A Reuters investigation has mapped out nine areas where actions by President Donald Trump in the coming years could intersect with the 2026 midterm electoral process. The outlet reported that its findings drew on conversations with more than 50 people — including election administrators, voting specialists, and attorneys who work on electoral matters — as well as a review of public statements, court documents, and federal agency actions attributed to Trump, all feeding into a catalogue of nine potential pressure points surrounding Election Day.
Ballots cast in November's midterm contests will shape which party holds the majority in both chambers of Congress, along with the outcomes of a number of prominent state-level races.
Trump has previously raised allegations about voter fraud, irregular voting activity, and tampered voting machines — assertions that lacked evidentiary support — and may do so again. Comparable claims that surfaced after the 2020 election were later tied to campaigns aimed at reversing that result, along with documented targeting of people who worked at polling sites, according to a broadcast outlet with an established track record of credibility. Analysts have noted that such assertions retain the potential to invite court proceedings even when later shown to lack foundation.
Analysts have also noted that unverified fraud claims represent one avenue through which pressure on state officials, legislators, or certification authorities to withhold or postpone the formal recognition of election outcomes has been described as a possibility. Among the examples cited by the outlet were steps taken to overturn the 2020 presidential election result, including a telephone conversation in which Georgia's secretary of state was urged to find enough votes to alter the outcome.
Warrants and subpoenas, both requiring judicial approval, represent tools through which federal agents could pursue access to ballots, voting machines, and election records. Ballot counting, chain-of-custody documentation, and the certification of final results could all face disruption if any such step were taken. Federal agents retrieved documents from Fulton County's election administration offices in January, a broadcast outlet reported.
The Justice Department is set to station approximately 1,000 field monitors at polling locations — a figure that would represent roughly double the 590 assigned to that role in 2024. The department has stated it will uphold voting rights and maintain compliance with federal law, though a number of officials have raised questions about whether monitors might operate beyond their established boundaries — for instance, by requesting access to voting equipment or approaching voters directly.
Researchers have noted that enforcement activity near polling locations has been linked to lower voter turnout, with the effect tending to be more pronounced in areas with higher concentrations of non-citizen residents. Legal analysts say that deploying armed federal agents at voting sites would conflict with federal law, though enforcement personnel from immigration agencies retain the authority to conduct operations in nearby areas.
The Insurrection Act has been identified as a legal avenue through which military forces might be deployed, with election-related disorder or interference put forward as a potential justification. Some analysts have raised the possibility that placing armed personnel at voting sites could affect how freely people cast their ballots. Statutes at the federal level place limits on how the armed forces may be used within the country's borders and bar any actions aimed at intimidating voters.
Some analysts have raised the possibility that invoking a national emergency — tied to unverified claims of voter fraud or foreign interference in elections — could serve as a mechanism for expanding federal authority over how votes are cast and tallied, including a shift toward hand-counting ballots. Legal experts point out that those provisions stop well short of authorising federal oversight of how elections are conducted — authority that remains largely vested in the states — and that any move in that direction would face constitutional challenges and procedural obstacles.
Federal prosecutors at the Justice Department retain the authority to open inquiries into — or bring charges against — election officials over questions about whether noncitizens were permitted to vote or whether voter registration records were kept in proper order. Subpoenas, document requests, and interview demands placed on election workers carry the potential to strain administrative capacity and create a chilling effect on staff — outcomes that some officials have noted as concerns independent of whether any prosecution results.
Some analysts have noted that House Republican leaders may face internal or external calls to delay the certification of Democratic candidates who won in narrow, disputed contests. Certification delays and unresolved electoral disputes carry the possibility of leaving House seats unfilled when the new Congress takes its oath on January 3, even as legal scholars view an outright refusal to seat certified winners as a path unlikely to hold up under scrutiny.
