Speaker 1Please raise your right hand.
Speaker 2Back in September, President Donald Trump was headlining the RNC convention in Dallas when he asked his supporters to raise their hands for a pledge.
Speaker 1That I will go out with my family, my friends. I'll do it anyway. I don't care if I'm registered or not. I'm going to try and cheat like hell like they do.
Speaker 2And in case that wasn't clear, that's the U.S. president there saying that he wants his supporters to cheat like hell. In the next election. And in his second term, this is more than just talk. The Trump administration has launched real-world investigations looking into his debunked allegations of voter fraud. At the same time, the president continues to try to assert more power over voting.
Speaker 3What exactly did you mean when you said that you should nationalize elections? And which 15 states are you talking about? I want to see elections be honest. And if a state can't run an election, I think the people behind me should do something about it.
Speaker 2Now, the White House says its goal is to safeguard election integrity and voting security. And now, just weeks ahead of the midterms, the question becomes, what could the federal government actually try to do to tilt the scale in the next election? It's a threat that election officials across the country are taking seriously.
Speaker 3We have to be able to vote and to have those votes counted. And we're in a place right now where the threat, you know, not to be overly dramatic, but a threat is sort of coming from within.
Speaker 2From Reuters, this is On Assignment. On today's show, I'll speak with Peter Eisler and Mike Spector, two of the reporters on the team who have been covering the Trump administration's hunt for election fraud and how that obsession could impact the midterms. I'm Jonah Green. On Assignment Peter Eisler and Mike Spector. Peter Eisler and Mike Spector join us today. Hey, guys. Hello. Hey, Jonah. Pete and Mike are part of a team that won the Pulitzer Prize this year for their reporting into how President Trump has used the U.S. government and his base to expand executive power and exact revenge on his perceived enemies. And right before our chat today, they published a big new piece documenting how the Trump administration could interfere with the election. So I appreciate both of you coming on today. Are you exhausted after you put a story like this to bed?
Speaker 4Not at all. What do you mean? It's always a little hectic in those final hours with, you know, a lot of fact-checking and editing, but we're okay. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2So let's dive into the midterms first. You know, voters are already casting their ballots, and Trump has made no secret that he wants more control over voting. So at this point, I think a lot of people want to know what is possible.
Speaker 5Pete and I and our colleagues and Linda spelled out nine scenarios that could come to pass. We don't know if they'll come to pass, but they've been in the conversation. Election officials are worried about them. Lawyers are worried about them. Other experts on elections are concerned about them. And it's a broad range of stuff. It could be the feds seizing ballots, or voting machines with a warrant, or getting a subpoena to try to demand that information from election officials. It could be federal agents like ICE agents deploying to polls or nearby communities. It could be President Trump invoking the Insurrection Act and trying to deploy the military to polling locations or surrounding areas, all the way to very speculative scenarios that include parliamentary, maneuvering in Congress where victors of elections don't then end up getting seated in the new Congress.
Speaker 2And what you're laying out here are very alarming hypotheticals, right? And at this point, the election experts you've spoken with, they believe that things will go smoothly despite the threats.
Speaker 5We talked to more than 50 election officials, right? Secretaries of State, Deputy Secretary of State, county clerks, and election law experts, too, and that more than 50 group of people. And they all think that, you know, at the end of the day, it's probably going to go fairly smoothly. They're not expecting the worst to transpire. And there are a whole lot of reasons why some of these things probably won't come to pass. But they just can't rule it out. We're in a new era with the Trump administration here. So they are opening their law books and getting as prepared as they can.
Speaker 2Yeah. And let's take this bit by bit, you know, when you say that, you know, you say that he might, for instance, pressure officials or he or the federal government. What, you know, who are we talking about? What might that pressure look like?
Speaker 6Well, I mean, we've seen this before after the 2020 election. You know, he famously phoned the Secretary of State in Georgia and pressed him to find, quote unquote, find the votes that he needed to flip the results in that state. There have been other instances in which administration officials have reached out to state and local officials and put some pressure on them. So we know to some extent what that would look like. And there certainly is concern about that, particularly in Democratic circles. There are some states that have secretaries of state or governors who are very friendly to the administration where there are key congressional races coming up this year. So the notion that the if those races don't go the way the president wants them to go, that he could call those state officials and put pressure on them, he could raise allegations of fraud, for example, you know, non-citizen voting or whatever, he might pressure those officials, let's say, to not certify the results of the election. And then if those results are not certified, that can have sort of a domino effect where then it goes up to Congress and Congress, you know, you have chambers controlled by Republicans who are friendly to the president. They could refuse to seat members in races where they don't have the right to vote. And then if those results are not certified, that can have sort of a domino effect where the results have not been certified. So that's, that's, you know, one scenario where you could see pressure on local officials or state officials playing out that way.
Speaker 5And when you talk to just local county clerks, Republicans, Democrats, ones who have no party affiliation, they'll tell you they've experienced things they've never experienced before. David Becker at the Center for Election Innovation Research, who's a former DOJ voting rights lawyer, told me that, you know, for the first time in their careers, and also American history, they're preparing right now for the administration, the federal government writ large to potentially not only not be an ally, but actually be an adversary. You know, we went over what happened in 2020 in Georgia. And then just recently, the FBI seized election records and materials in Fulton County in Georgia. hold, essentially trying to relitigate the 2020 election. And a former federal prosecutor, former US attorney in Arizona, Gary Restaino, told me that was like a real wow moment for him. And you talk to local election officials again, they're like traveling across the country, going to seminars to learn about search warrants, learn about different kinds of subpoenas. And frankly, what do you do if, you know, somebody shows up and presents you with something like this? And what court do you go to? What does your county attorney do? You know, it's just something they've never had to think about before, but they're taking it really seriously. And it's just really unprecedented in terms of the preparation that's going on, on top of just trying to do their ministerial duties.
Speaker 6And that's partly been driven, that concern that Mike is talking about has been driven in large part by the statements and actions of the administration since President Trump returned to office in January of 2025. So, you know, the administration has filed suit against about 30 states seeking their confidential voter rolls. These are states run by Republicans, states run by Democrats. They have all resisted all of those states that have been sued. And the administration has lost all of those cases in court. So, you know, the administration has lost all of the ones that have come up so far, I think two dozen of them. But it is a kind of pressure where the administration is trying to get a hold of these state voting records that's never happened before. You have President Trump himself talking publicly about trying to nationalize the elections, the administration's efforts to restrict mail-in voting, which is very widely used in a number of states. Again, both Republican-controlled states and Democrat-controlled states. And on both sides, they have pushed back. So, you know, the administration has filed suit against this. You have him musing about how he should have seized voting equipment after the 2020 election when he was contesting the results of that race. These are things that have local election officials very concerned in a lot of cases. And that's sort of across the partisan spectrum.
Speaker 5So, purported allies of the administration in some cases are ending up in the crosshairs here, right? So, these letters, as Pete mentioned, went out. There were these lawsuits. They were attempting to get sensitive voter data from all the states. And letters went out to them. all the states in July, you know, just reminding them that they could be subject to criminal prosecution if they, you know, don't abide by the law, just essentially, like, don't allow non-citizens to vote on your watch, right? And, you know, a lawyer in the Idaho Attorney General's office, you know, sent a letter back saying, you know, hey, guys, you can stop threatening your friends in Idaho. Like, we're all about all of the things that you're trying to do. And, you know, your reminders about criminal liability are not well taken, I think was the language he used. And then in Wyoming, you had federal monitors during an August primary who were wanting to interview voters, wanting to inspect tabulators. They ended up, of course, not being able to do that. And the Republican governor in Wyoming, just in a public, canvassing meeting, said, you know, this was aggressive. It was irregular.
Speaker 2How does the government usually deploy federal monitors?
Speaker 6Well, typically, I mean, the Justice Department historically has pretty much always sent monitors out to certain spots to make sure that there's compliance with federal voting laws. You know, so this would be like access to polls for people with disabilities and making sure that everybody has, you know, can get a provisional ballot if they need a provisional ballot. And that kind of thing. What's different this time is, first of all, the number of monitors that DOJ is sending out, which is about double. They're talking about sending out more than a thousand federal monitors this time around. And I think, you know, the last cycle, I think it was 590 or something like that. So nearly double. And then you have these concerns about, you know, will these monitors be sticking to their traditional roles of, you know, access to, you know, voting stations and that kind of thing? Or will they be going beyond that? Those concerns are separate and distinct from some of these other things that you're hearing about, like concerns about troops being dispatched to polling places or near polling places or ICE agents being dispatched to polling places. And those are things that have never happened before and may well not happen this time because there are a number of federal laws that would, you know, certainly be used. Is this a basis for challenging those kinds of things, should the administration try to do them?
Speaker 5Yeah. As Pete said, you know, monitors, as long as they're doing the things they're supposed to do, pretty normal. ICE agents, immigration agents, other law enforcement agents, troops, qualitatively different, qualitatively different from federal monitors. And there are very specific federal laws that do not allow for the use of these monitors. And so, you know, there are a number of federal laws that do not allow armed government personnel, definitely no troops and definitely no other armed government agents at a polling location. It gets a little more interesting when you're talking about areas outside of the polling location. Even then, you have federal laws that make very clear that you can't interfere with election administration, and you can't intimidate voters. Some of that may end up being in the eye of the beholder. And so, you know, there are a number of federal laws that do not allow for the use of these monitors. And so, um troops would be you know just like such an aggressive action uh you know people would be running to court right away about that and they'd probably run to court pretty soon about ice agents even if they weren't at the polling location itself and where it gets a little hairy is you know law enforcement officials can conduct operations if they think the law is being broken somewhere then that's where the rubber meets the road right are we intimidating voters suspecting them of being non-citizens in an apartment building a mile away from a polling site or are we conducting a legitimate law enforcement operation um and you can bet uh there'll be some debates about that if anything like that transpires and
Speaker 2the head of homeland security mark wayne mullen has not ruled this out he
Speaker 6said that they don't have any plans to dispatch ice agents to polling places but he has not ruled out the possibility that if there is an emergency or if there is some specific reason uh security issue or whatever you know he's not ruling out the potential for sending people to those places and of course you know the concern isn't just having ice agents right in polling areas which as mike mentioned is you know sort of specifically prohibited under federal law but you put them nearby and what people on the other side of that debate will say is look you know there have been plenty of well documented instances where ice agents have detained people who are legitimate u.s citizens um and there's a lot of fear out there among people who maybe have been naturalized or who maybe you know are of uh hispanic descent who just don't want the hassle of potentially being stopped and bothered and that those people might just not go to the polls if they think that they're going to have to run that kind of interference and that's sort of the concern about depressing turnout it's not you know what the administration will say is if you're a if you're a citizen you have nothing to fear by going to the polls because there's nothing wrong and what they would respond is plenty of citizens have been detained and if you're a citizen you still might not want to go if there are ice agents all over the place who are going to be stopping you in your car demanding to see your papers whatever that kind of thing is
Speaker 2i want to drill down on something peter just said which is that deployment is somewhat contingent on there being an emergency and one of your scenarios that you laid out was that trump would declare a national emergency to grant him more authority so then what so there's
Speaker 5a federal law called the insurrection act okay and uh you know trump is amused about this he actually recently in an interview with time magazine said you know i haven't used it some people think i should use it i could use it there are several federal laws that say if you want to invoke the insurrection act to deploy troops to put down like a legit riot or a true emergency that's one thing but actually you can't send them to the polls yeah it's like it's written down it's a statute you can't do that and not only can't you do that but you can't use troops to interfere with election administration and you can't use troops to intimidate voters so you know polling location is pretty clear can't do that the other two i just mentioned you start deploying troops to places they're going to be a lot of people who are going to say this is an intimidation tactic there's no legitimate purpose to this but to depress turnout intimidate voters keep democrats at home um so you know most of the experts we've talked to i think that would be just so flagrantly unlawful if he tried to do that um and don't expect that he will you've established that with some of
Speaker 2these scenarios would naturally come a public backlash like putting troops at polling sites that might act as some bulwark uh that would prevent this from happening what about the more traditional guard rails like the courts
Speaker 6in all of these scenarios that we've discussed you have these legal guard rails that are in place and ultimately if any of these things come to pass it's very likely almost certain that at some point they will end up in the courts and the courts so far have been pretty hostile to the administration's efforts to exert more federal control over elections which are by the constitution uh primarily administered by states and that state authority is delegated to local election officials um you know whether it's the efforts to restrict mail and ballots or the efforts to get states to force states to turn over their confidential voter rolls um you name it the courts have provided sort of the backstop and that's why the courts have provided sort of the backstop and that's why the courts have provided sort of the backstop and that's why the courts have provided sort of the backstop and that's why the courts have provided sort of the backstop and that's why people generally even the people who are people generally even the people who are people generally even the people who are particularly concerned about this stuff particularly concerned about this stuff particularly concerned about this stuff even the election officials who are making even the election officials who are making even the election officials who are making these all all these preparations they do these all all these preparations they do these all all these preparations they do believe that these judicial guard rails believe that these judicial guard rails
Speaker 2believe that these judicial guard rails will hold i just want to play a clip from will hold i just want to play a clip from will hold i just want to play a clip from dana barrett she is the fulton county dana barrett she is the fulton county dana barrett she is the fulton county commissioner in georgia and commissioner in georgia and commissioner in georgia and here she's describing what the effect here she's describing what the effect here she's describing what the effect of just one raid in one of just one raid in one of just one raid in one county could be and i think the thing
Speaker 3county could be and i think the thing county could be and i think the thing that is really imperative for the public that is really imperative for the public that is really imperative for the public to understand is that in order to change to understand is that in order to change to understand is that in order to change the votes in georgia or the outcome of the votes in georgia or the outcome of the votes in georgia or the outcome of the elections in georgia you don't have the elections in georgia you don't have the elections in georgia or the outcome of the elections in georgia you don't have to go after all 159 to go after all 159 to go after all 159 counties you just have to go after the key counties you just have to go after the key counties you just have to go after the key county where the most democrat votes county where the most democrat votes county where the most democrat votes are and that's fulton county are and that's fulton county are and that's fulton county you know if the fbi can show up in you know if the fbi can show up in you know if the fbi can show up in fulton county with a fulton county with a fulton county with a basically bogus basically bogus basically bogus criminal warrant they can do that in any criminal warrant they can do that in any criminal warrant they can do that in any county that they want to across the county that they want to across the county that they want to across the country country country um and and you know potentially seize um and and you know potentially seize um and and you know potentially seize ballots at any time
Speaker 6ballots at any time ballots at any time i think the point is that you know they i think the point is that you know they i think the point is that you know they would only have to disrupt the election would only have to disrupt the election would only have to disrupt the election in a few key counties to change the in a few key counties to change the in a few key counties to change the results statewide results statewide results statewide so if you have a state like georgia so if you have a state like georgia so if you have a state like georgia where you have fulton county which includes atlanta which is a massive democratic stronghold if you take that county's results out of the mix then the state becomes overwhelmingly republican yeah um you know so you could go to states that were where you know you have large concentrations of democratic voters in specific areas and you just have to go to one or two of those areas to alter the trajectory of the statewide results and one of the reasons that this is such a concern is because when you administer elections one of the most sort of fundamental tenets of it is what the so-called chain of custody so everything no one can touch anything from the time a ballot is cast that ballot is subject to chain of custody rules whether it's cast on a machine or whether it's a paper ballot you know the machines the ballots they're in locked containers the machines have seals put on them only certain people are allowed to access there are records kept of everything that's done so they're doing a lot of work around preparing for efforts to get access to those machines you know by administration officials or to get access to voting equipment that's something new that hasn't happened before uh you know we've talked about uh the potential deployment of federal agents at or near polling places they're preparing in some cases legal motions or doing these tabletop exercises for what's going on and what's not going on and what's not going on what do we do if that happens how do we make sure that voters aren't intimidated whether what are the rules around keeping these people a certain distance away from polling areas
Speaker 2and that kind of thing i feel like a lot of the scenarios that you're describing would under normal circumstances hinge on there being tons of evidence of wrongdoing or mischief and the trump administration has looked into the president's claims what did those investigations uncover
Speaker 5at the end of the day the trump administration has prosecuted a relatively small number of non-citizens for voting writ large their big investigations that they've undertaken all the inquiries they've done haven't found any widespread fraud that would alter the outcome of an election um there's always you know one or two things here and there in every election where you know somebody maybe did something they weren't supposed to do but it's extraordinarily rare and many studies have confirmed that and i think the main thing that i would say i think kind of an overarching point that uh i got out of my reporting with my colleagues recently about all of this as we head toward the midterms is i talked to norm eisen as the executive chair of the democracy defenders fund which is a thorn in the side of the trump administration and often as suing the trump administration uh they were part of a number of parties who sued to proactively try to get a court order preventing ice agents from intimidating voters and uh recently were involved in the reflecting pool case that got a lot of attention he said to me my nightmare scenario is that voters are confused by everything that's happening and i think you know a major goal kind of in the background of all this is that voters are confused by everything that's happening and i think you know a major goal kind of in the background of all this is that voters are confused by everything that's happening and i think you know a major goal kind of in the background of all this is misinformation and confusion and shouting things enough times so that certain people believe them and trump just shouts fraud from the rooftops over and over again he goes to court all the time or tries to stretch the limits of executive power whenever he can to try to get involved in how elections are administered and even if he isn't successful it erodes public confidence in elections and a lot of election officials and experts we spoke to really express that as one of the really big concerns that they have at the end of the day is that they expect that most of the guardrails and the midterms are going to hold here and we may not see totally outlandish things happen though they're preparing for them but a more likely risk is just further erosion in public confidence in american elections and that you know shakes makes the foundations of our democracy thanks again to mike and peter for coming on
Speaker 2and to the investigations team who has been staying on the story for the past two years sound design for this episode was by jonathan stairs our podcast team includes eliza davis beard mindy burrows sharon reich garson gail issa abasoya addison darrow ethan plotkin josh summer sebastian summer alex summer and christopher wall jasper our senior producers are carmel crimmins tar oaks kim vanell and me jonah green lila dukratzer is our executive producer for daily news around the world check out our sister podcast reuters world news seven days a week and we'll be back next week with another on assignment Thank you.
PodcastTranscript AI