Trump Refuses to Rule Out a 2026 Midterm National Emergency as Experts Warn of Chaos at the Polls

Election officials, voting experts, and lawyers across the United States have spent months war-gaming how the 3 November midterms could descend into chaos, and the possibility that President Donald Trump might declare a national emergency ranks among their gravest concerns.

Those preparations were set out in detail on 14 October, when Reuters published a special report mapping nine ways federal power could disrupt the election before or after polls close. The news agency interviewed more than 50 election officials, voting experts, and election lawyers, many of them now rehearsing for a crisis that once seemed unthinkable.

The investigation landed two weeks after Trump had declined to rule out such a step himself. In an interview with Time conducted in late September and published on 1 October, the president was asked whether he would rule out declaring a state of emergency before the vote in the absence of widespread violence. 'I don't rule anything out or in,' he replied.

Trump then raised the Insurrection Act himself, and when the interviewer confirmed that was the subject, he added, 'No, I've never used it. I could use it. A lot of people think I should use it sometimes.'

From Troops to Seized Ballots, Nine Scenarios

The threats run from the procedural to the extraordinary: pressure on officials to reject or delay certification, federal seizures of ballots and machines, armed agents near polling places, and troops on the streets. An emergency declaration features among them. Some of Trump's allies have urged him to declare one over alleged fraud or foreign interference, arguing it could justify deeper federal involvement in the count, including a switch to hand-counting.

Legal experts told Reuters that such a step would not hand the president constitutional authority over election administration, which is largely a state responsibility, though an attempt could trigger confusion, litigation, and delays in certifying results. The most alarming scenario Reuters mapped is a refusal to seat the winners, an outcome analysts consider unlikely and expect the courts to block.

Monitors, Agents, and the Threat of Force

The alarm is not abstract. The Justice Department plans to deploy 1,000 federal election monitors, which Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has described as its biggest election-observer effort to date. Reuters reported the figure was nearly double the 590 monitors the department sent in 2024.

In Wyoming, Governor Mark Gordon objected after monitors sought to interview voters and inspect equipment in Laramie County during the August primary, where the county clerk, Debra Lee, refused the requests.

Immigration enforcement is a second flashpoint. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin declined to rule out agents at polling places, saying they could deploy 'if there is a threat to that polling place or we're serving a warrant.' For those running elections, the uncertainty has become a daily preoccupation. 'Every meeting we've had (with poll workers), the question has been, "If federal officers or ICE show up in our polling place, what do we do?" They've thought about it, they're worried about it,' said Jamie Shew, the clerk of Douglas County, Kansas.

Troops are the starkest possibility. Legal experts warned that stationing them near polling sites would likely breach federal law even if the Insurrection Act of 1807 were invoked. General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to Senator Elissa Slotkin in August that the military had 'no plans' to send forces to polling places or seize election materials. Trump, asked in May by PBS News, said he would 'do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.'

Officials Prepare, Courts Already Pushing Back

The stakes sharpen the anxiety. Republicans hold the Senate 53 to 47 and a slim House majority, and Democrats need only a handful of seats to take a chamber and a check on the rest of Trump's term.

Yet the officials Reuters spoke to were not resigned. Many said they remained confident in their own states even as they prepared for interference, consulting lawyers and running crisis drills, while the courts have already blocked several administration moves, including efforts to curb mail-in voting.

David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation and Research said officials now have to weigh whether the federal government 'might be an adversary.' What troubles some most is quieter than troops or seizures. Norm Eisen of the Democracy Defenders Fund put it plainly: his 'nightmare scenario is that voters are confused by everything that's happening.'

For now, the president has left the threat hanging, unconfirmed and undenied, with less than three weeks until election day and early voting already underway.