Will there be troops or federal agents at US voting booths in 2026 or 2028?
Resolution Criteria Federal law explicitly prohibits deploying federal troops or armed federal law enforcement to any polling place, with violations carrying criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment of up to five years. This market resolves YES if, during the 2026 midterm elections or 2028 presidential election, credible reporting documents the presence of active-duty military personnel, National Guard troops (when federalized), or federal law enforcement agents (including ICE, DHS, or FBI) stationed at, near, or with apparent intent to monitor voting booths or polling locations. The presence must be armed or in official capacity with election-related authority. Unarmed plainclothes poll observers or off-duty military members voting do not count. Resolution sources: news reports from major outlets (AP, Reuters, NPR, etc.), court filings, official statements from election officials or DOJ, or documented evidence from election monitoring organizations. Background During his second presidency, Donald Trump ordered deployments of National Guard troops to select U.S. cities in 2025 and certain deployments have continued into 2026. Concerns have been raised about the Trump administration potentially attempting to unlawfully use these forces in 2026 to intimidate voters. Trump has expressed regret about not directing the National Guard to seize voting machines after the 2020 election. Trump could potentially use troops near polling places, pressure local election workers and have federal agents seize voting machines, according to reporting on potential election interference scenarios. Considerations Even the Insurrection Act, the most potent of the president's authorities to deploy the military domestically, does not permit troops deployed under the law to take illegal actions—which would include interfering in elections. However, there are significant legal and practical barriers to Trump sending troops to polling places, but any attempt to use the military to influence the election would be one of the most brazen acts of election interference in modern times. Experts have raised concerns about the potential deployment of federal troops or ICE at polling places, noting that such actions are illegal but still feared. This description was generated by AI. Update 2026-02-03 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarifications on resolution: Plural wording: The plural "voting booths" is not strictly important - a single location counts if it meets the criteria Drop boxes: Do not count unless it's explicitly an illegal act and reported as such. If agents are near drop boxes for unrelated legitimate reasons (e.g., genuine chaos in cities), this would not count unless there's clear evidence of illegal deployment and calls for charges Intent matters: Random agents being present without direction or in unofficial capacity does not count Scale: Even a single "toe dip" attempt counts if Trump directs it and it's a real illegal act, even if abandoned after backlash Unclear cases: Creator may defer to AI determination of whether the law was broken and/or agents were deployed illegally Update 2026-02-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Incidental presence does not count: If agents pursue a suspect and transiently pass through or near a voting location, this does not qualify as they are not "stationed" or monitoring the election. Unofficial individual actions do not count: Individual agents staking out polling places on their own initiative (without direction from chain of command) do not qualify. Large-scale coordinated unofficial actions may count: If a large number of agents simultaneously stake out multiple voting locations in what appears to be a coordinated fashion, this could qualify if reporting describes it as systemic illegal activity, even without explicit orders (e.g., if 100+ voting booths had troops show up, a directive can be reasonably inferred). Key litmus tests for resolution: Were they deployed/authorized by the chain of command to be at voting locations? Are their actions (deployment) in violation of laws preventing federal agents from being sent to voting locations? Update 2026-02-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Legal status does not affect resolution: If troops are deployed at voting booths, the market resolves YES regardless of whether courts later determine the deployment was legal (e.g., due to presidential immunity rulings). No charges or convictions are required. The market is based on whether the deployment occurs according to currently-illegal standards, not future legal interpretations. Update 2026-02-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): No election scenario: If there are no federal elections in 2026 or 2028, the market resolves NO, unless troops are interfering with elections (which would cause the lack of elections). The resolution depends on the reason: Military interference preventing elections: Would resolve YES Legitimate catastrophic events (e.g., plague) preventing elections: Would resolve NO Delayed or early elections: If 2028 elections are moved to a different date, resolution will be based on the next federal/presidential election after 2026 where at least half of the existing/functional states vote. Update 2026-03-27 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Presence near but not at polling locations is not sufficient: Even if federal agents are everywhere in the city/town except the voting booths themselves, that does not qualify for YES. Edge case: If agents consistently find pretextual 'legal' reasons to enter polling locations due to elevated presence nearby, this could potentially qualify, but would likely require clear reporting of illegal activity and legal challenges. edit: illegal based on the laws when this market was made Update 2026-03-27 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): PROB (partial) resolution is very unlikely. The creator expects the outcome to be clear-cut. In ambiguous edge cases, the creator will likely lean toward NO, as they do not want to resolve based on something minor that falls outside the spirit of the market.
