The 2026 midterms aren’t just about votes — they’re about who sets the rules.
Over the course of his administration, President Trump and his allies are attempting to make moves that could reshape how Americans vote. That includes an executive order on mail-in ballots, a push for access to sensitive voter data, renewed calls to redraw congressional maps, and proposals such as the SAVE Act to tighten voter eligibility requirements.
Trump has urged Republican-led states to revisit maps ahead of November, while Democrats explore similar moves in states they control. Federal law enforcement has also taken on a more visible role, including an FBI raid tied to a 2020 election investigation. And in Washington, legislation tied to widely disputed claims about noncitizen voting is gaining traction.
Many of these efforts face legal hurdles and may not be in place by the upcoming Election Day. But together, they point to a broader push to expand federal influence over how elections are run — a fight now playing out in courts across the country.
“Most of what the administration is producing is not actual disruption — it’s noise,” says Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Marymount University. “But whether we choose to believe them is our power.”
Here’s how that push is taking shape ahead of November — and why it could have lasting consequences for how Americans vote.
Mail-in voting
Mail-in voting is once again at the center of the election fight. On April 1, Trump signed an executive order that would expand Washington’s role in determining who gets a ballot.
Under the order, the Department of Homeland Security, working alongside the Social Security Administration, would compile lists of confirmed U.S. citizens in each state. It also directs the U.S. Postal Service not to send absentee ballots to anyone who isn’t already enrolled in a state’s mail-in or absentee voter list, requires any that are sent to be packaged in secure envelopes with unique trackable barcodes, and warns that states or local officials who don’t comply — or are accused of helping ineligible voters — could lose federal funding.
The stakes are especially high in places that already rely heavily on mail voting. Eight states — California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, along with Washington, D.C. — automatically send ballots to voters without requiring a request.
While signing the order, Trump repeated his long-standing — and widely debunked — claims that “the cheating on mail-in voting is legendary.” That rhetoric stands in contrast to his own record: He has voted by mail himself, including in a March 2026 Florida special election, and has encouraged supporters to do the same.
But the move is already raising legal questions. Election law expert Rick Hasen says the president “has no power to dictate how states run their elections.” He also predicts the order “is likely to fail in court, could not be implemented in time for 2026, and seems calculated to generate more chaos.”
A national voter database
The Department of Justice has been pushing for sweeping access to state voter rolls, sparking a growing legal and political conflict.
Starting last May, the DOJ sent letters to states demanding copies of their voter registration lists, including highly sensitive data like names, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and even Social Security numbers. Officials say the effort is meant to safeguard election integrity. But state leaders have pushed back, warning that handing over that level of personal information could expose voters to identity theft, financial fraud, or harassment if the data is mishandled or leaked.
So far, the response has been mixed: Some states have complied fully or in part, while many others have refused outright. In those cases, the Department of Justice has turned to the courts, filing more than 20 lawsuits to force disclosure.
At the center of the standoff is a fundamental question: Who controls elections in the U.S.? The system is highly decentralized, with states responsible for maintaining voter rolls. “Many courts have held that the DOJ has no right to this data,” Hasen, a law professor at UCLA, tells Katie Couric Media. “Elections are administered by the states.”
Levitt, who’s also a former DOJ official, has made similar arguments in court filings, including in cases in California and Michigan. He says the effort resembles an attempt to assemble a national voter database — something federal law does not authorize.
He also notes that existing statutes allow the federal government to review how states maintain voter rolls, but not to collect detailed, individual-level data on voters. Under the Privacy Act, he adds, the government would typically need to publicly disclose why it’s collecting such data and how it plans to use it before doing so.
“I shouldn’t have to guess why they’re doing this, because federal law requires them to tell us,” Levitt tells us. “They need to explain publicly what they’re collecting, why they want it, how they’ll safeguard it, and who will have access.”
Redrawn maps
Trump has called on Republican-led states, including Texas and North Carolina, to revisit their congressional maps.
Though redistricting is typically a once-a-decade process tied to the census, maps can be redrawn mid-cycle under certain conditions, including court rulings or changes in state law. In recent years, legal challenges in both states have already triggered multiple revisions, underscoring how fluid — and contested — the process can be.
What’s notable now is the timing. With the November midterms approaching, even small changes to district lines could have outsized effects in the House, where control often hinges on a narrow margin.
Republicans see potential upside: Trump and his allies have suggested mid-decade redistricting could help shore up the GOP’s slim majority. But Democrats are pursuing similar strategies in states they control, including California and New York.
According to the Associated Press, early estimates suggest Republicans could gain about 9 seats, compared with roughly 6 for Democrats. Still, many of these maps are already facing legal challenges, leaving the final outcome uncertain.
Election conspiracies
Election deniers who once operated on the fringes — promoting false claims about “ballot mules,” noncitizen voting, and rigged voting machines — are now finding their way into positions of influence inside the Trump administration.
Among them is Kari Lake, a former TV news anchor turned politician who refused to concede her 2022 election loss and now serves in a senior advisory role at the U.S. Agency for Global Media.
“The federal government is manufacturing evidence for a problem that doesn’t exist,” Alexandra Chandler, director of impact programs at Free and Fair Elections, tells us.
Ideas that once circulated in the periphery are now shaping how federal agencies approach election oversight, data collection, and enforcement.
The SAVE Act
That shift is also showing up in policy.
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would require Americans to provide documentary proof of citizenship — such as a passport or birth certificate — when registering to vote in federal elections. Supporters say the measure is aimed at preventing noncitizen voting.
But voting rights advocates and election experts warn it could create new barriers for eligible voters, particularly those without easy access to documentation. That could include many married women who have changed their last names and may not have citizenship documents that match their current legal name.
The push comes amid renewed focus on claims of widespread noncitizen voting — a narrative that has gained traction despite little evidence to support it. Available data suggests such cases are exceedingly rare. In Michigan, for example, a statewide review found just over a dozen suspected cases in the 2024 election — about 0.00028 percent of total votes.
Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and some legal experts say the proposal is aimed at a problem that is largely nonexistent.
FBI raids
Federal law enforcement has also become part of the election landscape.
In January, the FBI executed a search warrant at an election facility in Fulton County, Georgia, seizing ballots, ballot images, tabulator tapes, and voter rolls tied to the 2020 election.
A search warrant affidavit, unsealed weeks later, shows that federal officials relied in part on the work of lawyer Kurt Olsen, who was previously involved in attempts to overturn the 2020 results and has promoted claims that have since been debunked.
The effort — part of a broader investigation into alleged election-related crimes — has drawn scrutiny from election law experts. While federal authorities have investigated election-related incidents before, those cases have typically focused on discrete issues. This case, by contrast, involves the seizure of core election materials and reliance on figures tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 results — a combination critics say makes it feel more politically charged.
“I think we're going to have to be very proactive in thinking about steps that states and localities might have to take to protect the integrity of their elections from the federal government,” Hasen told PBS in a separate interview.
Election day interference
Concerns about interference aren’t limited to policy or enforcement — they’re also playing out in how elections could unfold on the ground.
While Trump hasn’t announced plans to deploy troops to polling places or seize voting machines, he and his allies have suggested such actions aren’t off the table. In January, Trump said he regretted not using the National Guard to seize certain voting machines after the 2020 election.
That rhetoric is now surfacing in more formal settings. During his confirmation hearing to lead the Department of Homeland Security, Senator Markwayne Mullin said he would be open to deploying ICE agents to polling locations in response to what he described as a “specific threat.”
At the same time, the Department of Justice has taken a more visible role in election oversight, sending monitors to observe elections in New Jersey and California last November, even though no federal races were on the ballot.
Taken together, the moves point to a broader shift: federal involvement at or near polling places — once rare and tightly constrained — is becoming a more central part of the election security conversation.
But as Levitt notes, voters still have more power than they may realize.
“We’re the only ones who can turn that noise into real disruption,” he says. “But we also have the power to ignore it. It’s our choice whether to buy into what the administration is saying or trust what we can see for ourselves.”
