The US Justice Department is taking a far more direct role in the 2026 midterm elections, raising questions about whether federal law enforcement is maintaining its traditional distance from partisan political disputes.
Under President Donald Trump, the department has launched legal challenges involving elections in California and Alaska, seeking to influence proceedings before ballots are counted and results formally certified.
The shift marks a departure from decades of practice designed to prevent the Justice Department from being perceived as a political weapon.
California Ballots Under Federal Scrutiny
In California, the Justice Department has moved to challenge approximately 20,000 mail-in ballots belonging to voters it suspects may be non-US citizens and therefore ineligible to vote.
The department has also sought records as part of a related criminal investigation.
California officials have maintained that safeguards are already in place to prevent noncitizens from voting. The state has also questioned the federal government’s authority to prevent ballots from being counted.
The department’s intervention has drawn attention to the timing of its actions, with the midterm elections approaching and control of Congress hanging in the balance.
Alaska Election Dispute Intensifies
Alaska has emerged as another major battleground following a controversy involving two candidates named Dan Sullivan.
The Justice Department has intensified a criminal investigation into whether Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher, entered the Senate race to create confusion among voters and potentially damage the electoral prospects of Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan.
The department also sought to prevent Alaska from certifying the election results if the incumbent narrowly lost.
A federal judge in Anchorage rejected the lawsuit on Sunday, ruling that the state could not conduct the proposed investigation while maintaining the secrecy of ballots. The Justice Department has appealed the decision.
The legal challenge followed reports that Democratic candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign had been involved in recruiting Daniel J. Sullivan to contest the election. Peltola’s campaign has denied involvement with either Sullivan campaign.
Daniel J. Sullivan has also rejected allegations that he intended to mislead voters.
President Trump said he had directed the Justice Department to bring the lawsuit. The department argued that its action was intended to address election fraud rather than support a particular candidate.
Concerns Over Political Influence
The Justice Department’s actions have triggered criticism from former officials and voting rights advocates, who warn that federal intervention could provide political ammunition to candidates seeking to challenge election results.
Mark Blumberg, a former official who led the department’s election response to civil rights threats, said the administration appeared to be pushing the Justice Department into a role that had traditionally been restricted.
Former acting Attorney General Peter Keisler, who served under Republican President George W. Bush, said the department must preserve public confidence by avoiding involvement in partisan disputes.
He argued that the Alaska lawsuit went beyond merely creating an impression of political interference.
The Justice Department, however, has defended its actions. Attorney General Todd Blanche has said the department’s election-related efforts are lawful and intended to protect voting integrity.
Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels said the agency was enforcing federal law rather than assisting any political campaign.
The Debate Over Election Fraud
The US Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections. Trump has repeatedly accused Democratic-led states of failing to prevent noncitizens from voting, although voting by non-US citizens in federal elections is illegal.
The president has also continued to claim that widespread fraud cost him the 2020 presidential election. Independent studies and state-level audits have found voter fraud to be uncommon.
After Trump’s 2020 defeat, outside groups aligned with him filed more than 60 lawsuits challenging the results. None succeeded.
During Trump’s first term, Justice Department officials resisted pressure to become involved in those efforts.
Voting rights attorney Lis Frost said the department’s current approach could change the landscape of election litigation, allowing federal authorities to take up challenges that previously came from outside political groups.
A Restructured Election Watchdog
The Justice Department has historically exercised caution when investigating election disputes, recognising that premature intervention can create uncertainty and undermine confidence in the voting process.
Its Public Integrity Section, staffed by career specialists in election law, has traditionally advised federal investigators and prosecutors to wait until election results are certified before taking action in certain cases.
That approach has undergone a significant change under the Trump administration.
The department has reduced the size of the unit and suspended a requirement that federal prosecutors consult it before pursuing election-related corruption investigations.
Officials have argued that local US Attorney’s Offices are better placed to determine whether investigations or criminal charges are warranted.
However, people familiar with internal discussions say unresolved disputes are now being referred to political appointees, with the Deputy Attorney General’s Office playing a more direct role in settling disagreements between investigators and prosecutors.
Former Justice Department officials have described the arrangement as unusual for election investigations.
Pels defended the change, saying the Deputy Attorney General’s Office is responsible for resolving disputes that cannot be settled at the local level.
The developments have placed the Justice Department at the centre of an increasingly contentious midterm election season, with critics questioning whether its expanded involvement could weaken the longstanding principle that federal law enforcement must remain independent of partisan electoral battles.
