The Justice Department is preparing to deploy about 1,000 election monitors across the country for the upcoming midterm elections, marking what officials call the largest federal observer effort in U.S. history. The move follows an 18-month campaign by the Trump administration to tighten voter eligibility checks and ballot security, but several key initiatives have been blocked or limited by federal courts.

Explainer Election Integrity in America: Safeguarding Voter Trust and Ballot Security

The core dispute centers on whether federal agencies and grant programs can require states to adopt new election security measures, and how far the administration can go in verifying citizenship and regulating voting procedures.

The administration’s efforts reflect a broader national debate over election integrity, with supporters arguing for stricter safeguards and critics warning of voter suppression. Several measures have been challenged in court, and state officials remain divided over federal involvement in election administration.

DOJ Election Monitors and State Cooperation

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced that the Justice Department will send approximately 1,000 election monitors nationwide, a sharp increase from 289 in 2022 and 714 in 2024. Attorney General Todd Blanche said the number could exceed 1,000, with monitors present in every state. Dhillon emphasized that the DOJ does not plan to interfere with the voting process and reported cooperation from both Republican- and Democratic-led jurisdictions.

"The Department of Justice has no plans to interfere with the process and jurisdictions led by both parties have largely cooperated."

— Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General

Critics note that while federal monitors have traditionally focused on voting rights violations, this year’s deployment is centered on election security. The DOJ stated that FBI and ICE personnel will not serve as monitors.

In June, the administration directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to condition over $1 billion in Homeland Security grants on states adopting measures such as hand-marked paper ballots, 5% post-election audits, and elements of the proposed SAVE citizenship verification system. Twenty percent of each grant was to be withheld until states complied. FEMA said these requirements would enhance election integrity, but Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) criticized the policy as "coercive and unconstitutional," arguing it threatened states’ access to critical counterterrorism funding and undermined voter access.

On September 28, Federal District Court Judge Amir Ali ruled that Congress had not authorized FEMA’s grant conditions and vacated the requirements and the funding holdback. The ruling addressed only the grant conditions, not the underlying reforms, leaving states free to adopt them independently. The Justice Department has appealed and is seeking a stay, but Judge Ali’s injunction remains in effect while the D.C. Circuit considers the case.

Executive Orders and Postal Service Rules

President Trump signed an executive order on March 31 directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration to provide states with lists of eligible voters and instructing the Postal Service to set rules for mail ballots. The Postal Service finalized its rule in August, but a September 4 injunction blocks its mandatory provisions through the November 3 election. The rule remains in place for future elections, pending review by the First Circuit. The Supreme Court declined to lift the injunction.

Congressional Action and the SAVE Database

The administration’s top legislative priority, the SAVE America Act, would require photo ID to vote and proof of citizenship to register. The House passed the bill on February 11, but it stalled in the Senate after a failed attempt to attach it to a reconciliation package. Supporters argue the bill would prevent noncitizens from voting, while opponents say it would restrict access to the ballot.

The administration also overhauled the SAVE citizenship database to allow bulk verification of voter rolls. A judge found in June that the system violated privacy laws, but on September 25, the Supreme Court stayed that ruling, allowing states to use the database for now. Federal law bars systematic voter purges within 90 days of an election. Utah and Arizona have already used the system to flag or classify thousands of voters as federal-only.

Court Rulings on Voter Roll Demands

The Justice Department requested unredacted voter rolls, including Social Security numbers and birth dates, from nearly every state. Eighteen states, mostly Republican-led, complied, while DOJ sued 30 states and D.C. that refused. Most cases were dismissed, and on October 9, a federal court ruled the policy exceeded DOJ authority and violated the Privacy Act, vacating it nationwide. DOJ says it is reviewing the decision.

Ongoing Litigation and State Responses

Trump’s March 2025 executive order sought to require proof of citizenship to vote and mandate paper ballots, but Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled the citizenship directive unconstitutional and permanently barred it from the federal registration form. The Supreme Court later reversed her decision, allowing the expanded SAVE database to be used for individualized inquiries. In January, Judge Kollar-Kotelly blocked two more citizenship provisions, barring agencies from assessing citizenship before providing federal voter registration forms to public assistance applicants. Additional lawsuits by Democratic attorneys general and by Oregon and Washington have blocked other parts of the administration’s election agenda. The White House maintains it expects to prevail in ongoing litigation.