active law enforcement proceedings, indicating that DOJ is considering action on Mitchell’s materials.174

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

• October 2025: From the EAC, then-Commissioner Christy McCormick expressed interest in analysis on the regulatory comment process from the EIN. An EIN official told McCormick that “One of our data scientists has done a deep analysis” of the comments recorded in the Federal Register regarding potential documentary proof of citizenship requirements and offered to brief the EAC. McCormick responded, “It’s good to know you have a data scientist analyzing the comments. Once we get back to full strength and can have a discussion about it, I will let the others know of your offer.”175 This exchange raises concerns of the EIN privately influencing how the EAC reviewed and considered public comments.

• March 2026: In Texas, Heather Honey met with the Secretary of State’s office general counsel alongside several USCIS officials who help oversee the SAVE service.176 The records indicate this meeting may have been to discuss errors in SAVE that wrongly identified eligible Texas voters as noncitizens.177

• July 2026: Election deniers Heather Honey and Mac Warner are coordinating this year’s Homeland Security Grant Program.178 The grant program required states comply with new problematic election security requirements 179 or risk losing up to 20% of federal funding, totaling millions,180 but was recently blocked by a district court.181 Mac Warner, the former West Virginia secretary of state who claimed that the CIA and FBI rigged the 2020 election,182 previously held senior leadership roles at DOJ CRT before his resignation from DOJ in February 2026.183 These records reveal that Warner has seemingly returned to the administration and continues to work on electionrelated matters.

WHAT’S AT STAKE Government records obtained by Democracy Forward shed new light on how election deniers are influencing federal work across a broad range of election issues, both from within and outside the administration.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

05. New Targets of FBI Election Work

UNION CITY, GA — January 28, 2026: FBI conducts court-ordered search warrant at the Fulton County Department Registration & Elections. Photo: ERIK S LESSER/EPA/Shutterstock

Investigating the 2020 Presidential Election President Biden won the 2020 presidential election, and there is no evidence that fraud impacted the results.184 Under Director Kash Patel, the FBI has fired agents for participating in previous investigations into President Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election 185 — escalating and attempting to legitimize the election denialism that has gripped the president and far-right circles for years.186 Since 2025, the FBI’s work surrounding the 2020 election has expanded and intensified:

• FBI agents seized hundreds of boxes of election materials from Fulton County, Georgia in January 2026.187 Fulton County has long been an epicenter of the right wing’s baseless conspiracies about the 2020 election.188 The FBI relied on debunked evidence to justify the raid, and the investigation reportedly originated from a referral from Kurt Olsen,

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

an election denier tasked by the White House with overseeing election matters.189 Numerous underlying claims cited in the FBI affidavit used to seize the ballots were linked to far-right activist Kevin Moncla, whose allegations of fraud have been consistently disproven.190

• Beyond the dubious origins of the Fulton County raid, the FBI made highly questionable decisions in the execution of the investigation. FBI officials did not provide an inventory of materials seized during the raid, rupturing the chain of custody for the disputed ballots.191 The warrant listed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Thomas Albus, rather than a Georgia-based prosecutor, an unusual step taken as part of broad authority designated to Albus to pursue election integrity cases nationwide.192 DOJ has also sought the names and contact information of people who worked on the 2020 election in Fulton County, an aggressive move that could threaten the safety of election workers.193

• The FBI continues to devote incredible resources to the Fulton County investigation, reassigning 260 analysts to work on the issue in July 2026 as part of a “priority” effort by Director Patel.194 The FBI has since fired two analysts working on the review after they expressed concerns that the investigation did not have sufficient evidence and appeared to be politically motivated.195

• In addition to Fulton County, the FBI investigated the results of the 2020 election in other jurisdictions. In March 2026, the FBI obtained digital data from Maricopa County, Arizona, from a partisan “audit” of the 2020 election run by the firm Cyber Ninjas.196 The FBI also interviewed Milwaukee, Wisconsin election workers in May 2026 as part of an expanded probe of the 2020 election.197 The FBI’s fixation on the 2020 election, despite overwhelming evidence proving the legitimacy of the election results, suggests that the TrumpVance administration redirected the FBI towards pursuing the president’s personal agenda. As the administration weakens the critical and longstanding independence of federal law enforcement,198 the FBI poses an unprecedented risk of stirring up baseless allegations while potentially missing actual threats to election security.199

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

In the Records: FBI’s Expanded Inquiries Through state and local records requests, Democracy Forward obtained evidence that the FBI has broadened its investigations into elections and voters in advance of the midterm elections:

• March-June 2026: In South Carolina, the FBI sought internet protocol (IP) addresses associated with specific voter registration applications, an apparent escalation of efforts by the administration to investigate individual voters.200 IP addresses are unique numerical identifiers assigned to an internet-connected device, which reveal a person’s geographic location and internet service provider.201 A former senior DOJ official described this FBI inquiry as “not typical” and “not appropriate.”202

These records also show that an FBI special agent continued to seek and receive information from the South Carolina Election Commission. Months later, the FBI asked how the online voter registration process integrates with data from the Department of Motor Vehicles.203 The FBI also sought information from York County, South Carolina on whether an individual cast a vote for a federal office.204 The York County Director of Elections later spoke with Axios, stating “it is not common” to get this kind of request: “In my tenure as an election official, going on 20 years, that is the first interaction with law enforcement.”205

• July 2026: In Mississippi, FBI agents asked to meet Secretary of State officials to discuss voting machines, including who owns the machines, whether officials vet voting machine companies, and other security measures for the machines.206

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

In light of the Trump-Vance administration’s pursuit of conspiracies around voting machines, this development raises questions about the intent of the FBI’s probe. Though the FBI has typically investigated breaches to election security, including equipment like voting machines,207 this administration has moved beyond the traditional scope of work to promote proven falsehoods about election systems.208 Last year, ODNI seized voting machines in Puerto Rico in search of evidence that Venezuela had hacked the machines in 2020,209 an extension of the conspiracy that voting machine vendors Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic had fixed the election for President Biden.210 Kurt Olsen also sought to ban Dominion voting machines used in more than half of U.S. states.211 WHAT’S AT STAKE The Trump-Vance administration has increasingly weaponized the FBI to investigate personal matters for the president, including the 2020 election and other election conspiracies. Records obtained by Democracy Forward show that the scope of the FBI’s investigations into elections has broadened to target voting machines and individual voters, a troubling escalation of the administration’s tactics in advance of this year’s midterm elections.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

Conclusion Democracy Forward’s public records investigation reveals the TrumpVance administration’s expansive attempts to interfere in the upcoming midterm elections, including by using the federal government to advance President Trump’s baseless election-related claims. From DHS to DOJ and beyond, federal officials have pursued evidence to support debunked claims of election fraud, disregarding substantial proof to the contrary to undermine public trust in elections and tilt the electoral process in its favor.212 Although the administration may claim that much of their activity is done under the guise of national security or in service of securing elections, the mounting evidence points to attempted election manipulation by federal officials.213 Despite its fervor, the Trump-Vance administration has proved unsuccessful in its efforts so far. They have been resoundingly rejected by the courts across nearly all of their election-related initiatives,214 failed to find evidence of widespread voter fraud by noncitizens,215 and uncovered no proof that fraud or interference impacted past election results.216 These efforts to influence elections will only continue to falter as long as the people, the pro-democracy community, and the courts continue to work to uphold the independence of election administration in the states. Even if their efforts have little effect on the midterms, we cannot ignore how the Trump-Vance administration is potentially testing strategies for 2028 and beyond, posing a critical threat to our democracy.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

How to Stay Ahead of These Voter Suppression Tactics Although it may feel tempting to give in to frustration and despair, we, the people, can fight back. The path forward is clear: Lawyers will continue to expose and challenge attempts to keep people from voting. • All eligible voters should check their registration at: vote411.org/democracyforward. • Vote early and then track your ballot at vote.org. • Encourage and help your friends and community members to vote. • Remember: there is no one to save us but ourselves. We can do it — together. •

You can find more resources and guidance in The People’s Guide to Voting Rights.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

Endnotes 1

Amy B. Wang, Trump Asks Convention Crowd to Pledge to Him They Will Vote, ‘Cheat Like Hell’, Wash. Post (Sep. 11, 2026), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/09/11/trump-asksrnc-miderm-convention-crowd-pledge-that-they-will-vote-cheat/.

Id.

See, e.g., Andrew Restuccia, Trump’s Baseless Assertions of Voter Fraud Called ‘Stunning’, Politico (Nov. 27, 2016), https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-illegal-voting-clinton-231860; Abby Phillip & Mike DeBonis, Without Evidence, Trump Tells Lawmakers 3 Million to 5 Million Illegal Ballots Cost Him the Popular Vote, Wash. Post (Jan. 23, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/ news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/at-white-house-trump-tells-congressional-leaders-3-5-millionillegal-ballots-cost-him-the-popular-vote/.

See, e.g., Doug Bock Clark et al., Building the ‘Big Lie’: Inside the Creation of Trump’s Stolen Election Myth, ProPublica (Apr. 26, 2022), http://propublica.org/article/big-lie-trump-stolen-election-insidecreation; Jim Rutenberg et al., 77 Days: Trump’s Campaign to Subvert the Election, N.Y. Times (updated June 14, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/trump-election-lie.html; Jason Szep & Linda So, Trump Campaign Demonized Two Georgia Election Workers — And Death Threats Followed, Reuters (Dec. 1, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ usa-election-threats-georgia/.

See, e.g., Tal Axelrod, A Timeline of Donald Trump’s Election Denial Claims, Which Republican Politicians Increasingly Embrace, ABC News (Sep. 8, 2022), https://abcnews.com/Politics/timelinedonald-trumps-election-denial-claims-republican-politicians/story?id=89168408; Nick Corasaniti & Alexandra Berzon, A Growing Number of Election Deniers Hold Key Local Roles in Midterms, N.Y. Times (Aug. 6, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/06/us/politics/a-growing-number-ofelection-deniers-hold-key-local-roles-in-midterms.html.

See, e.g., Alan Feuer et al., Where Trump Has Installed Election Deniers in Government, N.Y. Times (updated June 11, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/03/26/us/politics/trump2020-election-deniers.html; Patrick Marley & Colby Itkowitz, Key Trump Cabinet Members Refuse to Acknowledge Trump Lost in 2020, Wash. Post (Feb. 3, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/ politics/2025/02/03/trump-cabinet-2020-election-deniers/; Nicholas Riccardi, Trump Has Stocked His Administration With People Who Have Backed His False 2020 Election Claims, Associated Press (Feb. 20, 2026), https://apnews.com/article/trump-administration-2020-election-conspiraciesdoj-d91027ec4152419cd761a6087d8139c6.

See, e.g., Nick Corasaniti et al., The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud, N.Y. Times (Nov. 10, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/politics/voting-fraud.html; Stuart A. Thompson, No, Noncitizens Are Not Voting in Droves., N.Y. Times (Oct. 28, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/28/technology/noncitizen-voting-election.html.

See It’s Official: the Election Was Secure, Brennan Ctr. for Justice (Dec. 11, 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure.

See Samuel Baltz et al., Audits of the 2020 American Election Show an Accurate Vote Count, 122 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2025), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2419633122.

See Final Report, Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, H.R. Rep. No. 117-663 (2022), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/ pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf.

See Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections, Campaign Legal Ctr., https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections.

See, e.g., Chris Cameron, Whistle-Blower Says Trump Officials Are Defying Court Orders on Voting by Mail, N.Y. Times (Sep. 1, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/01/us/politics/whistle-blowervoting-by-mail.html; Dustin Volz, Trump Boasts of Declassifying Secrets, But Withholds Key Election

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

Files from Public, N.Y. Times (Aug. 20, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/20/us/politics/ trump-2024-election-classified-files.html; Benjamin Swasey & Jude Joffe-Block, Federal Agents May Have Broken State Laws in Voter Fraud Hunt, Whistleblower Claims, NPR (Sep. 14, 2026), https://www.npr.org/2026/09/14/nx-s1-5968892/dhs-whistleblower-voter-fraud. 13

Compl., Democracy Forward Foundation v. DHS, No. 26-cv-02624 (D.D.C. July 27, 2026), ECF No. 1.

Compl., Democracy Forward Foundation v. ODNI, No. 26-cv-02497 (D.D.C. July 17, 2026), ECF No. 1; Compl., Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. DOJ, No. 26-cv-05361 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2026), ECF No. 1; Compl., Democracy Forward Foundation v. DOJ, No. 26-cv-01206 (D.D.C. Apr. 10, 2026), ECF No. 1.

Compl., Democracy Forward Foundation v. EAC, No. 26-cv-01271 (D.D.C. Apr. 15, 2026), ECF No. 1.

Compl. Democracy Forward Foundation v. ODNI, supra note 14.

Supra note 13.

Compl. Democracy Forward Foundation v. ODNI, supra note 14.

Compl., Democracy Forward Foundation v. SSA, No. 26-cv-01188 (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2026), ECF No. 1.

Compl., Democracy Forward Foundation v. USCIS, No. 26-cv-03035 (D. Md. Aug. 4, 2026), ECF No. 1.

See, e.g., Mike Catalini & Ali Swenson, Noncitizen Voting Claims Animate Trump’s Attacks on Midterms and Set Up Potential Result Challenges, Associated Press (Aug. 29, 2026), https://apnews.com/article/ trump-noncitizen-voting-midterms-election-integrity-ids-3c24d72b0b91803ed097226ee00f9483; Jude Joffe-Block & Odette Yousef, How Trump is Relying on a Racist Conspiracy Theory to Question Election Results, NPR (Sep. 13, 2024), https://www.npr.org/2024/09/13/g-s1-22583/trump-greatreplacement-conspiracy-theory.

See, e.g., Laura Barrón-López & Madeleine Bimonte, Aggressive DHS Hunt for Voter Fraud Only Finding a Handful of Possible Noncitizen Cases, MS NOW (Sep. 4, 2026), https://www.ms.now/ news/aggressive-dhs-hunt-for-voter-fraud-only-finding-a-handful-of-possible-noncitizen-cases; Ted Hesson, Immigration Officers Are Being Diverted to Trump’s Voter-Fraud Effort, Wash. Post (Aug. 25, 2026), https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2026/08/25/immigration-officersare-being-diverted-trumps-voter-fraud-effort/.

See, e.g., Priscilla Alvarez et al., Exclusive: DHS Plans to Launch Voter Fraud Investigation Surge Tuesday, CNN (Aug. 31, 2026), https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/31/politics/homeland-securityvoter-fraud-investigations; Mary Pat Dwyer & Rachel Levinson-Waldman, A Realignment for Homeland Security Investigations, Brennan Ctr. for Justice (June 29, 2023), https://www.brennancenter.org/ our-work/research-reports/realignment-homeland-security-investigations.

Peter Elkind et al., Inside Trump’s Failed Hunt for Noncitizen Voters, ProPublica (Aug. 14, 2026), https://www.propublica.org/article/noncitizen-voting-trump-homeland-security-investigations.

Glenn Thrush et al., Administration Targets Noncitizen Voting, Despite Finding It Rare, N.Y. Times (Feb. 18, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/18/us/politics/voting-trump-immigrantsmidterms.html.

Peter Elkind et al., supra note 24.

See David Gilbert, ICE Plans to Pay $5 Million to Create National Voting Database, Wired (Sep. 2, 2026), https://www.wired.com/story/ice-plans-to-pay-5-million-to-create-national-voting-database/.

Alvarez et al., supra note 23.

See Tom Hals et al., Trump Claims Voting by Noncitizens is Rampant in America. The Numbers Tell Another Story., Reuters (July 19, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/investigations/trump-claimsvoting-by-noncitizens-is-rampant-america-numbers-tell-another-story-2026-07-19/.

30 See, e.g., Madeleine Ngo et al., Homeland Security Intensifies Pursuit of Noncitizens on Voter Rolls, N. Y. Times (Aug. 10, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/10/us/politics/noncitizens-votecrackdown.html; Gabe Cohen et al., Markwayne Mullin Uses Homeland Security to Further Trump’s Voter Fraud Crusade, CNN (updated Sep. 21, 2026), https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/12/politics/ trump-homeland-security-voter-fraud-crusade; James Percival (@DHSGeneralCounsel), X (June 9, 2026, at 4:04PM ET), https://x.com/DHSGenCounsel/status/2064438600448496064/photo/1.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

See, e.g., Barrón-López & Bimonte, supra note 22; Gabe Cohen et al., supra note 30; Ned Parker & Peter Eisler, How Trump is Moving to Control U.S. Elections, One State at a Time, Reuters (Apr. 27, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/investigations/how-trump-is-moving-control-us-elections-onestate-time-2026-04-27/; Carter Walker, Department of Justice Charges 5 in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Jersey with Crimes Related to Noncitizen Voting, Votebeat (Sep. 4, 2026), https://www. votebeat.org/national/2026/09/04/justice-department-noncitizen-voting-criminal-chargespennsylvania-new-jersey-wisconsin/; Elkind et al., supra note 24; Sarah Kallis, The Department of Homeland Security Subpoenas 13 Voter Files in Georgia, GPB (Sep. 1, 2026), https://www.gpb.org/ news/2026/09/01/department-of-homeland-security-subpoenas-thirteen-voter-files-in-georgia.

DFF-MO-STATE-26-1596-A, pp. 1-12, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-MO-STATE-26-1596-A_Report.pdf.

DFF-SC-CHARLESTON-26-1161-A, pp. 3-4, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/DFF-SC-CHARLESTON-26-1161-A_Report.pdf.

DFF-UT-DAVIS-26-1649-A, p. 6, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-UT-DAVIS-26-1649-A_Report.pdf.

DFF-TX-SOS-26-0538-A, p. 2, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-TX-SOS-26-0538-A_Report.pdf.

DFF-TX-FORTBEND-26-0877-A Supplement, pp. 3, 5, 11, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/09/DFF-TX-FORTBEND-26-0877-A-Supplement_Report.pdf.

DFF-TX-FORTBEND-26-0877-A, p. 18, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-TX-FORTBEND-26-0877-A_Report.pdf.

DFF-TX-WEBB-26-0807-A, pp. 2-4, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-TX-WEBB-26-0807-A_Report.pdf.

Brittany Gibson, Exclusive: ICE Obtains Local Voter Files, Axios (June 13, 2026), https://www.axios.com/2026/06/13/ice-voter-files-texas-north-carolina.

40 DFF-UT-SALTLAKE-26-1647-A, p. 2, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-UT-SALTLAKE-26-1647-A_Report.pdf. 41

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, p. 60, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, p. 122, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, p. 60, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, pp. 60, 128, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf; see Kaylie MartinezOchoa et al., Tracker of Justice Department Requests for Voter Information, Brennan Ctr. for Justice (updated Oct. 2, 2026), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/trackerjustice-department-requests-voter-information.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, p. 37, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, pp. 128-129, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, p. 143, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

See, e.g., Joseph Cox, ‘ELITE’: The Palantir App ICE Uses to Find Neighborhoods to Raid, 404 Media (Jan. 15, 2026), https://www.404media.co/elite-the-palantir-app-ice-uses-to-find-neighborhoodsto-raid/; Joseph Cox, Here is the User Guide for ELITE, the Tool Palantir Made for ICE, 404 Media

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

(Jan. 30, 2026), https://www.404media.co/here-is-the-user-guide-for-elite-the-tool-palantir-madefor-ice/; Karl Loftus, ICE Gave New Hires Access to Restricted Info on Palantir App Before They Passed Background Checks, The Intercept (Sep. 3, 2026), https://theintercept.com/2026/09/03/ice-palantir-privacy-personal-info-access/. 50 See Martinez-Ochoa et al., supra note 45. 51

DFF-UT-UTAH-26-1648-A, pp. 73, 77, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/ 10/DFF-UT-UTAH-26-1648-A_Report.pdf.

DFF-UT-UTAH-26-1648-A, p. 74, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ DFF-UT-UTAH-26-1648-A_Report.pdf.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, pp. 54, 56, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

See, e.g., Erin Banco et al., How Trump’s Obsession With ‘Rigged’ Voting Machines Spread Across US Government, Reuters (updated Oct. 3, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/investigations/howtrumps-obsession-with-rigged-voting-machines-spread-across-us-government-2026-10-02/.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, pp. 33, 59, 63, 80, 132, https://democracyforward.org/ wp-content/uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, p. 128, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, p. 132, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, pp. 34, 133, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, p. 133, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

60 DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, pp. 76, 146, 154, https://democracyforward.org/ wp-content/uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf. 61

See Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (accessed Aug. 10, 2026), https://www.ice.gov/opla.

DFF-NC-FORSYTH-26-0774-A, pp. 88-95, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/09/DFF-NC-FORSYTH-26-0774-A_Report.pdf.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, pp. 115-119, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

DFF-VA-LOUDOUN-26-1624-A, pp. 1-3, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2026/09/DFF-VA-LOUDOUN-26-1624-A_Report.pdf; DFF-VA-LOUDOUN-26-1624-B, p. 1, https:// democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/DFF-VA-LOUDOUN-26-1624-B_Report.pdf.

See Tracy Tully, Error Led to 400 Noncitizens Voting, New Jersey Governor Says, N.Y. Times (July 21, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/21/nyregion/noncitizen-voting-new-jersey-error.html.

DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, pp. 105-106, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf.

See, e.g., Miles Parks, Voting Officials Are Leaving Their Jobs at the Highest Rate in Decades, NPR (Aug. 20, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/08/20/nx-s1-5503954/turnover-election-officials-trump.

See Gabe Cohen et al., supra note 30.

See 18 U.S.C. §§ 592, 593, and 595.

See 52 U.S.C. § 20511, 18 U.S.C. § 241; see also Hayne Yoon, Preventing Voter Intimidation by Federal Agents at the Polls, Brennan Ctr. for Justice (July 28, 2026), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ research-reports/preventing-voter-intimidation-federal-agents-polls.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

See Julia Ainsley & Laura Strickler, ICE Arrested 50,000 People in August, Continuing Record Pace, NBC (Sep. 1, 2026), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-arrests-50-thousand-peopleaugust-continuing-record-rcna595510.

See, e.g., Erika Ryan et al., The Supreme Court Clears the Way for ICE Agents to Treat Race as Grounds for Immigration Stops, NPR (Sep. 13, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/09/13/nx-s1-5507125/thesupreme-court-clears-the-way-for-ice-agents-to-treat-race-as-grounds-for-immigration-stops; Jazmine Ulloa et al., New Evidence Shows Agents Using Slurs, Bolstering Profiling Claims, N.Y. Times (Aug. 11, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/11/us/videos-ice-agents-racial-profiling.html.

See, e.g., Meg Anderson, The Use of Force has Become a ‘Default Tool’ for ICE Officers, a New Report Finds, NPR (July 16, 2026), https://www.npr.org/2026/07/16/nx-s1-5891834/ice-use-offorce-aclu-report.

See, e.g., Rebecca Santana, Immigration Officers Assert Sweeping Power to Enter Homes Without a Judge’s Warrant, Memo Says, Associated Press (Jan. 21, 2026), https://apnews.com/article/icearrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d; How ICE Went Rogue: A Brief Analysis of the Legal Authorities Governing ICE and CBP Operations—and How They’re Being Undermined and Violated by Policy and Practice, Am. Immigr. Council (Feb. 11, 2026), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/ice-cbp-legal-analysis/.

Andrew Howard & Erin Doherty, DHS Official Promises Election Officials That ICE Will Not Be at Polling Places, Politico (Feb. 25, 2026), https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/25/dhs-ice-pollingplaces-00799613.

Forbes Breaking News, WATCH: Deputy AG Todd Blanche Calls To Deploy ICE Agents To Polling Sites, at 01:42 (YouTube, Mar. 27, 2026), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Km1Zvo8bDw.

Josephine Walker, Blanche Sidesteps Questions on Federal Agents at Polls, Axios (July 15, 2026), https://www.axios.com/2026/07/15/todd-blanche-federal-agents-polling-places-voters-ice.

President Trump Says He’s Willing to Send ICE, National Guard to the Polls in November, C-SPAN (May 12, 2026), https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/president-trump-says-hes-willingto-send-ice-national-guard-to-the-polls-in-november/5200208.

Khaleda Rahman, Karoline Leavitt Refuses to Rule Out Using ICE in Elections, Newsweek (Feb. 6, 2026), https://www.newsweek.com/karoline-leavitt-refuses-to-rule-out-using-ice-agentsmidterm-elections-11474855.

80 Jacob Knutson, Noem Won’t Rule Out ICE Agents at Polls, Democracy Docket (Mar. 3, 2026), https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/homeland-security-noem-ice-polling-places2026-midterm-elections/. 81

See Eric Bazail-Eimil, Mullin Says DHS Could Deploy to Polling Sites for ‘Specific’ Threats, Arrests, Politico (Sep. 1, 2026), https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/01/mullin-says-dhs-could-deploy-topolling-sites-for-specific-threats-arrests-01060040.

Tom Homan Reacts to Denver Lawsuit Seeking to Block ICE at Polls, at 2:41, Fox (Sep. 13, 2026), https://www.foxnews.com/video/6405008680112.

U.S. Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Oversight Hearing: Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Sep. 15, 2026) https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/oversight-of-the-federal-bureau-of-investigation-09-15-2026; see also Reuters, LIVE: FBI Director Kash Patel Testifies at US Senate Hearing, at 2:21:10, (YouTube, Sep. 15, 2026), https://www.youtube.com/ live/36W3fhIB4Bs?t=8434s.

See, e.g., Yoon, supra note 70.

DFF-MO-STLOUIS-COUNTY-26-0767-A, pp. 1-2, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/09/DFF-MO-STLOUIS-COUNTY-26-0767-A_Report.pdf.

DFF-NC-SBE-26-0533-A, p. 18, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-NC-SBE-26-0533-A_Report.pdf.

DFF-TX-SOS-26-0539-A, p. 3, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-TX-SOS-26-0539-A_Report.pdf.

Derek Hawkins, DOJ is Recruiting Prosecutors to Monitor Polling Places, Wash. Sun (Oct. 6, 2026), https://www.washingtonsun.com/policy/doj-recruiting-prosecutors-polls.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

See Andrew Garber & Sara Steele, Roles and Rules for the Federal Election Monitor Programs, Brennan Ctr. for Justice (Sep. 15, 2026), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/ roles-and-rules-federal-election-monitor-programs.

90 Id. 91

See Garber & Steele, supra note 89.

Stephanie Berger & Regan Rush, Inside DOJ’s Election Monitoring Program, Past and Present, Red Line for Civil Rights (Sep. 29, 2026), https://redlinecivilrights.org/dojs-election-monitoring-past-and-present/.

Id.

Bloomberg Television, DOJ’s Dhillon on Election Security, Working With Trump, at 03:17, (YouTube, Aug. 17, 2026), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaGHqu7888g&t=150s.

Tim Balk, Wyoming Governor Objects to ‘Very Odd’ D.O.J. Election Monitoring, N.Y. Times (Aug. 28, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/28/us/politics/wyoming-governorobjects-to-very-odd-doj-election-monitoring.html.

Id.

See Sarah N. Lynch, Justice Department to Send a Record 1,000 Monitors to Polling Places in Midterm Elections, CBS (Aug. 18, 2026), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-department-electionmonitors-midterms/.

See, e.g., U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n., Election Administration and Voting Survey (2024), https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/2024_EAVS_Report_508.pdf; U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n., EAVS Deep Dive: Poll Workers and Polling Places (2017), https://www.eac.gov/ sites/default/files/document_library/files/EAVSDeepDive_pollworkers_pollingplaces_nov17.pdf.

See Garber & Steele, supra note 89.

100 DFF-AZ-PIMA-26-1666-A, p. 1, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ DFF-AZ-PIMA-26-1666-A_Report.pdf. 101 Joseph Rieu Profile, LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseph-rieu-5b2a5b18 (last visited Oct. 6, 2026); Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, Former Tribal Police Officer Indicted for Using Excessive Force and Falsifying a Report (Aug. 26, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-tribal-police-officerindicted-using-excessive-force-and-falsifying-report; Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, Tucson Man Charged With Theft of Deceased Mother’s Social Security Benefits (Sep. 16, 2026), https://www.justice. gov/usao-az/pr/tucson-man-charged-theft-deceased-mothers-social-security-benefits; Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, Tucson Residents Charged After Shooting at Undercover Police Officer’s Vehicle (June 12, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/tucson-residents-charged-aftershooting-undercover-police-officers-vehicle. 102 DFF-AZ-MARICOPA-26-1652-A, p. 7, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ DFF-AZ-MARICOPA-26-1652-A_Report.pdf. 103 See Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, Gun Store Owner Indicted for Conspiracy and Attempting to Provide Material Support to Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (Mar. 25, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/gun-store-owner-indicted-conspiracy-and-attempting-providematerial-support-designated; Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, California Woman Indicted for Possessing More Than 110 Pounds of Methamphetamine and Nearly Three Pounds of Cocaine During Traffic Stop (Aug. 4, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/california-woman-indictedpossessing-more-110-pounds-methamphetamine-and-nearly-three; Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, Arizona Man Charged With Hate Crime for Defacement of Synagogue (June 24, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/arizona-man-charged-hate-crime-defacement-synagogue. 104 See Yunior Rivas, One New DOJ Voting Lawyer Worked on Georgia Fake Electors Plot. Another Was Part of Cleta Mitchell’s Anti-Voting Network, Democracy Docket (Dec. 31, 2025), https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/new-doj-election-denier-voting-lawyers/. 105 Yunior Rivas, Exclusive: Trump DOJ Appears to Have Hired Lawyer Convicted of Hacking Election Sites to Check ‘Integrity’, Democracy Docket (Aug. 21, 2026), https://www.democracydocket.com/ news-alerts/trump-doj-appears-to-have-hired-lawyer-convicted-of-hacking-election-sites/.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

106 See, e.g., Jude Joffe-Block & Miles Parks, The Trump Administration is Building a National Citizenship Data System, NPR (June 29, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/06/29/nx-s1-5409608/citizenship-trump-privacy-voting-database; Jen Fifield, Details of DHS Agreement Reveal Risks of Trump Administration’s Use of Social Security Data for Voter Citizenship Checks, ProPublica (Oct. 30, 2025), https://www.propublica.org/article/dhs-social-security-data-voter-citizenship-trump. 107 See, e.g., Joffe-Block & Parks, supra note 106; DHS, DHS Reference No. DHS/USCIS/PIA-006(c), Privacy Impact Assessment for the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program, (2020), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis006c-save-july2020.pdf; Fifield, supra note 106. 108 See Jasleen Singh & Spencer Reynolds, Homeland Security’s “SAVE” Program Exacerbates Risks to Voters, Brennan Ctr. for Justice (July 21, 2025), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/researchreports/homeland-securitys-save-program-exacerbates-risks-voters. 109 Letter from Soc. Sec. Admin. to Fair Elections Ctr. (July 13, 2023), https://fairelectionscenter.org/ wp-content/uploads/2025/07/SSA-Touhy-Decision-letter.July-13-2023-signed.pdf. 110 See DHS, DHS Reference No. DHS/USCIS/PIA-006(d), Privacy Impact Assessment for the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements “SAVE” Program (2025), https://www.dhs.gov/ sites/default/files/2025-10/privacy-pia-dhsuscis006d-save-october2025%20%28002%29.pdf. 111

See, e.g., Jen Fifield & Zach Despart, A Federal Tool to Check Voter Citizenship Keeps Making Mistakes. It Led to Confusion in Texas., Texas Trib. (Feb. 13, 2026), https://www.texastribune.org/2026/02/13/ save-voter-citizenship-tool-mistakes-confusion/; Statement by Michelle M. Burchill, Yavapai County Recorder, My Experience Using the SAVE Database, Yavapai County Recorder (Aug. 7, 2026), https:// www.yavapaivotes.gov/files/assets/elections/v/2/documents/my-experience-using-save-final.pdf.

112 See, e.g., Fair Elections Ctr., Eligible Voters at Risk: Examining Changes to USCIS’s SAVE System, (2025), https://fairelectionscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Examining-Changes-toUSCISs-SAVE-System.pdf; Privacy Act of 1974, 85 Fed. Reg. 31798 (May 27, 2020), https://www. federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/27/2020-11390/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records. 113 See Yunior Rivas & Jim Saksa, In Late, Obscure Notice, DHS Turbocharges Trump’s Voter Purge Database, Evading Privacy Protections, Democracy Docket (Oct. 31, 2025), https://www.democracydocket. com/news-alerts/in-late-obscure-notice-dhs-turbocharges-trumps-voter-purge-databaseevading-privacy-protections/. 114 See Singh & Reynolds, supra note 108. 115 See, e.g., Nick Corasaniti, Homeland Security Made a Big Claim About Noncitizen Voting. Now It Can’t Prove It., N.Y. Times (Aug. 20, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/20/us/politics/ trump-nevada-voter-election-fraud.html; Parker & Eisler, supra note 31; Judd Legum & Rebecca Crosby, The Federal Database That Could Upend the Midterm Elections, Mother Jones (Apr. 9, 2026), https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/04/save-database-errors-faulty-state-voter-rollslists-trump-administration-doj-ice-2026-midterm-elections/; Jude Joffe-Block, Trump’s SAVE Tool is Looking for Noncitizen Voters. But It’s Flagging U.S. Citizens Too, NPR (Dec. 10, 2025), https://www. npr.org/2025/12/10/nx-s1-5588384/save-voting-data-us-citizens; Fifield & Despart, supra note 111. 116 See, e.g., U.S. Comm’n on Civ. Rts., An Assessment of Minority Voting Rights Access in the United States (2018), https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/Minority_Voting_Access_2018.pdf?inline=1; AP NewsBreak: Feds OK Fla. Access to Citizens List, CBS (July 14, 2012), https://www.cbsnews.com/ news/ap-newsbreak-feds-ok-fla-access-to-citizens-list/. 117 See Joffe-Block, supra note 115. 118 See Press Release, Democracy Forward, Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Trump-Vance Administration’s Unlawful “National Data Banks” That Consolidate Sensitive Personal Information Across Federal Agencies (Sep. 30, 2025), https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/class-action-lawsuitchallenges-trump-vance-administrations-unlawful-national-data-banks-that-consolidate-sensitivepersonal-information-across-federal-agencies/. 119 DFF-MO-SOS-26-0527-A, pp. 1-3, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-MO-SOS-26-0527-A_Report.pdf. 120 See Fifield & Despart, supra note 111.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

121 See CUI Category: Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information, National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/cui/registry/category-detail/sensitive-personally-identifiable-info (last reviewed May 8, 2025). 122 DFF-MO-SOS-26-0527-A, p. 1, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-MO-SOS-26-0527-A_Report.pdf. 123 DFF-TX-STATE-26-0887-A, pp. 2-3, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-TX-STATE-26-0887-A_Report.pdf. 124 See Natalia Contreras, Texas Secretary of State Raised Concerns About the Federal Tool Used to Flag Potential Noncitizen Voters, Votebeat (July 16, 2026), https://www.votebeat.org/texas/2026/07/16/ jane-nelson-concerns-save-data-voter-citizenship-uscis/. 125 Press Release, Texas Completes Citizenship Verifications in the SAVE Database, Tex. Sec’y of State (Oct. 20, 2025), https://www.sos.state.tx.us/about/newsreleases/2025/102025.shtml. 126 DFF-NE-STATE-26-0891-A, pp. 16-17, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-NE-STATE-26-0891-A_Report.pdf. 127 See, e.g., Press Release, Democracy Forward, supra note 118; Press Release, EPIC Sues to Block Illegal Trump Administration Plan to Build Master Database of U.S. Citizens, Protect Democracy (Sep. 1, 2026), https://protectdemocracy.org/work/epic-sues-to-block-illegal-trump-administrationplan-to-build-master-database-of-u-s-citizens/; Sejal Jhaveri & Emily Burns, CLC Sues Texas Over SAVE System Usage to Conduct Voter Purges, Campaign Legal Ctr. (Mar. 26, 2026), https://campaignlegal.org/update/clc-sues-texas-over-save-system-usage-conduct-voter-purges. 128 DFF-UT-UTAH-26-1648-A, p. 6, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ DFF-UT-UTAH-26-1648-A_Report.pdf. 129 DFF-AZ-YAVAPAI-26-1125-A, pp. 1-2, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-AZ-YAVAPAI-26-1125-A_Report.pdf. 130 See Fifield & Despart, supra note 111. 131 See Eileen O’Connor, Trump Administration Has Sued More than 20 States for Refusing to Turn Over Voter Files, Brennan Ctr. for Justice (Jan. 16, 2026), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ analysis-opinion/trump-administration-has-sued-more-20-states-refusing-turn-over-voter. 132 See Gary Grumbach, Tracking the DOJ’s Effort to Get U.S. Voter Registration Data, NBC News (updated July 13, 2026), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/tracking-dojs-effort-get-usvoter-registration-data-rcna331509. 133 See Luke Belant, Feds Show New Level of Interest in Voter List Data, Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures (Feb. 19, 2026), https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/feds-show-new-level-of-interestin-voter-list-data. 134 Eric Columbus, The Trump Administration Comes for State Voter Rolls, Lawfare (Mar. 30, 2026), https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-trump-administration-comes-for-state-voter-rolls. 135 See Martinez-Ochoa et al., supra note 45. 136 DFF-DOJ-CRT-26-0206-LIT-A, pp. 9, 18, 27, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/ 09/DFF-DOJ-CRT-26-0206-LIT-A_Report.pdf. 137 Eileen O’Connor, ‘Confidential’ Agreements Show Trump Administration’s Plans for States’ Voter Data, Brennan Ctr. for Justice (Feb. 5, 2026), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/ confidential-agreements-show-trump-administrations-plans-states-voter. 138 See Texas Agreement to Turn Over Sensitive Voter Data, Red Line for Civil Rights, https://redlinecivilrights.org/project/texas-agreement-to-turn-over-sensitive-voter-data/ (last visited Sep. 22, 2026). 139 DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, pp. 60, 128, 143, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf. 140 DFF-DOJ-CRT-26-0206-LIT-A, pp. 5-31, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/ 09/DFF-DOJ-CRT-26-0206-LIT-A_Report.pdf; see Martinez-Ochoa et al., supra note 45. 141 See Avery Lotz, DOJ’s Voter Roll Crusade Hits a Courthouse Wall, Axios (Aug. 5, 2026), https://www.axios.com/2026/08/05/trump-doj-voter-roll-lawsuits-fail.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

142 See Jacob Knutson, DOJ Now 0-26 After Judge Rejects Demand for Georgia Voter Rolls, Democracy Docket (Sep. 30, 2026), https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/doj-now0-26-after-judge-rejects-demand-for-georgia-voter-rolls. 143 Mem. & Ord., United States v. Schmidt, 835 F.Supp.3d 697, 699-700 (W.D. Pa. 2026), ECF No. 146. 144 See, e.g., Jude Joffe-Block, The Justice Department Plans to Share Sensitive Voter Data with Homeland Security, NPR (Mar. 27, 2026), https://www.npr.org/2026/03/27/nx-s1-5764266/voter-datatrump-doj-dhs; Yunior Rivas, DOJ’s Latest Answer on Why It Wants State Voter Rolls: ‘I’m Not Going to Get Into the Details’, Democracy Docket (June 10, 2026), https://www.democracydocket.com/newsalerts/dojs-latest-answer-on-why-it-wants-state-voter-rolls-im-not-going-to-get-into-the-details/. 145 See Martinez-Ochoa et al., supra note 45. 146 DFF-MS-STATE-26-1595-A, pp. 51-55, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/ 09/DFF-MS-STATE-26-1595-A_Report.pdf. 147 Joint Status Rep. 1, Brennan Ctr. for Justice at New York University School of Law v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 26-cv-05361-AT (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 18, 2026), ECF No. 29. 148 See NVRA List Maintenance Guide, Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (Sep. 2024), https://www.justice.gov/crt/nvra-list-maintenance-guidance. 149 DFF-TX-STATE-26-1166-A, p. 6, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-TX-STATE-26-1166-A_Report.pdf. 150 DFF-MS-STATE-26-0979-A, pp. 8-10, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/ 09/DFF-MS-STATE-26-0979-A_Report.pdf. 151 DFF-MO-STATE-26-0765-A, p. 72, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-MO-STATE-26-0765-A_Report.pdf. 152 See Letter from Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Att’y Gen., Dep’t of Justice Civil Rights Div. to Denny Hoskins, Mo. Sec’y of State (Sep. 8, 2025), https://www.brennancenter.org/media/14492/download/ missouri_09.08.2025_state-letter.pdf?inline=1; Martinez-Ochoa et al., supra note 45. 153 DFF-MO-STATE-26-0765-A, pp. 81-82, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/ 09/DFF-MO-STATE-26-0765-A_Report.pdf. 154 See Martinez-Ochoa et al., supra note 45. 155 DFF-TX-STATE-26-0802-A, pp. 7-8, 13-14, 18, 26, 76, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/09/DFF-TX-STATE-26-0802-A_Report.pdf. 156 DFF-DOJ-CRT-26-0206-LIT-A, pp. 23-31, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2026/09/DFF-DOJ-CRT-26-0206-LIT-A_Report.pdf; see Martinez-Ochoa et al., supra note 45. 157 DFF-MS-STATE-26-1595-A, pp. 51-55, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/ 09/DFF-MS-STATE-26-1595-A_Report.pdf. 158 DFF-MS-STATE-26-0979-A, pp. 8-10, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/ 09/DFF-MS-STATE-26-0979-A_Report.pdf. 159 See Martinez-Ochoa et al., supra note 45. 160 DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, pp. 60, 128, 143, https://democracyforward.org/ wp-content/uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf. 161 See, e.g., Madeline Halpert, Trump ‘Resorted to Crimes’ to Overturn 2020 Election, Prosecutors Say, BBC (Oct. 3, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93pdlg4dlno; Sam Levine, The Big Lie 2.0: Trump Plan to Subvert 2024 Election More Organized Than Ever, The Guardian (Oct. 26, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/26/trump-2024-election-subversion. 162 Stephen Fowler & Susan Davis, In a Recorded Call, Trump Pushed Official to Overturn Georgia Vote, NPR (Jan. 4, 2021), https://www.npr.org/2021/01/04/953146819/in-a-recorded-call-trump-pushedofficial-to-overturn-georgia-vote. 163 See, e.g., Alexandra Berzon, Lawyer Who Plotted to Overturn Trump Loss Recruits Election Deniers to Watch Over Vote, N.Y. Times (May 30, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/30/us/politics/ republican-poll-monitors-election-activists.html; Kira Lerner, She Was a Firebrand Democrat.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

Now, Cleta Mitchell is a Rising Star of Republican Election Denialism, The Guardian (July 2, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/jul/02/cleta-mitchell-republicanelection-denial. 164 See David Gilbert, Anti-Immigrant Election Deniers Have Turned Their Online Following Into an Army of Activists, WIRED (Sep. 19, 2024), https://www.wired.com/story/election-denierstrump-anti-immigrant-voting/. 165 See, e.g., Christine Fernando, Election Conspiracy Theories Fueled a Push to Hand-Count Votes, But Doing So is Risky and Slow, Associated Press (Oct. 8, 2024), https://apnews.com/article/ hand-counts-ballots-voting-elections-93af22f5f7691e57b4a675a64c217627; Berzon, supra note 163. 166 See, e.g., George Chidi, Trump Ally Admits Goal of Eliminating Same-Day Registration in Federal Voting Rights Trial, The Guardian (Dec. 3, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/03/ same-day-registration-north-carolina; Press Release, Election Integrity Network Releases Comprehensive Model Election Laws Handbook, Election Integrity Network (May 14, 2026), https://www.electionintegritynetwork.org/news/election-integrity-network-releasescomprehensive-model-election-laws-handbook. 167 See, e.g., Feuer et al., supra note 6; Marley & Itkowitz, supra note 6; Riccardi, supra note 6. 168 See, e.g., Nick Schifrin et al., Trump’s Intelligence Nominee Refuses to Say Who Won 2020 Election, PBS (July 15, 2026), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trumps-intelligence-nominee-refusesto-say-who-won-2020-election; Max Rego, Warsh Declines to Say Whether Biden Won 2020 Election, The Hill (Apr. 21, 2026), https://thehill.com/business/personal-finance/5841123-kevin-warshdonald-trump-2020-election-claims-biden/; Benjamin S. Weiss, Trump Nominee to Lead DOJ ‘Fraud Enforcement’ Division Dodges Senate Questioning, Courthouse News Serv. (Feb. 25, 2026), https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-nominee-to-lead-doj-fraud-enforcement-divisiondodges-senate-questioning/; Devlin Barrett, Patel Repeatedly Dodges Answering Whether Biden Won the 2020 Election, N.Y. Times (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/ patel-2020-election.html; Jeffrey Toobin, The One Question Trump’s Judicial Picks Refuse to Answer, N.Y. Times (Mar. 24, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/opinion/trump-judges-nomineesfederal-courts.html. 169 See, e.g., Matt Cohen & Yunior Rivas, Exclusive: Another Election Denial Leader, Hired by DHS, Drafted Letter Threatening States Over Voting Audits, Democracy Docket (Aug. 28, 2026), https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/exclusive-another-election-denial-leader-hired-by-dhs-drafted-letter-threatening-states-over-voting-audits/; Scott Dance, A Proponent of Election Conspiracy Theories Will Take a Top Role at FEMA, N.Y. Times (Dec. 10, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/climate/gregg-phillips-fema.html. 170 See Doug Bock Clark, She Pushed to Overturn Trump’s Loss in the 2020 Election. Now She’ll Help Oversee U.S. Election Security, ProPublica (Aug. 26, 2025), https://www.propublica.org/article/ heather-honey-dhs-election-security. 171 See Ali Swenson, Researcher Who Has Distorted Voter Data Appointed to Homeland Security Election Integrity Role, Associated Press (Aug. 26, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/heatherhoney-trump-election-integrity-homeland-security-e00b0dd4df548d317ce2186a3249f6f0. 172 See Gabe Cohen et al., supra note 30. 173 DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A, p. 122, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/10/EMBARGO-DFF-DHS-ICE-26-0510-0511-0512-LIT-A_.pdf. 174 DFF-DOJ-CRT-26-0481-0481-0483-0484-LIT-B, pp. 1-59, https://democracyforward.org/ wp-content/uploads/2026/09/DFF-DOJ-CRT-26-0481-0481-0483-0484-LIT-B_Report.pdf. 175 DFF-EAC-26-0212-LIT-A, pp. 14-15, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-EAC-26-0212-LIT-A_Report.pdf. 176 DFF-TX-SOS-26-0538-A, pp. 5-6, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-TX-SOS-26-0538-A_Report.pdf.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

177 DFF-TX-STATE-26-0887-A, p. 8, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-TX-STATE-26-0887-A_Report.pdf. 178 DFF-WA-STATE-26-1219-A, pp. 157-158, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/ 09/DFF-WA-STATE-26-1219-A_Report.pdf. 179 See Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Funding Opportunity Number DHS-26-GPD-067-00-98, Fiscal Year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program (2026), https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_gpd_hsgp-nofo-fy2026.pdf. 180 Scott Dance et al., Administration Demands States Change Voting Rules or Lose Antiterrorism Funds, N.Y. Times (July 7, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/07/climate/fema-grants-states-election-changes.html. 181 See Luc Cohen, Judge Blocks Trump From Tying Anti-Terrorism Grants to Election Changes, Reuters (updated Sep. 28, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/world/judge-blocks-trump-tying-anti-terrorismgrants-election-changes-2026-09-28/. 182 See Ben Penn, Warner, Who Said CIA Stole Election, Now Leads DOJ Civil Rights, Bloomberg (Feb. 24, 2025), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/warner-who-said-cia-stole-electionnow-leads-doj-civil-rights. 183 See Doug Bock Clark, Trump Officials Attended a Summit of Election Deniers Who Want the President to Take Over the Midterms, ProPublica (Feb. 28, 2026), https://www.propublica.org/article/electiondenier-summit-trump-midterms. 184 See, e.g., Christina A. Cassidy & Anthony Izaguirre, Explainer: Election Claims, and Why It’s Clear Biden Won, Associated Press (Jan. 20, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-election-claimsexplained-805dd3de1c5e8f1a6a97a13bfec39d97; Brennan Ctr. for Justice, supra note 8; Dustin Volz et al., Trump Revisited Election Security. Here’s What to Know., N.Y. Times (July 16, 2026), https://www. nytimes.com/2026/07/16/us/politics/us-election-interference-security.html; Christina Cassidy, Far Too Little Vote Fraud to Tip Election to Trump, AP Finds, Associated Press (Dec. 14, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/voter-fraud-election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-7fcb6f134e528fee8 237c7601db3328f. 185 See Eric Tucker & Alanna Durkin Richer, FBI Fires Additional Agents Who Participated in Investigating Trump, Associated Press (Nov. 4, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/fbi-firings-kash-patel-jeaninepirro-b5593fdbe1c94056457a895daef3ea9c. 186 See, e.g., Axelrod, supra note 5; Feuer et al., supra note 6; Corasaniti & Berzon, supra note 5. 187 See, e.g., Devlin Barrett et al., Move to Seize Ballots Thrusts F.B.I. Into Trump’s Election Conspiracy Claim, N.Y. Times (Jan. 28. 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/28/us/politics/fbi-searchelection-center-georgia.html; Bridget Brown et al., FBI Executes Search Warrant for 2020 Election Files in Fulton County, Associated Press (Jan. 28, 2026), https://apnews.com/live/donald-trumpnews-updates-1-28-2026. 188 See, e.g., Melissa Goldin, Misinfo About ‘Suitcases’ of Ballots and a Burst Pipe in 2020 Return After Trump’s Georgia Indictment, Associated Press (Aug. 17, 2023), https://apnews.com/article/factcheck-trump-indictment-fulton-suitcases-pipe-654281257169; Johnny Kauffman, ‘You Better Run’: After Trump’s False Attacks, Election Workers Faced Threats, NPR (Feb. 5, 2021), https://www.npr. org/2021/02/05/963828783/you-better-run-after-trumps-false-attacks-election-workers-facedthreats; Mark Niesse & David Wickert, Conspiracy vs. Reality: 2020 Election Fraud Claims Persist, But Most Are Debunked, Atlanta J.-Const. (Oct. 30, 2024), https://www.ajc.com/politics/5-georgia-fraudclaims-from-the-2020-election-separating-fact-from-fiction/VWFCVFL55VEEVEPZ5Q62COV4R4/. 189 See, e.g., Devlin Barrett et al., Georgia Ballot Inquiry Originated With Election Denier in Trump White House, N.Y. Times (Feb. 10, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/10/us/politics/fulton-countykurt-olsen-fbi-search-2020-ballots.html; Ryan J. Reilly, 2020 Election Denier Under Scrutiny From Fair Elections Advocates for New Role at DOJ, NBC (June 9, 2026), https://www.nbcnews.com/ politics/justice-department/2020-election-denier-scrutiny-fair-elections-advocates-new-roledoj-rcna349010. 190 See, e.g., Ryan Germany et al., Report on the “Election Oversight Group” Allegations About the 2020 Election in Fulton County, Georgia, States United Democracy Ctr. (Apr. 8, 2026), https://statesunited.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/SUDC-Fulton-County-Report.pdf; Charles Minshew et al., Read the Annotated FBI Affidavit Used to Seize Fulton Ballots, Atlanta J.-Const., https://www.ajc.com/sp/ annotated-the-fbis-affidavit-in-support-of-fulton-county-search/; Doug Bock Clark, The Conservative Researcher Being Linked to FBI’s Seizure of Election Records in Georgia, ProPublica (Feb. 9, 2026), https://www.propublica.org/article/kevin-moncla-election-researcher-fulton-county-georgia. 191 See Joe Kottke & Rebecca Shabad, Fulton County, Georgia, to Sue Trump Administration Over Seizure of 2020 Election Records, NBC News (Feb. 2, 2026), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ politics-news/fulton-county-sue-trump-doj-fbi-seizure-2020-election-records-rcna257052. 192 See Ben Penn, Bondi Hands St. Louis Prosecutor Nationwide Election Fraud Remit, Bloomberg (Jan. 29, 2026), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/bondi-hands-st-louis-prosecutornationwide-election-fraud-remit. 193 See, e.g., Kate Brumback, Judge Rejects DOJ Attempt to Get Names of 2020 Election Workers in Fulton County, Associated Press (July 7, 2026), https://apnews.com/article/2020-georgiaelection-workers-trump-justice-department-22ed0f675d7793a272c9acb6048a4417. 194 Kate Brumback et al., The FBI is Directing Hundreds of Analysts to Its Probe of Georgia’s 2020 Presidential Election, Associated Press (July 2, 2026), https://apnews.com/article/georgiafbi-2020-election-investigation-trump-a1d9f555519bb3ee1e39594b8eab0a4f. 195 See Daniel Klaidman & Sarah Lynch, FBI Fires 2 Analysts Who Raised Concerns About Fulton County 2020 Election Probe, Sources Say, CBS News (July 13, 2026), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ fbi-2020-election-probe-fulton-county-georgia-analysts-fired/. 196 See, e.g., Jen Fifield, Election Records Handed Over to the FBI in Maricopa County, Arizona, Could Be Fatally Flawed, Experts Say, ProPublica (Mar. 12, 2026), https://www.propublica.org/article/marico pa-county-arizona-election-records-fbi; Josh Kelety, The Trump Administration Widens Its Probe of the 2020 Election as It Obtains Records from Arizona, Associated Press (Mar. 9, 2026), https://apnews .com/article/arizona-2020-election-trump-records-fbi-99a8146fdedd15c4d298aa16ff98c0b6. 197 See Patrick Marley, FBI Interviews Election Workers in a Swing State Amid Trump’s False 2020 Claims, Wash. Post (May 29, 2026), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/05/29/ fbi-interviews-election-workers-wisconsin-amid-trumps-false-2020-claims/. 198 See, e.g., Glenn Thrush & Adam Goldman, Patel’s Loyalty to Trump Raises Doubts Over F.B.I. Independence, N.Y. Times (Jan. 28, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/us/politics/trump -kash-patel-fbi-independence.html; Eric Tucker & Alanna Durkin Richer, Justice Department’s Independence Threatened as Trump’s Team Asserts Power Over Cases and Staff, Associated Press (Feb. 16, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/fbi-justice-department-trump-bondi-boveadams-a003af9d9aebe89cd289361a65c9401b. 199 See, e.g., Jose Pagliery, The Justice Department Hasn’t Taken Its Usual Steps to Protect the 2026 Election, NOTUS (June 8, 2026), https://www.notus.org/2026-election/public-integrity-unit-dojelection-safeguards; Matt Cohen, Dem Senators ‘Raise the Alarm’ Over DOJ Pullback on Voter Protections, Democracy Docket (June 8, 2026), https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/ dem-senators-raise-the-alarm-over-doj-pullback-on-voter-protections/; Nicole Sganga, Trump Zeroes in on Election Security. His Team Has Cut Thousands of Election-Focused Federal Workers., CBS News (July 16, 2026), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-election-security-cisa-justicedepartment-fbi-federal-worker-cuts/. 200 DFF-SC-EC-26-0801-A, pp. 7-8, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-SC-EC-26-0801-A_Report.pdf. 201 See, e.g., IP Address, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ wex/ip_address (last reviewed Mar. 2026); Kevin Mitnick, Famed Hacker Kevin Mitnick Shows You How to Go Invisible Online, WIRED (Feb. 24, 2017), https://www.wired.com/2017/02/famed-hackerkevin-mitnick-shows-go-invisible-online/. 202 Brittany Gibson, Exclusive: FBI Gets Voter’s IP Address in New Fraud Probe Tactic, Axios (July 31, 2026), https://www.axios.com/2026/07/31/fbi-voter-ip-address-investigation. 203 DFF-SC-EC-26-0801-A, pp. 9-13, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-SC-EC-26-0801-A_Report.pdf.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections

204 DFF-SC-EC-26-0801-A, pp. 1-3, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-SC-EC-26-0801-A_Report.pdf; DFF-SC-YORK-26-1150-A, p. 269, https://democracyforward.org/ wp-content/uploads/2026/09/DFF-SC-YORK-26-1150-A_Report.pdf. 205 Gibson, supra note 202. 206 DFF-MS-STATE-26-0979-A, p. 22, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ DFF-MS-STATE-26-0979-A_Report.pdf. 207 See Ken Dilanian, FBI Will Notify State Election Officials When Any Part of Their Election Systems is Hacked, NBC News (Jan. 16, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/fbi-will-nownotify-state-election-officials-when-any-part-n1117321; 208 See Maggie Miller, Trump’s Rhetoric is More Dangerous Than Voting Machine Flaws, Experts Say, Politico (July 18, 2026), https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/18/trumps-rhetoric-votingmachine-flaws-01004123. 209 See Phil Stewart et al., US Spy Chief’s Office Investigated Voting Machines in Puerto Rico, Reuters (Feb. 4, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-spy-chiefs-office-investigatedvoting-machines-puerto-rico-2026-02-04. 210 See Matt Cohen, A Venezuela Conspiracy May be Fueling the Trump Admin’s Attack on Fulton County, Democracy Docket (Feb. 12, 2026), https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/a-venezuelaelection-conspiracy-may-be-fueling-the-trump-admins-attack-on-fulton-county/. 211 See Eric Banco et al., Trump Official Tried to Ban Half of US Voting Machines, Citing Conspiracy Theories, Reuters (May 22, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-officialstried-ban-half-us-voting-machines-citing-conspiracy-theories-2026-05-22/. 212 See, e.g., Miles Parks, Despite Grand Claims, a New Report Shows Noncitizen Voting Hasn’t Materialized, NPR (July 30, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/07/30/nx-s1-5462836/noncitizenvoting-trump-ceir-review; Noncitizen Voting is Vanishingly Rare, Brennan Ctr. for Justice (updated Sep. 17, 2024), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/noncitizen-votingvanishingly-rare; Kyle Yoder et al., Claims of Noncitizen Registration or Voting: Analysis and Tracker, Ctr. for Election Innovation and Rsch. (Sep. 2026), https://electioninnovation.org/research/claimsnoncitizen-registration-voting-analysis-tracker/. 213 See Editorial Board, Trump’s Election Meddling Erodes Our Democracy, N.Y. Times (Aug. 20, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/08/20/opinion/trump-election-interferencedemocracy.html. 214 See, e.g., Lotz, supra note 141; Yunior Rivas, In Big Win for Voters, Court Permanently Blocks Key Parts of Trump’s First Anti-Voting Executive Order, Democracy Docket (June 24, 2026), https://www. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/court-permanently-blocks-key-parts-of-trumps-first-antivoting-executive-order/; John Fritze, Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Plan to Limit Mail-In Voting in Midterms, CNN (Sep. 15, 2026), https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejectstrump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms. 215 See Jude Joffe-Block & Miles Parks, DHS Acknowledges the Noncitizen Numbers It Touted on Voter Rolls Were Inflated, NPR (Aug. 25, 2026), https://www.npr.org/2026/08/25/nx-s1-5940807/ noncitizen-voters-trump-nevada-call. 216 See Julian E. Barnes & Maggie Haberman, Takeaways From Trump’s Address Claiming Election Vulnerabilities, N.Y. Times (July 17, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/17/us/trumpspeech-elections-takeaways.html.

Democracy Forward | In the Records: Exposing and Disrupting Federal Attempts to Interfere in the 2026 Midterm Elections