Election 2026

The Justice Department has sued 30 states and D.C. for full voter files. Courts have dismissed 26 of those suits, and 16 states handed over their files (Brennan Center tracker). On Oct. 9 a federal judge vacated the department’s nationwide policy of collecting voter rolls, checking them against SAVE and pressing states to remove flagged voters, finding it exceeded the department’s authority (Reuters). An appeal is likely. The Supreme Court let DHS's overhauled citizenship-check database (SAVE) back into use. Federal prosecutors have also used grand jury subpoenas to obtain voter records from county offices, including at least five each in San Diego and Los Angeles counties. San Diego says it has not been told what is being investigated (inewsource). Internal records released in October show Homeland Security Investigations, part of ICE, ingested roughly 99 million voter-related records and weighed using undercover agents against voter-registration groups; several of its reviews found no wrongdoing (CNN). Armed Homeland Security Investigations agents have gone door to door in several states asking residents about citizenship and voting history; the Justice Department announced the arrests of more than 20 green-card holders in California, and Protect Democracy is suing over the campaign (CBS News). On Oct. 21 a federal judge ruled the practice likely violates the Voting Rights Act’s ban on intimidating people who help others vote. She ordered immigration authorities to halt elections-related field operations and interviews in nine states, including California and New York, where they are likely to involve people officials know or should suspect are citizens, until polls close on Election Day. The order is on hold until 5 p.m. Friday so the government can appeal (CBS News). On Oct. 20 Democratic groups led by the DCCC sued Trump, DOJ and DHS, arguing that threats of prosecution against election officials and demands to deny ballots based on federal lists violate the same section of the Voting Rights Act; the suit notes that 185 Nevada voters DHS said it had confirmed as noncitizens were all citizens, according to state records (Axios). On October 13 the department gave California 48 hours to review a list of people it “believes are likely noncitizens” who were sent mail ballots in Los Angeles County. It asked the state to withhold their ballots, set aside any that come back and not count those already returned “until citizenship has been determined,” or face a request for emergency relief in court (Reuters). On October 15, after the deadline passed, the department sued California and Los Angeles County's top election official, asking a federal court to bar them from counting mail ballots from “likely noncitizens” until citizenship is determined. It says federal immigration data flag more than 20,000 registrants but did not detail its method; Los Angeles County declined to open the encrypted drive over security concerns (Justice Department; Politico). Federal law bars systematic purges in the 90 days before an election. On October 16 the acting deputy attorney general warned Los Angeles County that officials who knowingly tabulate ballots from people federal agencies identify as noncitizens “risk becoming aiders and abettors to a federal crime.” Trump posted: “They will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!” (NBC News). On Oct. 19 the department charged 28 green-card holders in California, all from its list; several do not appear to have voted. It also asked a federal court to stop the state from processing ballots from people it calls “likely noncitizens” (NPR; NYT).

Would move up: mass removals or challenges of eligible voters close to Election Day.

The New York Times reports that U.S. intelligence assessed the Kremlin authorized a new influence campaign for the midterms, and that Iran and China are running AI-driven campaigns. On Oct. 21, Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrats on the intelligence committees, said a classified intelligence report shows Russia running a covert online campaign, using AI, against candidates of both parties who support Ukraine, with no sign of attempts to hack election systems (Politico; Reuters); the Republican House committee chair’s office called the disclosure “cherry-picked” (Politico). The analysis firm Graphika found that Storm-1516, a Russia-linked operation, posted deepfake videos on X falsely accusing Texas Senate candidate James Talarico of sexual assault (Politico). These are operations to shape opinion. None has been shown to change a vote. Independent researchers find that much of this content gets little real reach. On Oct. 14, X said it had suspended more than 13,000 accounts in three suspected foreign influence operations linked to Iran, Russia and China that targeted US political conversation (X). On Oct. 16 the Times reported that Russia’s Doppelgänger operation has used more than 50 fake personas on X, many posing as Israeli women, plus a network of over 1,000 accounts, to push about 150,000 posts since Oct. 7 claiming bipartisan support for Israel is collapsing; the threat-intelligence firm Alethea found the posts drew little engagement. Graphika tied September videos, apparently AI-made, that made baseless claims against Democrats in close Senate races to the Kremlin-linked operation known as Matryoshka, and says new campaigns targeted Sens. Cory Booker and John Hickenlooper with fabricated corruption reports (New York Times). The two men steering the main pro-Trump super PAC, James Blair and Chris LaCivita, were each paid “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to advise Milorad Dodik’s party, hired through a law firm retained by the government of Republika Srpska; Dodik met Vladimir Putin in a cordial meeting five days before Bosnia’s Oct. 4 election (Al Jazeera). President Trump said he would fire them if there was a conflict of interest, then said there was none because they are outside consultants (Al Jazeera). AI search answers are adding confusion: until a few weeks ago, Google’s AI answer on how to donate to Senate candidate James Talarico featured a link controlled by an unrelated PAC; its page carried Talarico’s name and photo but sent the money to Sen. John Hickenlooper’s campaign (The Atlantic).

Would move up: a verified intrusion into voter registration or results systems, or foreign state media and influence networks amplifying a claim that a US result is illegitimate.

Five weeks before the election, the White House began airing TV ads featuring the president and labelled “Paid for by the US Government.” One, shown during NFL broadcasts on Sept. 27, plays his “this is the final battle” speech and reuses footage from a 2024 campaign video (CNN). The White House calls them public service announcements. More than $10 million in public money had been spent by Oct. 6. After criticism from both parties, the president said his super PAC would pay for future ads, but the White House said it won't repay what was already spent, and a new government-funded ad began airing that day (New York Times). The Democratic National Committee sued on Oct. 7 to stop the spending, alleging that government-funded ads kept airing after the president's pledge (Politico). On Oct. 11 a federal judge in New York, ruling in a suit led by the watchdog group Common Cause, ordered the administration to cancel the rest of the $20 million ad buy and barred new taxpayer-funded ads for 14 days. The Justice Department had said the campaign would end that day anyway (court order; Politico). Critics say the ads may break the federal ban on spending public money on “publicity or propaganda.” Like other advertising, these ads aim at persuasion, not at how ballots are cast or counted. The FBI’s rapid-response account posted, then deleted, a video naming Democrats including Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed as part of the “defund the police crowd”; the watchdog CREW filed a Hatch Act complaint (The Hill).

Would move up: government-funded ads resume despite the court order, a federal watchdog (GAO or the Office of Special Counsel) finds the ads unlawful, or the ads start urging a vote for or against candidates.

The documented claim about Elon Musk is money. As of Oct. 6 his America PAC had spent $26.7 million on 2026 races, $21 million of it in seven close Senate contests, mostly on ads, mail and texts attacking Democrats (WIRED, which tracks the PAC's federal filings daily). Musk's own giving is far larger: his representatives told The New York Times he has given more than $276 million since July, including $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund and over $76 million to America PAC's canvassing program; filings due Oct. 15 should confirm the figures (NYT). Election officials in Colorado and Washington have also warned voters about misleading America PAC messages, including Colorado texts saying "Your ballot request is in," though every active voter there gets a mail ballot automatically (CNN). That spending is legal and public, and it aims at persuasion, not the count. It is also a small share of a cycle the ad tracker AdImpact expects to set a record of $11.6 billion in ad spending (AdImpact). Ads rarely change minds in general elections: a review of 49 field experiments put the average persuasive effect of campaign contact and advertising at about zero (American Political Science Review). In April 2025, Musk and groups he funds spent more than $20 million on Wisconsin's Supreme Court race, and his candidate lost by 10 points (PBS Wisconsin). Money can still matter at the margins of very close races, through turnout work and by setting the message. Musk’s platform is also a weak check on falsehoods: the watchdog NewsGuard found that X’s Community Notes failed to flag 93.1% of false midterm claims it identified, including at least four advanced by Musk himself (AFP). One gap: the Federal Election Commission has lacked a quorum since May 2025 and cannot open investigations or issue fines (CBS News).

Would move up: cash or prizes offered to voters or petition signers, as Musk's PAC did in 2024 and in Wisconsin in 2025.

On Oct. 12, Homeland Security Investigations agents searched the Washington home of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who is on the Nov. 3 ballot, under a judicially authorized warrant. The Justice Department called it “part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation” and gave no details; no charges have been announced (AP). On Oct. 14 The Wall Street Journal reported, citing U.S. officials and others familiar with the probe, that the investigation is aimed at building a case to strip Omar of her citizenship and ultimately deport her, focusing in part on how she obtained citizenship and on her late father (WSJ). No charges or denaturalization case have been filed. Vice President Vance said in May that Omar “definitely committed immigration fraud,” offering no evidence; she calls the allegations lies (AP). Omar called the search “an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement” (Fox News). Justice Department rules bar choosing the timing of any investigative step “for the purpose of affecting any election” and require consultation with its Public Integrity Section when an action could raise that concern (Justice Manual). Senior Justice Department leadership, including Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter, was consulted and approved the search, NPR reported, citing people familiar with it; it is not known whether the Public Integrity Section was consulted (NPR). The search came 22 days before Election Day. The department has long informally avoided overt steps against candidates in roughly the last 60 days before an election, and former U.S. Attorneys B. Todd Jones and Joyce Vance raised concerns about the timing (Star Tribune). The search fits a wider pattern: Reuters has counted at least 470 people and institutions targeted for retribution in Trump's second term (Reuters). A search does not change how votes are cast or counted. The risk is pressure on candidates and campaigns in the final weeks.

Would move up: searches, charges or arrests of other opposition candidates or campaign staff before Nov. 3, or action against election officials.