Trump DOJ Curbs Efforts to Safeguard States From Election Crimes

The Justice Department is curtailing election year coordination aimed at protecting state-run voting processes, increasing risks of the Trump administration interfering in the November midterms or unwittingly exposing precincts to threats, said multiple state officials and former DOJ election crime lawyers.

Ahead of an election that will determine whether Republicans retain control of Congress, DOJ leaders have eliminated a centralized command post, discontinued mandatory election law training for prosecutors, and restricted access to threat briefings for state officials, said people briefed on the situation.

To attorneys steeped in federal-state election law enforcement norms, DOJ’s information-sharing pullback is a subtler form of undermining the election integrity principles that this administration touts as a priority. It coincides with the department’s escalating push to seize state voting records and FBI Director Kash Patel’s promise of imminent arrests tied to the 2020 presidential election. President Donald Trump has also hinted at stripping states’ constitutional authority over election administration.

The disbanded rapid response operation that had been run out of FBI headquarters, fielding calls 24 hours a day on election week, is a particular concern to law enforcement veterans. For decades, this structure supported prosecutors, agents, and police departments dealing with bomb threats, website hackings, power grid failures, and other potential wrongdoing at polling places.

Rather than career officials, US attorneys appointed by Trump now oversee election security issues that arise in their districts. Last year, DOJ removed most of the attorneys and authority of a public corruption unit that traditionally spearheaded the command post, while other Main Justice offices that used to lend a hand have also lost considerable experience.

The plan to disperse response teams to the 93 US attorneys—a group including Trump allies who’ve supported his unproven claims that Democrats plotted to steal the 2020 election—alarmed former DOJ attorneys who said the lack of nationwide consistency can make states more vulnerable to partisan intrusion.

“That is now a significant risk—that the political ideology of US attorneys may stymie election enforcement in a way that department guidelines have tried to avoid,” said Mark Blumberg, who left the department in February after spending the last 20 years leading the centralized election response on civil rights threats.

The Justice Department confirmed the shifts but denied that the administration is scaling back efforts to combat election threats.

“Any notion of a retreat at this Department of Justice is categorically false. Under the leadership of President Trump and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the DOJ’s commitment to election integrity and security remains unwavering,” a DOJ official said in a statement. He pointed to the department prioritizing “prosecutions of illegal alien voters,” among other examples.

No More Training

In prior cycles, the DC hub handling all possible election-related crimes has directed federal agency offices to avoid reflexively swarming polling locations with bomb squads or other agents over non-viable threats. This guidance helped prevent voter intimidation. It has also ensured criminal cases were brought against people threatening voters or election workers when the local US attorneys were reluctant to press charges, said people involved in such matters.

The department previously provided mandatory training every election cycle to assistant US attorneys and FBI agents on election crimes statutes, but hasn’t done so since 2024, said three people familiar with the process. Veteran lawyers from the public integrity section and civil rights criminal section would instruct personnel from US attorneys’ offices and FBI field divisions on nuances of little-known laws, such as a prohibition on sending armed federal agents to polls.

“The training is not happening because there’s no one there to do it,” said John Keller, the former acting chief of the public integrity office dismantled last year.

“It’s a grave threat to our democracy, the idea that federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, FBI have a visible presence at polling places on election day and depress turnout,” said Keller, who used to lead DOJ’s election threats task force. “But who’s going to enforce that statute? DOJ’s not going to prosecute itself.”

Prosecutors and agents also used to consult with civil rights attorneys at the headquarters command post on potential race-based violations. But the Civil Rights Division’s criminal section has lost most of its prosecutors in recent months.

“We’ve created an environment where there is no pre-clearance and there is no accountability post-action,” said Kyle Boynton, a former DOJ civil rights prosecutor who fielded calls for DOJ in the 2024 election command room. “It’s going to be the wild west out there.”

A separate DOJ official, in an interview, said the FBI recently conducted an election training for agents and US attorneys are “very talented” and “more than equipped to handle these issues.”

Trade Groups Banned

State election directors said they’re still engaging with their local FBI election crimes coordinators on possible threats as the primary season gets underway. Several state officials said they appreciate that this dialogue remains open, in contrast to relations with the Department of Homeland Security and the intelligence community, which have retrenched further than DOJ on election aid to states.

Still, some secretaries of state and election directors said local FBI agents focused on election matters have been less available due to turnover and competing priorities. DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has sued more than 30 states—including Republican-run ones—to access voter information. The FBI and US attorneys’ offices have conducted criminal investigations at election facilities in Fulton County, Ga., and Maricopa County, Ariz.—both rooted in debunked voter fraud theories.

“The DOJ lawsuits over sensitive personal voter information have destroyed all trust that I have that they’re coming from a good place,” said Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D), who’s running for the state’s gubernatorial nomination. “They haven’t offered real resources.”

The communication constraints were showcased in late February when officials from DOJ, the FBI, and other federal agencies hosted their first meeting of the cycle for state election chiefs to get a clearer sense of the nationwide threat picture ahead of the midterms.

The two professional associations that in prior years would organize such a convening or help disseminate information to state employees were barred from attending, said three people familiar. Each state was told only one individual could sign in, further limiting the call’s reach.

The unexplained moves raised broader concerns in the state election community about federal relations, particularly in the aftermath of Trump stating a desire to “nationalize” voting.

“It wasn’t like anything discussed on that call was sensitive or private in nature,” said Stuart Holmes, the Washington state election chief who serves on the executive board of the National Association of State Election Directors, which was denied access to the meeting. “It was a very routine, mundane, traditional call.”

The DOJ official in the interview defended this exclusion, saying it was intended to keep the meeting more intimate by speaking directly to state leaders.

Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett (R), who sits on the board of the other uninvited association, said he hasn’t noticed a falloff in DOJ’s interest in collaborating. “I can’t imagine who has concerns,” said Hargett, whom Trump praised in October for being an early adopter of a program to identify noncitizen voters.

Hargett said he wasn’t aware of the removal of DOJ’s central command for reviewing election threats and the loss of vast relevant experience at headquarters.

Asked if he’ll need to learn more before determining if Tennesseans can still expect the same level of DOJ support, he replied, “I’m not trying to be obtuse—I think the obvious answer is yes.”