With the 2026 U.S. midterm elections approaching, state and local election officials across the country are preparing for scenarios that would have once seemed highly unlikely, including federal intervention at polling places, demands for voting equipment and records, legal challenges and threats of violence.
The preparations reflect a growing conflict over who controls U.S. elections. Under the Constitution, elections are primarily administered by states and local governments, but President Donald Trump has sought to expand the federal government’s role in voting and has openly linked several of his election initiatives to Republican electoral interests.
Officials from both parties are now preparing for possible federal investigations, disputes over voting procedures and attempts to obtain sensitive election information. Some are hiring outside lawyers, while others are conducting training on subpoenas and search warrants.
At the same time, election offices are strengthening physical security and preparing responses to misinformation and cyber threats. The scale of these preparations highlights how concerns about political interference have become intertwined with longstanding fears over foreign influence, election fraud claims and violence against election workers.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Why it matters
The stakes extend beyond individual polling places. Republicans currently control the White House and Congress, meaning a Democratic victory in either chamber could significantly constrain Trump’s ability to advance his political agenda.
That makes election administration itself an increasingly consequential battleground.
Trump and his allies have repeatedly promoted claims about voter fraud and questioned the reliability of mail-in voting and voting machines despite limited evidence of widespread fraud. His administration has also pursued access to state voter information and taken steps to increase federal involvement in election administration.
For election officials, the concern is not necessarily that every threatened action will ultimately take place. Courts have already blocked some administration efforts, while federal law limits the use of armed federal personnel at polling locations.
The concern is that even unsuccessful federal interventions can create disruption. Legal challenges consume time and resources, while disputes over ballots, voting equipment or election procedures can undermine public confidence before voters even cast their ballots.
A new legal front
Election officials are increasingly treating lawyers as part of their election security infrastructure.
In Wisconsin, officials have prepared legal responses to potential attempts to seize election equipment or records. In Michigan, state officials have advised local election administrators on how to respond if federal authorities request access to voting systems.
The experience of Georgia’s Fulton County has reinforced those concerns. Federal agents seized hundreds of boxes of 2020 election records as part of a voter fraud investigation, prompting local officials to hire outside counsel and challenge the seizure in court.
Similar federal scrutiny of election workers in Wisconsin has encouraged local governments to secure legal representation.
The result is a new layer of institutional preparation. Election offices that previously concentrated on ballots, polling places and cybersecurity are now also preparing for federal investigations and courtroom battles.
Security becomes part of election administration
The political dispute is also changing the physical environment in which elections are conducted.
Election offices across the country are installing bulletproof glass, panic buttons, surveillance systems and reinforced doors. Some jurisdictions are providing security escorts for employees and emergency communication devices for poll workers.
These measures are partly a response to threats that followed Trump’s refusal to accept his 2020 defeat and the subsequent spread of false claims about election fraud.
The security concerns are not confined to Democratic jurisdictions. Republican areas are also protecting poll workers, reflecting a broader recognition that election officials have become targets of political anger regardless of party affiliation.
This represents a significant shift in the relationship between election officials and the public. Officials who once viewed their work as largely administrative are increasingly operating in an environment where routine decisions can generate political confrontation and personal threats.
The misinformation challenge
The battle may be even harder online.
Election officials are preparing for AI-generated videos, fabricated news reports and false messages about polling locations or voting machines. Such content could spread rapidly through social media before authorities have an opportunity to establish the facts.
That creates a fundamental problem: election officials can explain how voting works, but they cannot necessarily control what voters see online.
The experience of Mesa County, Colorado, illustrates the challenge. After years of controversy surrounding election equipment and fraud allegations, the county’s Republican clerk sought to rebuild confidence by allowing greater public observation of the voting process and using technology to make ballot information more accessible.
Such initiatives demonstrate that restoring trust may require greater transparency rather than simply stronger rebuttals of misinformation.
A weakening federal security shield
Another concern is that while federal involvement in election administration appears to be increasing, federal support for election cybersecurity has weakened.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency had become an important partner for state and local officials, particularly in identifying foreign influence campaigns, cyber threats and election related disinformation.
Cuts to the agency under the Trump administration have left some officials worried about losing expertise they cannot easily reproduce at the local level.
That creates an unusual contradiction. States are being asked to defend themselves against increasingly sophisticated threats while receiving less federal support for doing so.
Foreign governments such as Russia, China and Iran remain potential sources of cyber and influence operations, but local officials now say they also have to prepare for politically driven threats originating inside the United States.
Implications and analysis
The most important consequence may be the normalization of election administration as a political battlefield.
The United States has traditionally relied on a decentralized election system in which thousands of state and local officials administer voting with considerable independence from the federal government. Trump’s efforts to expand federal authority challenge that established arrangement.
Even when courts prevent the administration from implementing particular measures, repeated federal challenges can place significant pressure on local institutions. Election officials must spend money on lawyers, security and communications rather than concentrating exclusively on administering elections.
There is also a broader institutional risk. If voters increasingly perceive election officials as political actors, every disputed result could become an opportunity for competing political forces to challenge the legitimacy of the process.
That could make the 2026 midterms about more than which party wins Congress. They could become a test of whether the decentralized American election system can withstand sustained political pressure from the federal government while maintaining public confidence in the results.
The preparations now underway suggest that state and local officials are no longer treating political interference as a hypothetical threat. They are building their election systems around the possibility that the greatest challenge to the voting process may come from within the country’s own political institutions.
With information from Reuters.
