Trump’s Election Interference Efforts Face Legal and Political Backlash

Key points

• The SAVE Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, passed the House in February but stalled in the Senate; Trump allies are now attempting to pass it via budget reconciliation.
• The Justice Department sued Alaska to block certification of the US Senate race, citing confusion over a candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan, but legal experts call the case 'thin' and likely to fail.
• The administration delivered a list of 20,000 alleged noncitizens to California and 400 to Washington, demanding ballot sequestration, but federal judges blocked these moves, citing privacy concerns and inaccurate data.
• A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on October 31, blocking the DOJ and DHS from threatening election officials or coercing states to purge voters.
• Polls show only 55% of Democrats are confident in the final vote count, compared to 38% of Republicans, reflecting an 'atmosphere of fear' created by the administration's actions.

Background

In September 2026, civil rights groups sued to block federal agents at polling places, and in October, a coalition of Democratic leaders filed a federal lawsuit to halt federal election interference. The administration’s efforts follow a pattern of challenging unfavorable election results, notably the 2020 presidential race, and include gerrymandering efforts in Texas and other Southern states to gain House seats.

How outlets are covering it

France 24 and The Guardian emphasize the administration’s 'atmosphere of fear' and the legal failures of its interference efforts, noting that courts have blocked ballot sequestration and that the SAVE database is unreliable. The Atlantic highlights concerns that Trump may use claims of foreign interference as a pretext for seizing control, while Democracy Docket frames the administration’s actions as a 'full-frontal assault' on democracy, arguing that voters will ultimately prevail. All sources agree that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to override state election processes, but they differ in their assessment of the immediate risks, with The Guardian and The Atlantic expressing greater concern about post-election certification delays.

Why it matters

The outcome of the 2026 midterms could determine control of Congress, and the administration’s efforts to interfere with the vote raise concerns about the integrity of the democratic process. If the administration succeeds in delaying or blocking certification, it could create chaos when the new Congress is seated in January 2027, potentially affecting the balance of power in the Senate and House.

What to watch

The administration is expected to continue attempting to make mail-in voting more difficult and to add new restrictions, though experts doubt it will succeed. The Supreme Court is unlikely to reinstate the blocked executive order on mail-in voting ahead of the midterms. Post-election, there may be attempts to delay or block certification of results, particularly in close races like the Alaska Senate race, but legal experts are confident that courts will quickly resolve such disputes.