How the Trump Administration Is Tightening Its Grip on the Midterms

The 2026 midterms aren’t just about votes — they’re about who sets the rules.

Since his reelection, President Trump and his allies have been trying to 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 America Act to tighten voter eligibility requirements.

Many of those efforts are already running into roadblocks. But on Monday, the Supreme Court moved Trump’s push to restrict mail-in voting one step forward, though another court order is keeping the changes on hold for now. And with voting set to begin soon, time is proving to be another obstacle.

Despite the increasingly heated rhetoric, Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Marymount University, says much of it hasn’t translated into changes at the ballot box. “Most of what the administration is producing is not actual disruption — it’s noise,” Levitt told Katie Couric Media, “But whether we choose to believe them is our power.”

Emergency powers

Trump hasn’t ruled out invoking emergency powers ahead of November. During an interview on Aug. 11, conservative commentator Wayne Allyn Root said the president had the right to declare a national security emergency if the Senate can’t pass the Trump-backed SAVE Act, which remains stalled in the chamber.

Trump didn’t reject the idea, saying, “Stranger things have happened” and adding, “I’ll leave it at that.”

As concerning as that may sound, Levitt points out that Trump doesn’t actually have that kind of authority. “There’s no knob. There’s no lever,” Levitt tells us. “He doesn’t actually control an agency with power over elections.”

In fact, declaring a national emergency wouldn’t suddenly give Trump the power to cancel or postpone the midterms, take over state-run elections, or rewrite voting rules on his own. The Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections, while Congress has authority to regulate federal elections.

Congress would also have a mechanism to end an emergency declaration through a joint resolution. But if Trump vetoed it, lawmakers would need two-thirds support in both chambers to override him.

But even if Trump lacks the authority to take over elections, voting rights advocates warn that the threats themselves can still do damage. “These threats are part of a broader effort to create confusion and undermine confidence in our elections before voters ever cast a ballot,” Davin Rosborough, deputy director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, tells us.

Rosborough says the organization has been preparing for months to protect voters if the administration “crosses a line.”

"The most important thing for voters to know is that we’re ready to protect their ability to decide elections under the rules established by law."

Mail-in voting

Mail-in voting is once again at the center of the election fight. On March 31, 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 to adopt rules barring the transmission of absentee ballots unless voters are enrolled on a state-specific mail-in or absentee 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 contrasts with 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 quickly ran into the legal obstacles election experts predicted. In June, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked portions of the order from taking effect in 23 Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C. Then, on Aug. 11, she went a step further, blocking the Postal Service from implementing the mail-ballot restrictions nationwide ahead of the midterms. Talwani said the order was “causing confusion” and risked “increasing chaos and an erosion of trust in our democracy.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration a partial win, lifting Talwani’s earlier injunction in a 6-3 decision. The majority said the judge didn’t have the authority to block Trump’s directive before the Postal Service had actually put new mail-ballot rules into place. But USPS has since finalized those rules, which would require states to provide lists of mail-ballot voters and adopt new procedures for tracking and processing ballot mail. That doesn’t mean the changes are taking effect just yet. A separate Aug. 11 order, issued in a case brought by the League of Women Voters and other voting-rights groups, still blocks USPS from implementing the restrictions nationwide for the November election.

So what does all of this mean for November? For now, not much has actually changed — and the clock is ticking. North Carolina is required to start sending ballots to military and overseas voters on Sept. 4. Once that process begins, it could be virtually impossible for every state to reformat its mail ballots to meet Trump’s new requirements. States would also have to turn over lists of mail-in voters to the Postal Service so their ballots can be delivered.

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.

In May 2025, the DOJ started sending letters to states demanding copies of their voter registration lists, including highly sensitive data like names, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and partial 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.

The dispute has since escalated. The Justice Department has sued 30 states and D.C. in an effort to force them to turn over voter data. But courts have repeatedly rejected those efforts: As of early August, the administration had lost 21 consecutive court battles seeking detailed state voter rolls. The DOJ has appealed 16 of those rulings, meaning the fight could eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.

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.

Levitt, who’s also a former DOJ official, has made similar arguments in court filings, including in cases in California and Michigan. He told us that the effort resembles an attempt to assemble a national voter database — something federal law does not authorize.

He also noted that existing statutes allow the federal government to review how states maintain voter rolls, but not to collect detailed, individual-level voter data. 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 told 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 called on Republican-led states, including Texas and North Carolina, to revisit their congressional maps. Since then, states across the country have redrawn or considered redrawing congressional districts ahead of November.

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. The unusual wave of mid-decade redistricting has reshaped the electoral battlefield, with both parties pursuing maps designed to improve their chances of controlling the narrowly divided House.

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.

So far, Republicans appear to have the upper hand. The party estimates that new maps enacted in eight GOP-led states could put as many as 16 additional House seats within reach, compared to up to six for Democrats from new districts in California and Utah.

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, told us.

The administration has also continued pursuing claims about the 2020 election despite repeated reviews finding no evidence of widespread fraud. In April, Reuters reported that a federal probe of Dominion voting machines seized from Puerto Rico found vulnerabilities, but no evidence of hacking. After contractor Mojave Research failed to uncover evidence of vote manipulation, Trump adviser Kurt Olsen accused the firm of undermining his investigation — allegations it denied.

The SAVE America Act

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. Republicans backing the measure say it’s needed to prevent noncitizens from voting.

But voting rights advocates, including the Brennan Center for Justice, 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.

The legislation has nevertheless gained at least some traction in Congress. The House passed the bill in February, but it has repeatedly stalled in the Senate, where Republicans lack the 60 votes generally needed to overcome a filibuster. Trump has pushed Senate Majority Leader John Thune to get it across the finish line, even calling on Republicans to eliminate the filibuster to pass it. Senators ultimately left Washington for their August recess without approving the legislation. When they return in September, Republicans plan to try to pass parts of the bill through a broader GOP budget package aimed at funding the Iran war and replenishing the Pentagon.

FBI raids

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 since debunked.

The investigation has continued. In May, a federal judge ruled that the FBI could keep more than 600 boxes of 2020 election ballots seized from Fulton County as it investigates whether officials improperly held onto election records and whether residents were denied a fair election. Fulton County has responded by challenging the seizure.

Federal authorities have also pursued 2020 election records elsewhere. In March, Reuters reported that the FBI subpoenaed Arizona Senate records related to a Republican-backed audit of Maricopa County’s 2020 election results — an audit that ultimately affirmed former President Joe Biden’s victory there.

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

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.

During his confirmation hearing to lead the Department of Homeland Security in March, Markwayne Mullin, who has since been confirmed, 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. Now, the department says it expects to deploy a record 1,000 federal monitors for the midterms, up from 289 during the 2022 midterms and 714 during the 2024 presidential election.

Sending federal monitors to polling places to enforce voting-rights laws is a longstanding practice. But some states, including Arizona, have expressed concerns about the expanded effort given the administration’s ongoing push to obtain their voter data.

And with Trump now declining to rule out a national emergency tied to elections, some states are taking steps to prepare for potential federal intervention. States including Connecticut, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia have enacted new protections around polling places and election facilities, including measures restricting the presence of federal immigration officers or other federal forces near voting sites.

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 noted, voters still have more power than they may realize.

“We’re the only ones who can turn that noise into real disruption,” he said. “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.”