On February 5, 2026, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt refused to guarantee that ICE agents won't be present at polling locations during the November 2026 midterm elections, stating, “I can't guarantee that an ICE agent won't be around a polling location in November. There are no formal plans.” This came after former Trump strategist Steve Bannon called for ICE to “surround the polls” in November, saying, “You're damn right we're going to have ICE surround the polls come November” on his War Room podcast.
The legal question is narrower than it is often described. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 592, makes it a felony for a federal officer to bring “any troops or armed men” to a place where an election is held, unless the force is needed “to repel armed enemies of the United States.”
On September 1, 2026, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said “ICE isn't there to patrol the polling places,” but added, “The only reason why we would be at polling places is if there is a threat to that polling place or we're serving a warrant on someone that we have been actively tracking down.” On September 10, Denver and a coalition of immigrant rights and voting groups sued to block armed federal officers from polling places, citing that law. The complaint cites news reports of agents in a San Antonio polling place parking lot on May 20, armed agents at an active polling place in Ventura County, California, on June 2, and agents entering a polling place in Syracuse. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston said, “Stationing ICE agents near polling places is only meant to scare people and suppress votes.”
The administration denies any plan. A DHS spokesperson said, “ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations.” Border czar Tom Homan said on September 13, “there is no plan for enforcement action at polling places. It's just another attempt to smear ICE and smear the president,” and claimed there has been “Not one instance of ICE operating at a sensitive location, [including] polling places” in two years, a claim the lawsuit's examples contradict. Trump has not personally called for ICE at the polls.
Update (September 19, 2026): there are now two federal suits, both in the District of Columbia and both before Judge Loren AliKhan.
LULAC v. Department of Homeland Security was filed September 10 by Democracy Forward, and pleads Administrative Procedure Act claims built on 18 U.S.C. § 592. NAACP v. Department of Homeland Security followed on September 18, brought by nine organizations, with a single claim under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
The older statute is the more striking one. Section 592 dates to an Act of February 25, 1865 and bars ordering troops or armed men to any place where an election is held. Congress repealed its exception for keeping the peace at the polls in 1909, leaving only the authority to repel armed enemies.
Neither docket had a ruling as of September 21.
Update (September 21, 2026): the NAACP case is No. 1:26-cv-03263 in the District of Columbia. Its nine defendants are the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Markwayne Mullin, ICE and its acting director David Venturella, the Justice Department and Attorney General Todd Blanche, the FBI and Director Kash Patel, and Tom Homan. Trump is not a defendant. The complaint builds its case from officials' own words, including Trump's answer when asked in May whether he would send the National Guard or DHS agents to voting locations: “I'd do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.” It quotes Homan on September 13: “Look, there is no sensitive location policy.” It also alleges that the Justice Department took its manual on prosecuting election offenses off its website between November 2025 and January 2026; that is an allegation in a complaint and has not been tested.
The administration denies there is any plan. A Justice Department spokesperson said, “The DOJ has never said it would send federal law enforcement to polling locations,” and, “Any suggestion otherwise is fearmongering.” A DHS spokesperson said, “ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations,” while adding that someone who posed an active public safety threat near a polling place could still be arrested. The precise state of things is that no deployment order has been documented, and officials have repeatedly declined to rule one out (see Patel Won't Commit to Keeping FBI Agents Away From the Polls: 'I Don't Know That We Can't Legally Do It'). No motion for emergency relief had been filed as of September 21.
Update (September 24, 2026): the Democratic Party committees sued. DSCC, DCCC, the Democratic Governors Association, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries filed against ICE, DHS, the FBI and their directors in federal court in Washington on the evening of September 23. Trump is not a defendant. The complaint pleads two counts, one under the Administrative Procedure Act premised on the criminal statute barring armed men at the polls, and one under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act. It is the third suit in that courthouse on these theories and was noticed as related to the LULAC case.
The complaint's own theory of the case is that there does not need to be a written order for the harm to exist. “In just the past few weeks, the leaders of two of the nation's largest law enforcement bodies … have provided statements confirming that their agencies stand willing and able to send agents into polling places,” it says, and “dispatching armed federal agents to the polls—or even threatening to do so—is forbidden by federal law. This is because voters need not actually be arrested, questioned, or even approached in order for such threats to intimidate them from exercising the franchise.” It adds that “because no voter can know in advance whether agents will be waiting at his or her polling place when they arrive to cast a ballot, the Polling Place Policy chills voting everywhere, not only where ICE and FBI agents actually appear.” The plaintiffs are also candid about their own interest: “Every Democratic-leaning voter intimidated into staying home is a vote lost to Democratic candidates.”
The evidentiary problem is unchanged and the complaint effectively concedes it. What it calls final agency action is assembled from officials' public statements and sworn testimony, not from any document: Mullin's remarks, and “FBI Director Patel's recent statements during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, refusing to state that FBI agents will not be present at polling locations.” The one piece of paper it points to is one nobody outside the government has read. The complaint says ICE has “improperly withheld at least one document—titled 'Checklist for Law Enforcement Voter Integrity 9.15.25 - FINAL DRAFT -- BSI suggestions.docx'—that was an attachment to an earlier produced email,” and that in response to a records request ICE “identified 11,103 potentially responsive records that would take it approximately 22 months to review and produce,” which would be well after the election.
No emergency motion has been filed and no judge had been assigned as of September 24. The administration has not responded to this suit specifically.
Update (October 8, 2026): The plaintiffs in LULAC v. DHS filed an amended complaint on October 7 adding Hennepin County, Minnesota, as a plaintiff, the Justice Department and FBI as defendants, and a Voting Rights Act Section 11(b) claim. It alleges that on October 5, the first day ballot drop boxes opened in California, ICE detained a person in a parking lot at Allan Hancock College in Santa Maria next to a lot that serves as a ballot drop-off location. DHS confirmed it took a man into custody but called claims that he was arrested on the college campus “FALSE”; the college stood by its account, the San Luis Obispo Tribune reported.
Update (October 29, 2026): In an October 28 court declaration, the Justice Department's acting voting-section chief, Eric Neff, said the department is not using sworn law enforcement personnel “to act as monitors in a 'law enforcement agent' capacity” and knows of only one Homeland Security employee, from Customs and Border Protection, taking part in its Election Day monitoring, Bloomberg Law reported (see DOJ Plans to Send 1,000 Election Monitors in November, 'the Biggest DOJ Election Observer Effort in History'). The filing concerns the department's monitors; as reported, it does not address Mullin's statement that ICE could be at a polling place to serve a warrant.