On Feb. 25, 2026, a senior Department of Homeland Security official told a conference call of state election administrators that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents would not be patrolling polling places during this year’s midterm elections. Heather Honey, DHS assistant secretary for election integrity, described any suggestion of ICE presence at voting sites as “disinformation,” according to a participant who spoke to NPR on condition of anonymity. Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams echoed that assurance in a social media post. The statement aims to address widespread concerns about possible federal intervention in state-run elections ahead of November.
Key Takeaways
- On Feb. 25, 2026, DHS assistant secretary Heather Honey told state election officials ICE would not be present at polling locations during the midterms.
- Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams publicly confirmed the DHS remark on social media.
- Federal law limits use of federal troops and certain federal law enforcement at polling places; states control administration of elections.
- Statements from former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and a cautious reply from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt raised alarm among election officials.
- Officials cited recent actions — including the FBI’s raid on Fulton County’s election hub — as heightening uncertainty about federal involvement.
- Honey previously worked with election-denial activists tied to claims about 2020 voting reliability, a background noted by some state officials.
Background
Responsibility for running elections in the United States largely rests with state and local officials. Federal law constrains the use of federal troops and certain federal law enforcement activities around voting to prevent coercion or interference with the franchise. That legal framework has shaped practice for decades, but political debate over federal roles has intensified since the 2020 presidential contest.
In the years after 2020, a grassroots movement questioning election integrity gained prominence in some Republican circles. Some allies of former President Donald Trump have proposed more assertive federal oversight of elections; others have floated using federal immigration enforcement as a means to deter alleged noncitizen voting. Those suggestions alarmed secretaries of state and local election administrators from both parties, who say such moves could suppress turnout or provoke conflict at polling sites.
Main Event
The pledge came during a multi-agency midterm-preparation call that included representatives from the Justice Department, the Postal Service, DHS and other federal entities. Multiple state election officials asked whether federal agencies would notify states in advance if personnel, including ICE agents, were to be deployed to voting locations. According to a participant in the call, Honey answered that the premise of ICE patrols at polling stations was misinformation.
The remark is notable because it came from Honey, who worked in circles that disputed the results of the 2020 election and previously collaborated with attorney Cleta Mitchell. Several state officials raised questions about whether Honey’s past associations affected her credibility, even as they pressed for concrete commitments that federal law enforcement would not interfere with voting.
Concerns about federal action at election offices grew after the FBI searched the Fulton County, Georgia elections hub earlier this year, an operation tied to investigations of 2020-related claims. Election administrators said that operation — and public statements by political figures suggesting ICE could be used around polling places — increased anxiety and prompted contingency planning ahead of November.
Analysis & Implications
Honey’s categorical denial that ICE will appear at polling places, if sustained in public-facing policy, could help calm officials worried about on-the-ground disruption. Concrete confirmation reduces ambiguity for state election managers who must plan staffing, security and voter communication for millions of ballots. Without clarity, election offices expend resources preparing for scenarios that may never materialize.
Even with the assurance, distrust persists because federal and political actors have at times signaled different intentions. Former adviser Steve Bannon’s podcast remark that “we’re going to have ICE surround the polls” and a cautious White House comment that an ICE presence could not be guaranteed have left a residual credibility gap. That divergence illustrates how statements from political operatives can fuel operational anxieties among administrators regardless of official policy.
There are legal and practical limits on broad federal intervention in state-run elections, but enforcement agencies can still be involved in ancillary activities — for example, investigating criminal allegations that intersect with election administration. Distinguishing legitimate investigative activity from perceived intimidation will be a central challenge for election officials and courts if disputes arise in the months ahead.
Comparison & Data
| Speaker/Source | Statement | Context/Date |
|---|---|---|
| Heather Honey (DHS) | ICE will not be present at polling locations; claims to the contrary are disinformation. | Midterm prep call, Feb. 25, 2026 |
| Steve Bannon (former adviser) | “We’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November.” | Podcast, early Feb. 2026 |
| Karoline Leavitt (White House) | Cannot guarantee an ICE agent wouldn’t be around a polling location. | Press briefing follow-up, Feb. 2026 |
| Michael Adams (KY Sec. of State) | Publicly confirmed DHS assurance on social media. | Social post, Feb. 2026 |
The table summarizes public statements that shaped perceptions in late February 2026. Election officials said conflicting public comments rather than confirmed deployments have driven much of their contingency work to date.
Reactions & Quotes
“Any suggestion that ICE is going to be present at polling places is simply disinformation.”
Heather Honey, DHS assistant secretary for election integrity (participant-reported)
That line, reported by an anonymous participant in the call, was offered as a categorical denial intended to reassure state officials on the line. Officials pressed Honey for whether states would receive advance notice if federal personnel were to appear at voting sites; she replied that the premise of such deployment was disinformation.
“We’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November. We’re not going to sit here and allow you to steal the country again.”
Steve Bannon, former Trump adviser (podcast)
Bannon’s statement, broadcast on a widely followed podcast, helped spark concern among election administrators that political allies of the former president might seek to deploy immigration enforcement around polling places.
“I can’t guarantee” an ICE agent wouldn’t be around a polling location.
Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary (press briefing)
The White House response, which stopped short of a categorical denial, further widened the perception gap between federal assurances and political rhetoric.
Unconfirmed
- Whether any ICE agents will be embedded at non-polling election facilities or election offices this year remains unclear and unverified.
- The precise meaning of an “ICE presence”—whether uniformed officers, plainclothes agents, or administrative personnel—was not defined on the call and has not been independently confirmed.
- No public DHS policy document cited on the call explicitly formalizing the verbal assurance has been released as of this report.
Bottom Line
A senior DHS official’s verbal assurance on Feb. 25, 2026 that ICE will not patrol polling places should reduce one source of operational uncertainty for state election officials, but it does not eliminate broader concerns. Conflicting public statements from political figures and cautious phrasing by some White House spokespeople have left lingering doubts among administrators preparing for the midterms.
Practical risk for November will hinge on how federal agencies publicly formalize or document the assurance and whether any localized law-enforcement activities intersect with voting operations. For election officials, the immediate priorities remain clear communication to voters, robust local security planning, and close coordination with federal partners to ensure investigations do not impede lawful access to the ballot.