Slotkin Challenges DHS Nominee on ICE Presence at Polls, Questions Trump’s Commitment to Fair Election

Homeland Security Nominee Faces Scrutiny Over Potential ICE Presence at Polling Places

Homeland Security Secretary-designate Markwayne Mullin faced pointed questioning Wednesday about whether the incoming Trump administration might position Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents near polling locations during November’s election.

During a tense Senate confirmation hearing, Michigan Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin pressed Mullin on his views regarding federal involvement in elections, particularly concerning immigration enforcement activities on Election Day.

The exchange comes amid growing tensions between Republicans concerned about illegal immigrants potentially voting in federal elections and Democrats worried about voter intimidation. While federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in congressional and presidential contests, some localities, beginning with Takoma Park, Maryland in 1993, have allowed non-citizen participation in local elections.

When questioned about who runs elections, Mullin cited the Constitution’s framework, stating that elections are primarily a state responsibility with some federal oversight. He defended citizenship verification measures, saying, “I don’t think it’s too much to ask somebody to prove they’re a citizen of the U.S. to vote in a federal election.”

Slotkin clarified that her concerns centered specifically on immigration enforcement activity at polling places. “If you are Secretary of Homeland Security, do you feel you have the authority to put uniformed officers at polling locations in 2026?” she asked directly.

Mullin responded that he would only dispatch ICE agents if there was a “specific threat” and “not for intimidation.” This answer didn’t satisfy Slotkin, who questioned what type of threat would warrant such a deployment, noting that even during dangerous periods like World War II or the height of the War on Terror, such measures weren’t deemed necessary.

The nominee maintained that he couldn’t address hypotheticals but emphasized that if there were specific threats to communities, the public would understand the need for DHS presence in certain areas.

Slotkin concluded with a stark warning: “I think the reason you’re here and not Kristi Noem is because Americans trust their local law enforcement now way more than they trust ICE. So I would just say, if we ever get to the point where you are being asked to put armed ICE officers at polling locations, we have lost the plot as a country.”

The senator added, “Until I hear someone tell me that this man, President Trump, will actually allow us to have a free and fair election, there is zero trust here, and I cannot trust that he won’t try and steal it.”

The debate over ICE’s potential presence at polling places has already prompted legislative action in several states. Connecticut lawmakers are reportedly preparing to vote on prohibiting enforcement activity within 250 feet of polling locations without a warrant. Democratic Representative John Larson is pursuing similar nationwide restrictions.

New Mexico has already banned ICE from poll proximity, while Virginia is considering comparable restrictions that would also include courthouse areas. Federal law currently prohibits deployment of armed forces to polling places unless “necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.”

Connecticut State Representative Matthew Blumenthal, who authored his state’s proposed 250-foot ban, has expressed concerns that the Trump administration might “attempt to evoke a national emergency or execute some other deployment of federal agents or military troops in order to interfere with elections and intimidate voters.”

Meanwhile, some Trump allies have advocated for ICE presence at polls. Former White House adviser Stephen Bannon stated on his “War Room” program in February that “we’re going to have ICE surround the polls in November,” adding that this would ensure “only people with IDs; [those] actually registered to vote and people that are United States citizens vote in this election.”

As the confirmation process continues, the question of federal immigration enforcement’s role in election security remains contentious, highlighting broader national divisions over voting rights, election integrity, and immigration policy ahead of November’s high-stakes election.