President Donald Trump’s Justice Department has shown an unprecedented willingness to intervene directly in midterm election disputes, breaking with decades of practice designed to prevent federal law enforcement powers from being used to benefit political parties or candidates.
In California, the Justice Department sought to set aside mail-in ballots from approximately 20,000 voters it alleges are likely non-U.S. citizens ineligible to cast ballots. The department has also demanded records as part of a related criminal probe. State officials countered that California has already implemented measures to prevent noncitizen voting and argued that the federal government lacks the legal authority to block votes.
In Alaska, the department intensified a criminal investigation into whether a Senate candidate sharing the same name as Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan entered the contest specifically to confuse voters. The DOJ also asked a federal judge to block vote certification if Senator Sullivan narrowly loses his reelection bid. However, U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason in Anchorage dismissed that lawsuit on Sunday, ruling that the state could not conduct such an inquiry while safeguarding ballot secrecy. The Justice Department has appealed the dismissal.
Although federal courts have rejected the administration’s lawsuits in both states, the legal challenges highlight a significant strategy shift. The DOJ is actively intervening in election disputes before ballots are even counted and results are certified, a departure from its historical posture.
Critics warn that the department’s actions could accelerate attempts by Trump to cast doubt on the midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress and the outcomes of numerous gubernatorial races. Mark Blumberg, who formerly led the DOJ’s election response to civil rights threats and now directs the Rule of Law Project, said the administration appears to want the department to have an impact previously considered off-limits.
U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche maintained that the department’s actions are lawful and intended to protect voting integrity. Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels emphasized that the agency is merely enforcing the law rather than aiding any political campaign.
The U.S. Constitution delegates the administration of elections to state governments. However, Trump contends that Democratic-led states are failing to adequately prevent noncitizen voting, which is prohibited under federal law. He continues to assert that widespread fraud caused his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, despite independent studies, state audits, and numerous unsuccessful lawsuits filed by allied outside groups showing that voter fraud is exceptionally rare.
During Trump’s first term, DOJ officials resisted pressure to enlist the agency in those post-election challenges. Lis Frost, a voting rights lawyer with the Elias Law Group, noted that outside conservative groups do not need to shoulder that burden this year because the Justice Department is prepared to act on their behalf.
Historically, federal election interventions focused primarily on enforcing laws to protect racial minorities and vulnerable populations from voting impediments. In Alaska, the controversy intensified after media reports revealed that the campaign of Democrat Mary Peltola was involved in recruiting retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan to challenge the Republican incumbent. Trump stated that he personally directed the department to file the Alaska suit. Daniel J. Sullivan has denied attempting to mislead voters, and Peltola’s campaign stated it had no involvement with either Sullivan campaign.
Legal experts argue that the department’s moves risk compromising public trust in its impartiality. Peter Keisler, who served as acting attorney general under Republican President George Bush, observed that the agency’s actions carry the evident reality of taking partisan sides.
Behind the scenes, the internal structure governing election probes has undergone significant alterations. The Trump administration has reduced the staff of the Public Integrity Section—traditionally staffed by career election law experts who advised prosecutors to await certification before intervening—and suspended a requirement that federal prosecutors consult the unit on election-corruption probes.
Agents and prosecutors have instead been instructed that unresolved matters will be decided by political appointees. According to individuals familiar with the process, the Deputy Attorney General’s Office will directly mediate disputes between prosecutors and investigators, a hands-on role former officials said the office has rarely played in election investigations. Pels defended the arrangement, stating that resolving field disputes is precisely the function of that office.
