> > > >

Immigration Policy and Election Interference: Converging Threats to the 2026 Midterm Elections

Mel Wilson, LCSW, MBA
Senior Policy Advisor

By now the world is well aware that, on January 24th, 37 year old Minneapolis resident and immigration rights activist Alex Pretti lost his life—from multiple gunshots—in an encounter with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers. Based on current verifiable reports, Mr. Pretti’s death appears to have no justification for what many are labeling as a being tantamount to murder.

At the very least, Mr. Pretti was the victim of lack of training and ignorance of law enforcement lethal use of force polices on the part of ICE. More likely, his death reflects a disregard for civil and human rights by some ICE agents. Regrettably, the assault on Mr. Pretti came only three weeks after the quite similar ICE-related shooting resulting in the death of Minneapolis resident, Renee Good. As an aside, it must be stated from the outset that, given what we know at this time about both cases, the country should be outraged about their deaths. Moreover, the outrage is not only justified—it is absolutely necessary.

The slayings of Mr. Pretti and Ms. Good must not be seen in isolation. More to the point, their passing must not be viewed apart from the complex and problematic circumstances that surround that troubling event. They can be directly tied to the primarily punitive policy of mass deportation. The policy quickly evolved into what is now a national crisis stemming from authoritarian operational procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The central command for operational and implementation aspects of mass deportation is the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Under the leadership of DHS’s Secretary, Kristi Noem, ICE’s mandate is to apprehend a minimum of 3,000 people per day.

With such an excessive and likely unreachable arrest and deportation goal, coupled with the high political stakes of mass deportation at the White House, it is no surprise that Trump’s immigration guru, Stephen Miller, was given oversight responsibilities for mass deportation, The White House-level oversight includes Miller’s micro-managing day-to-day ICE arrests and deportation outcomes. This gives Miller a great deal of influence in egging on ICE agents to assume aggressive—and according to immigration advocates—extra-legal arrest tactics in Minneapolis.

More troubling, Miller is credited by pundits with instilling in ICE agents that they have “absolute immunity” as evidenced by his speech to ICE agents when he said, “You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. It is probable that this point of view directly contributed ICE’s aggressive enforcement tactics in Minneapolis and that—by definition—Miller therefore has a degree of culpability in ICE’s unjustified lethal use of force and ultimately the death of Alex Pretti.

For context, it is useful to recall that Minnesota came into the crosshairs of the Trump administration more for political reasons than mass deportation activities. Population data show that—relatively speaking—dozens of other U.S. metro areas have a higher concentration of immigrants in the U.S. illegally compared with the Minneapolis metro area. The reality is that Minnesota is the home of an estimated 90-130 thousand unauthorized immigrants. For example, this number compares with an estimated 2.1 million undocumented in the state of Texas. Obviously, Texas is by far the more “target rich” state for ICE to meet its daily apprehension quota of 3,000 migrants. Yet the administration laser focused on deploying a massive force of ICE agents to the metropolitan Minneapolis area.

When the immigration rights community asked for justification for the planned large-scale deployment, the pretext that DHS used for sending what turned out to be 3,000 ICE/CBP agents (in what was called ‘Operation Metro Surge’) to Minneapolis was its claim—without proof—that day care centers operated by Somali residents in Minneapolis had misappropriated more than $100 million. To many, this DHS “justification” was a contrived excuse for both targeting Somali immigrants and embarrassing a “blue state” governor (Tim Walz). This suspicion of the intent of Operation Metro Surge is reinforced by the fact that the deployment happened soon after a right-wing influencer posted a video claim which targeted Somali daycare owners. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and DHS used this video as a pretext for federal law enforcement intervention.

In response to Trump’s directive, in December 2025 DHS sent 2000 federal agents and officers to Minneapolis (and another 1,000 assigned to St. Paul and surrounding areas). With that act, ICE along with President Trump effectively created a federal law-enforcement presence that was 5 times larger than the Minneapolis police force. Moreover, this contingent of ICE/CBP personnel essentially operated as a policing authority that neither had consent from or collaborative with the Minnesota governor or the mayor of Minneapolis—setting the stage for eventual tragedies such as the deaths of Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti.

This force, with masked agents dressed in para-military uniforms in Minneapolis was—as is typical of DHS incursions—designed to be intimidating and emotionally (and physically) heavy-handed. It has been speculated that ICE and CPB agents have a pattern of being intentionally provocative towards both the targets of their arrests and with protestors—leading to further suggestions that the provocations were politically motivated. In any event, the massive ICE deployments and their aggressive policing tactics—that ignore due process and civil rights—increased public sentiments that the administration’s approach to mass deportation was deeply concerning.

The concerns reflect a widening public perception of and concern for the spread of Trumpism as a governing paradigm. This is characterized by administration’s DHS taking on a pseudo-militaristic face in its interaction with citizens, using inflammatory anti-democratic rhetoric in articulating its mass deportation policies, and most challenging, the pattern of self-serving misrepresentations and outright lies that relate to abuses in implementing mass deportation arrest and deportation policies.

Politically Driven Statements and Positions by Trump Administration Leaders

With Mr. Pretti and Ms. Good in our thoughts, it is important to look closely at the series of statements by senior members of Trump’s administration in the aftermath of the shooting. Taken collectively, the statements revealed the degree to which the administration’s mass deportation and its electoral politics are symbiotic. For example, following the public announcement of Mr. Pretti’s homicide, DHS’s director Kristi Noem, Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, Vice President Vance and President Trump all issued separate, coordinated statements disparaging Mr. Pretti as being a “domestic terrorist,” falsely accused him of “brandishing” a gun with the intent of massacring federal agents, and accusing the Minnesota governor and the Minneapolis mayor of being antagonistic toward the administration’s mass deportation objectives, all of which had the political intent of placating Trump’s MAGA base.

These official statements are intended to create a narrative—which is inaccurate and filled with thinly veiled falsehoods—that are designed to convince the American public that our cities are out of control, thereby justifying federal intervention by federal law enforcement such as ICE.

But it was the letter that Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote to the Minnesota Governor (Tim Walz) that raised eyebrows—mostly because of the overtly political content and tone of the letter. Even a casual reading reveals that the letter was very much directed at the 2026 midterm election. Unlike the other administration leaders’ comments on the Pretti homicide, AG Bond’s letter barely referenced immigration or the killing of Mr. Pretti.

For additional context, Bondi sent her letter in response to Governor Tim Waltz’s demand that Trump immediately end ICE’s Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota. According to reports, AG Bondi contemptuously wrote to the governor that President Trump would withdraw ICE agents from Minnesota if Governor Waltz agreed to:

Hand over all of the state’s sensitive voter information
Give the White House confidential information on the state’s SNAP transactions and funding data; and
Repeal state immigrant-related sanctuary policies

What is more, it seems very unlikely that her departure from the administration’s “party line” was happenstance or coincidental. Some critics argue that Bondi’s letter reflects broader Trump administration priorities, though no evidence has emerged showing that the President personally approved or was aware of the letter. However, that is somewhat of a moot point. It is a near certainty that Bondi felt she had a “green light” from the White House to the degree that within a few minutes of sending the letter to Governor Walz, she “leaked” to the press, and shortly thereafter, the contents of the letter was “breaking news.”

Operationalizing Politics and Mass Deportation for Election Interference Purposes

Bondi’s maneuver actually aligns with the Trumpism value of presenting the administration as being the single authority for preserving order and protecting election integrity. Thus, even though Bondi’s politically driven “proposal” to Gov. Walz’s was seemingly far afield from the issue of mass deportation, it in fact represents an extension of Trumpism’s philosophy of expanding executive powers—particularly powers associated with elections.

Election Interference

Immigration enforcement is sowing chaos in Minneapolis and across the country. Democrats, elections officials, and civil rights groups fear it could interfere with this November’s elections—and are scrambling for a response.- Politico

Intentionally or existentially, AG Bondi’s letter to Governor Walz was the administration’s first salvo in its attack in interfering with the midterm election. Her demand for Minnesota’s voting roll information stems from Trump’s executive order of March 2025 requiring all states to give the White House and Department of Justice access to sensitive states’ voting data. The governor had refused to comply with the order. Ultimately, DOJ sued Minnesota and 19 other states to force them to comply.

The lawsuits suggest that the Trump administration does not intend to wait for the courts to ensure the administration has access to this critically important data, it is prepared to use extra-judicial means to acquire it. Gaining entre to comprehensive voter registration data from all the states is a “gold mine” for anyone seeking to interfere in midterm and presidential elections.

FBI Raid of Fulton County Georgia Election Office

Closely aligned to Trump’s motivation for interfering in the electoral processes of the states is the recent FBI raid on the Fulton County Georgia Election Hub and Operations Center. The raid on the county’s election office is framed by critics as a direct act of election interference by misrepresenting—to the court—its justification for the raid. According to the affidavit, the FBI investigation was based on “deficiencies or defects” in the state’s 2020 presidential vote count. The Democrats strongly challenged that justification stating that the FBI relied heavily on long-debunked conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election. Democrats also argue that Republican leaders and independent election experts agree that justification was flawed. Please note that during the raid, the FBI seized nearly 700 boxes of 2020 ballots and election materials under a federal warrant.

Many election-protection advocates viewed the DOJ affidavit as being politically motivated—by and large a pretextual justification for federal intrusion into local election administration. Additionally—as far as advocates are concerned—the Georgia elections headquarters raid reinforced their apprehension that Trump is fully committed to aggressively pursuing a nationwide election interference strategy.

Some legal scholars and voting-rights advocates take a position that aggressive federal interventions—such as those seen in the FBI Fulton County raid, can serve as a warning to other states—especially in swing states. It is probable that Trump administration is hoping to evoke a chilling effect on local election officials. Such actions orchestrated by the White House (and aimed at state election officials) increase fears of retaliation or lawsuits—potentially influencing state election officials to modify administration of future elections in a way that they comport with Trump’s demands.

Civil Rights Organization Sue to Protect Georgia Voting Rolls

Out of the same concerns discussed above, civil and voting rights organizations—led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law—have filed suit in federal court to protect voter information that was seized by the FBI in a controversial raid in Georgia at the behest of Donald Trump in his renewed push to invalidate the 2020 election. In their statement, the organizations state:

“The FBI’s seizure swept up sensitive voter data, such as personal information and records that show how individuals voted, with no apparent restrictions on how the government may use that information. The civil rights organizations seek to protect the private voter data seized by the FBI and prohibit its use for any purposes other than the government’s criminal investigation, such as using the records in efforts to purge voters based on unreliable data or insufficient grounds, improperly disclosing information, doxing and intimidating voters, or otherwise furthering the administration’s attacks on the democratic process.”

The FBI raid in Fulton County was indisputably planned with White House involvement. In fact, President Trump assigned his Director of National Intelligence to oversee the raid. Moreover, during the raid, the director arranged a phone call from President Trump to speak directly to FBI agents ostensibly to congratulate them for carrying out a successful mission. The White House’s close involvement in the Fulton County gave hint to Trumps plan to insert himself in state electoral process.

President Trump Seeks Nationalization of State Elections

Very recently President Trump made significant and truly frightening 2026 midterm and future election news which is illustrated by the following headlines:

“President Donald Trump has called on Republicans to ‘nationalize’ voting in at least 15 unspecified areas, repeating false claims of widespread election fraud. His remarks came during former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino’s first podcast since leaving the agency, days after an FBI raid on a Georgia election office intensified tensions over election oversight. Legal experts and voting rights advocates say such a move would face immediate constitutional challenges, as states hold primary authority over elections.”

Many voting rights groups, federal politicians and state official have collectively condemned Trump’s call to federalize state run elections. They view the move as a transparent attempt to influence and potentially control the outcome of the 2026 midterms. By singling out 15 predominantly Democratic-leaning states for federal takeover, Trump is advancing a strategy aimed at overriding state authority—and reshaping electoral rules to his and the Republican Party’s advantage. Analysts note that the Constitution entrusts election administration to the states, and they warn that Trump’s proposal—rooted in repeatedly debunked claims of fraud—represents an alarming effort to centralize power and undermine democratic norms.

Governors and state election administrators have condemned the proposal as an authoritarian overreach, arguing that federalizing elections would undermine local control, destabilize established processes, and encourage partisan manipulation. Several analysts have noted that Trump’s focus on majority-Democratic cities such as Atlanta, Detroit, and Philadelphia suggests a selective and politically motivated approach rather than a neutral concern for election integrity.

In the past, pundits, politicians, and other political analysts would have dismissed such a declaration as a typical Trump hyperbolic headline grabber. But at a time of unbridled Trumpism, Americans no longer have the luxury of tuning out Trump’s threats to free and fair elections. Additionally, we must be careful about buying into the notion that the Trump administration has prioritized election cancellation as its objective. The fact is that their main objective is authoritarian-like election subversion, not cancellation. The goal is to keep elections going but without unseating those in power. We must see his public statements as being about what they are—the epitome of Trumpism and danger for democracy epitome of Trumpism. We also should be reminded that the midterm elections are only ten months away. Time for ending those threats is running out.

Election Federalization a Constitutionally Question

Rights groups have sued to protect voter information that was seized by the FBI in a controversial raid in Georgia at the behest of Donald Trump in his renewed push to invalidate the 2020 election. It is essential to mention that Trump’s push to nationalize state elections—no matter how earnest he may be about doing so—faces major Constitutional challenges. The Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4) and the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution give state governments the authority to administer elections. This includes how and when ballots are cast for both federal and state offices. The Constitution does not delegate that authority to the federal government. That said, we have to assume that, even with the unambiguous language in the Constitution, Trump will probably go forward with the effort to essentially federalize all elections, including state elections.

Eliminating Mail-In Voting

Coupled with floating the possibility of a federal takeover of all state election processes, Trump has recently made public his desire to eventually eliminate vote-by-mail-in (Trump Vows To Ban Mail-In Ballots, Voting Machines In 2026). Voting rights advocates have long expected him to attempt something like this, perhaps by arguing that vote-by-mail is a threat to national security.” Once again, a federal court has blocked enforcement of a pre-existing Trump executive order that had sought to greatly limit states’ mail-in ballot policies deadlines—the federal court ruled that the federal government lacks authority to override state election procedures. If Trump is able to federalize state voting operations, it is assured that he will eliminate vote-by-mail nationwide.

ICE/CBP and Active Military in Voting Disruption and Intimidation

Overall, it has become evident that the intersection between the Minnesota mass deportation/ICE tragic shootings, and upcoming 2026 -2028 electoral politics has high significance. This is because—while each has its separate genesis as key Trump priorities—together they could greatlybinfluence the survival of Trumpism after the midterm elections. This is why it appears that the administration has for some time been aware of that significance—and planned accordingly.

It is suggested that the calculus behind the decision to infuse a massive ICE presence was an attempt to create an atmosphere that has a high likelihood for confrontations between ICE and protesters. The conjecture is that this could trigger a pretext for Trump to justify invoking the Insurrection Act—which helps to explain why Trump and other officials constantly refer to the protestors as “domestic terrorists.”

Assuming their calculations are correct, an “opportunity” will likely arise where national guard or even active duty military troops could be placed under the White House’s control with martial law-like authority. Such an action will suspend all due process, civil rights, and a number of other Constitutional protections in the states covered by the Insurrection Act. This is precisely the point where ICE mass deportation—coupled with Insurrection Act military troops—become tools for massive election interference targeting the 2026 midterm elections.

Hypothetically, under the Insurrection Act it is quite plausible that the Trump administration—using the pretext that the 15 states he currently accuses are perpetrating rampant voting fraud—could take steps to send troops to polling place or confiscate ballots “to ensure fair elections.” Similarly it is not out of question that the administration will use deployed ICE agents to conduct mass deportation raids in polling place in swing states with high immigrant populations. Both scenarios would undoubtedly produce voter intimidation and mass voter suppression—especially within Brown and Black communities. This will significantly increase Trump and the Republican Congress’s chance of retaining power.

At the very least, deploying ICE and/or l military person at or near voting places will feed into the Trumpism device of creating as much chaos as possible leading up to and during the voting process in 2026. Chaos creates disruption, and disrupting voting is the same as voting interference.

The SAVE Act

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE America Act)is another arrow in the quiver of the far-right and the Trump administration. By and large, this is a voting suppression bill which includes among other things a proof of citizenship requirement. This particular requirement is the cause of deep worry for the voting rights community because, according to the Brennen Center for Justice over 21 million eligible U.S. citizens lack ready access to the documentary proof required under the SAVE Act. The provision also disproportionately burden voters of color, naturalized citizens, and low-income communities. Although the bill is framed as a measure to prevent non-citizen from voting—an extremely rare occurrence according to election administrators, its requirement for specific forms of citizenship documentation effectively operates as a contemporary poll tax. Main mandated requirements in the act include:

in-person documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a passport or birth certificate—would disenfranchise millions of eligible voters who do not have immediate access to these documents.
Effectively eliminating online registration, mail-in registration, and community registration drives, which are heavily used by young voters, low-income voters, and voters of color.
The requirement for government-issued ID at the point of voting
That would disproportionately burden Americans who lack government-issued identification—again disproportionately affecting Black, Latino, elderly, and low-income voters.
Provisions that would trigger mass voter roll purges- the bill’s mandate to remove non-citizens from voter rolls would lead to “massive purges” that would inevitably sweep up lawful voters, especially those who lack ready access to citizenship documents or whose records contain clerical inconsistencies. There are those that argue that these voter purges mirror historical tactics used to suppress minority voting.
The proposal would also require states to continually verify voters’ citizenship status.

It is significant to observe that the House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries and other democrats argue the legislation would amount to voter suppression. Moreover, they insist that the SAVE act disproportionately affects voters who may not have easy access to required documents.

Most Recent Update on the SAVE America Act

An indicator of President Trump’s deep concern about losing the midterm elections is his apparent view that passage of SAVE America Act is a near absolute necessity. Senate Majority Leader (John Thune (R-SD) informed Trump that the bill can only be passed if the Senate changes the current filibuster rule—such a change is very unlikely. However, the president is not deterred and has renewed an all-out effort to muster enough Senate Republican votes to override a Democratic filibuster.

Related Court Actions

It is important and relevant to mention a pending Supreme Court decision that potentially could influence the outcome of the 2026 midterms. Louisiana v. Callais involves a Supreme Court case that could significantly affect—or even threaten—Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that dilute the voting power of racial minorities.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais has a potential to significantly influence the 2026 midterms because, as a redistricting decision, it would (1) Potentially alter congressional maps across the South (2) Change the degree to which racial gerrymandering can be a factor in congressional map challenges, and (3) Directly affect which political gains (or retains) leadership power in the U.S. House.

Thus, the Louisiana v. Callais decision stands as one of the most consequential redistricting cases since Shelby County v. Holder, and its ripple effects will likely be felt nationwide.

Interfering with Midterm Elections: Consequences for Vulnerable Populations

President Trump has openly embraced the federalization of election administration and measures such as the SAVE Act, alongside election-security rhetoric and practices widely criticized as forms of voter intimidation and interference. Civil rights experts warn that these strategies do not operate neutrally: they fall most heavily on communities of color, where voters are more likely to face aggressive challenges to eligibility, intensified law-enforcement presence at polling places, and restrictive documentation demands.

Along those lines, Trump is determined, with help from allies from the far-right, to use almost any means necessary to retain political power. In so doing, he is expected to revive and reinforce historic structural barriers to voting such as voting suppression, racial gerrymandering, and voter intimidation. This is an ominous, but not unexpected, reality that has historical roots.

Passage of the 15th Amendment—and later the Voting Rights Act—served as a shields that ensured access to free and fair elections for vulnerable and marginalized populations—in particular for communities of color. For those reasons, the specter of Trump unleashing an onslaught of tactics that deny unfettered access to the ballot—as Trump is threatening to do—is untenable and unacceptable. As a nation, we must firmly resist all actions that purposely seek to reintroduce voting suppression policies that mimic those of the Jim Crow Era. Historically, people of color and women have borne the brunt of the profound inequities that disenfranchisement produces. So, when Trump and the far-right seriously view “any means necessary” as an acceptable strategy for prevailing in the 2026 midterm elections, we have to vociferously denounce and respond to that threat.

Mobilization

The widely accepted political science pendulum theory is based on the idea that that healthy democracies remain stable because political power naturally swings back and forth across (like a pendulum) between a range of viewpoints. The theory further suggests that free and fair elections are the safety net that provides citizens with an avenue to express their political preferences—as opposed to being dictated to by a government.

However, in the current 21st century political environment, political scientists and other experts suggest the pendulum theory has been greatly compromised by the growth of far-right power and the emergence of Trumpism. That concern is perhaps best expressed by the following quote.

“Liberalism and liberal political strategies aren’t irrelevant, but the relevance may be more in relation to [having] no plan to block authoritarian consolidation.”—Political Research Associates, July 2025

The above quote succinctly warns us that with the unchecked expansion of far-right and MAGA principles of politics and of governance, it soon may be too late to save democracy. Therefore, those of us who accept the message conveyed in the above quote must unify and mobilize to head off of impending anti-democratic movements mobilize to head off of impending anti-democratic movements. The 2026 midterms are our first major test.

Mobilization by Democratic Attorneys General on Election Interference

The worry about far-reaching interference with the midterm elections should not be taken lightly. Election protections against such occurrence are a high priority for officials in many potentially impacted states. For example, according to Politico. According to Politico, 19 Democratic attorneys general (AGs) have collaborated in advance to prepare for what they view as likely or possible election-related interference by the Trump administration during the 2026 midterms. Among other things, the AGs are developing plans to combat possible Trump administration’s confiscation of ballots and voting machines, stripping resources from the postal service to disrupt the delivery of mail ballots and sending military troops and ICE agents to polling locations to intimidate voters.

The AGs plan is to take legal action such as seeking temporary restraining orders to preserve election materials and remove armed forces from voting sites. Also—given that the president has strongly suggested that he would assert federal control over elections, seize voter data and relitigate false claims of fraud from 2020—they are monitoring speeches and statements from Trump and his for information about possible next steps for the administration.

Conclusion

In many ways, the results of the 2026 midterm elections represent a crossroad for those committed to preserving the American democracy, and the nation as a whole. Many Americans see the outcome of the elections as either an affirmation of democracy or a slide into totalitarianism.

To that end, voting rights and pro-democracy organizations are beginning to adopt and implement a midterm election strategic mobilization plan that is capable of countering the Trump strategy. Voting rights and voting protection coalitions have already taken a wide lens identification of the problem and are developing plans of action. Organizations such as the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR), Legal Defense Fund (LDF), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, and Common Cause have coalesced to respond to imminent voting interference tactics—that Trump and the far-right are certain to use leading up to and beyond the 2026 midterms.

All thing being equal, pro-democracy election protection groups, and their coalition members, have the daunting task to defending against an ideological foe, MAGA and its far-right allies. The saving grace in this struggle is that various pro-democracy, voting rights and election protection communities have been preparing for this challenge for a number of years and—with the help of many social justice and political leaders—are up to the task.