DHS Official Confirms No Plans to Deploy ICE Agents at Polling Stations During Upcoming Midterm Elections

Washington, D.C. — February 27, 2026

A senior official from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) informed state election administrators on February 25, 2026, that ‘any suggestion that ICE will be present at any polling location is simply not true.’

Multiple participants in the communication confirmed the statement, with Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, emphasizing that ‘any suggestion that ICE will be present at any polling location is simply not true.’ Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams, a Republican, echoed the claim in a social media post, stating, ‘DHS confirmed, ‘ICE agents will not be at voting locations this year.’’

The announcement emerged amid ongoing discussions about the Trump administration’s stance on election security. President Donald Trump, in his second term, has repeatedly asserted without evidence that U.S. elections are ‘rigged’ and proposed federal oversight in specific jurisdictions. During a February 2026 interview with NBC News, Trump stated his readiness to implement ‘federal controls’ in areas he deems improperly managed. Advisors, including former strategist Steve Bannon, have discussed the possibility of immigration enforcement at polling sites, with Bannon claiming, ‘we’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November.’

Election officials remain cautious about the pledge, citing past actions by the administration. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, who previously criticized DHS deputy assistant secretary Heather Honey for her involvement in the 2020 election audit by Cyber Ninjas—a firm linked to Trump’s voter fraud claims—labeled her assurances ‘untrustworthy.’ Fontes highlighted Honey’s history of promoting election conspiracy theories, including her role as a Cyber Ninjas contractor in Arizona. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat, called the pledge ‘welcome’ but noted that ‘there is still great and well-founded fear of the possibility of direct or indirect interference by the federal government.’ Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, another Democrat, argued that the absence of ICE agents would be ‘completely unlawful and unconstitutional,’ as states retain constitutional authority over elections.

Federal law prohibits the use of federal troops or law enforcement agencies to interfere with voting processes, a principle reiterated during the briefing. The U.S. Constitution assigns responsibility for conducting elections to state governments, with most states delegating this duty to their elected secretaries of state. During the call, Democratic officials questioned whether federal agencies would reaffirm this constitutional principle, but participants avoided public statements on the matter.

The DHS statement has intensified debates about potential federal overreach in election administration. Polling data released in early February 2026 indicated that 64% of voters believe Trump may attempt to deploy ICE agents to suppress turnout, with 56% supporting measures to block such actions. Legal experts caution that the administration’s recent actions, including the FBI’s raid of an election hub in Fulton County, Georgia, tied to debunked claims about the 2020 election, could foster voter uncertainty.

In a follow-up statement, a DHS official clarified that ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations, though the agency could take ‘targeted enforcement action’ if an active public safety threat arises at a polling site. This policy aligns with broader federal guidelines emphasizing non-interference in electoral processes. Critics argue that the administration’s past actions, including Trump-era cuts to election security funding and DOJ lawsuits seeking voter data, have undermined trust in federal neutrality.

The DHS assurance that ICE agents will not be deployed at polling places for the 2026 midterms marks a key policy clarification, yet concerns among election officials and voters persist. As the November elections approach, the tension between federal oversight and state autonomy continues to shape discussions about the integrity of the democratic process. The coming months will determine whether the administration can navigate its legal obligations alongside the political realities of its leadership.