Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

2026-02-0417:3614094www.newsweek.com

Steve Bannon has said that ICE agents will "surround the polls" at the midterm elections in November.

Steve Bannon, a former White House adviser to President Donald Trump, has said agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be at the polls during November's midterm elections.

"You're damn right we're gonna have ICE surround the polls come November," Bannon said on his War Room podcast on Tuesday.

"We're not gonna sit here and allow you to steal the country again. And you can whine and cry and throw your toys out of the pram all you want, but we will never again allow an election to be stolen."

Federal and state laws prohibit the government from deploying federal agents to any polling place, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Federal law also prohibits any activity that intimidates voters.

Bannon's comments come after Trump said in a podcast interview on Monday that Republicans should "take over" elections in as many 15 states, as he continued to baselessly claim that widespread fraud cost him re-election in 2020. His calls come amid a push among Republicans in Congress to impose stricter voting requirements nationwide.

Newsweek contacted the White House and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for comment by email outside of regular business hours.

Trump has recently intensified his efforts to undermine the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to President Joe Biden. He has repeated disproven theories that ballots were altered or stolen and that illegal migrants were allowed to cast votes in some states that he lost. Those efforts come as the Trump administration is turning its attention to electoral issues before the midterm elections in November, when control of Congress will be at stake.

Meanwhile, the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, by immigration enforcement agents in separate incidents in Minneapolis last month have amplified scrutiny of ICE. On Tuesday, Trump signed a government funding bill that only funds DHS for two weeks at the behest of Democrats, who are demanding more restrictions on immigration enforcement following the fatal shootings.

On the War Room podcast, Bannon said that Democrats rely on voter fraud to win elections, suggesting without evidence that illegal migrants are voting in large numbers in Minnesota and New York City.

Caroline Wren, a GOP fundraiser, agreed with Bannon, saying that Democrats are seeking to "defund ICE" to keep agents away from polling sites.

Wren pointed to comments from Democratic Senator Mark Warner, who recently expressed concerns about the possibility of Trump sending ICE agents to polling places.

"They don't want ICE funded because they don't want ICE at the polling stations to stop illegals from voting," she said. 

Bannon said the proposals in two bills to implement stricter voter requirements were "basic."

"The ask here on the SAVE Act and Make Elections Great Again Act are pretty basic. A legitimate ID to show who you are to vote. It is to clean up the voter rolls," he said.

Bannon said on the podcast: "Let's put you on notice again. ICE is going to be around the polls in the 2026 midterm elections."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote on X on Monday: "The SAVE Act is nothing more than Jim Crow 2.0. It would disenfranchise millions of Americans. Every single Senate Democrat will vote against any bill that contains it."

Democratic Senator Mark Warner told reporters on Tuesday: "The idea that the president might send some part of the federal government like ICE into patrol and suddenly people are saying, 'well, we want to make sure that nobody undocumented shows up at any polling station.' Again, pre-Minneapolis occupation, that didn't ring as true as it potentially rings true right now"

The midterm elections will take place on November 3.

In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it's not "both sides," it's sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.

When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By tmaly 2026-02-0418:382 reply

    Bannon is being funded by a foreign agent. His job is to create controversy.

    • By stopbulying 2026-02-1614:192 reply

      Bannon's company Cambridge Analytica was a subsidiary of SCL Group, a British psyops/infoops firm that explicitly intended to tamper in foreign elections.

      US money paid to such firms also paid for Brexit.

      • By stopbulying 2026-02-1614:41

        > US money paid to such firms also paid for Brexit

        Ironically, Britain backed the slaving south in the US Civil War; Britain wanted the south the secede from the Union.

        The film National Treasure: Book of Secrets mentions this.

      • By stopbulying 2026-02-1614:38

        Internet Research Agency, of Russia (Putin, Prigozhin) also trolled to get Trump elected in the United States.

        "Internet Research Agency": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency

    • By SilverElfin 2026-02-0421:462 reply

      One thing that surprised me in the Epstein files is just how much Epstein was intertwined in various foreign relations. Like Peter Thiel repeatedly meeting Russian officials and his Kremlin handler (literally) at Epstein’s properties. And various Israeli people conducting business there. Isn’t Thiel collaborating with Russians treasonous? What does it mean when you have this set of people who are all working together - Bannon, Thiel, Musk, Vance, etc - are they all treasonous?

      • By aceazzameen 2026-02-053:24

        I'm convinced all of these ghouls will do whatever they can to buy/cheat/steal these elections. Because if they don't, they all face potential prison time. And Bannon's not looking forward to going back.

      • By tim333 2026-02-0423:581 reply

        It all certainly looks iffy. Donald Tusk the Polish prime minister was saying Epstein was probably working for the Russians and getting kompromat for them. There seems to have been a deliberate effort to rope in as many people as possible. It's probably not legally treason but not good.

        • By croon 2026-02-059:051 reply

          It's very convenient to be able to operate at a level that regular moral humans can't conceive as probable enough to warrant writing laws around.

          • By tim333 2026-02-0510:08

            There's a lot of stuff that I'd think unlikely but it turns out the Russians have office buildings full of salaried employees organising it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

            I'm not quite sure the answer. Maybe the west needs to get more serious about opposing that stuff?

  • By cf100clunk 2026-02-0417:437 reply

    Voter intimidation is against the law.

    • By ksherlock 2026-02-0417:461 reply

      Well, when the president does it ... that means that it is not illegal

      -- Richard Nixon, 1973; US Supreme Court, 2024

      • By muwtyhg 2026-02-0421:05

        Or, as Trump likes to put (quote) it: "He who saves his Country does not violate any law."

    • By Analemma_ 2026-02-0417:464 reply

      The President is absolutely immune to the law for any "official actions", and the Supreme Court case which established this was specifically about whether ensuring voting integrity, no matter how farcically pre-textual, is an "official action": they determined it is. The law won't help us here.

      • By SilverElfin 2026-02-0421:45

        Even if the law helps, who would enforce it? The president can violate any law it appears. The DOJ won’t do anything against the president, since it is an executive agency under the president’s direction. If it required SCOTUS, it is just too slow acting to respond to the constant stream of violations. We need a new arm of the government to enforce the law against the executive branch.

      • By an0malous 2026-02-0417:48

        Congress won't either. What's left?

      • By cosmicgadget 2026-02-052:391 reply

        Immunity doesn't make his actions legal. If ICE is interfering with voting, the states can have them removed and prosecuted.

        • By Analemma_ 2026-02-053:491 reply

          No they can’t, states cannot interfere with federal law enforcement in any way. They can refuse to help (and even that is controversial), but they cannot impede. Remember, it’s not like Trump and ICE are going to be announcing that they intend to interfere with elections, they’ll say it’s legitimate law enforcement against a credible threat, and state interference with Federal law enforcement against “credible threats” is completely illegal.

          Years down the road, maybe some judge will rule ICE’s actions violated voters’ Constitutional rights, but who cares? The standard punishment for that is a stern “don’t do it again”. If someone is convicted because of a rights violation, their conviction might be overturned, but that’s not what would happen here: it would just be intimidation and harassment to move vote totals and no conviction to be reversed.

          • By cosmicgadget 2026-02-054:481 reply

            The "act now, justify later" blade cuts both ways.

            • By Analemma_ 2026-02-0520:23

              Who do you imagine would do the “acting” here, i.e. who would be ones actually on the ground arresting ICE officers at polling stations? Local police, the state National Guard? How sure are you they would obey the (textually illegal) orders to do that? Because these are both cohorts who lean heavily pro-Trump; I’m fairly confident they would not.

      • By watwut 2026-02-0417:572 reply

        Americans needs to decide whether the issues is that the constitution is just badly written or whether the supreme court is trying to intentionally destroy democracy to help their right wing friends. Or whether both are true.

        • By secretballot 2026-02-0418:18

          My personal litmus test for whether we've entered any kind of "there's still a little hope for the Republic" territory is whether anyone with real power is talking about eliminating the permanent position of Supreme Court Justice and replacing that with a by-lot panel system from the lower courts.

          This isn't a crazy or impossible proposition, it can be done with just a law. We already form some courts in a similar way, so it's also not unprecedented. It even avoids the naked partisanship of a simple court-packing.

          As far as I can tell, nobody who matters is talking about it yet. So. Hope is... remote.

        • By mothballed 2026-02-0417:591 reply

          Liberia had a nearly identical constitution for much of its existence. You know, the place from where General Butt Naked warlord engaged in cannabilism of the populace and each president for awhile was replaced with the last via having their ear cut off or tortured and then hanged while the next guys people drink a budweiser in front of the camera for the world to see.

          It's a road map to where we end up with a similar document but a different culture.

          • By eftychis 2026-02-0418:30

            The paper is _the_ reminder of the promises we owe to future selves and generations. Its value lies in the People's strength to enforce it by exercising the obligations and rights it describes.

    • By dyauspitr 2026-02-0417:452 reply

      This administration is lawless.

      • By an0malous 2026-02-0418:08

        Can anyone downvoting this comment explain why? It seems like an objective fact at this point that this administration is lawless. Trump himself has stated that anything he does as president is by definition legal and that the only bounds on what he can do are "[his] own morality"

      • By deepfriedchokes 2026-02-0419:332 reply

        This is a systems problem, not a human problem. It was inevitable that any weaknesses in the system would eventually be exploited. We should focus on fixing the system so this cannot happen again.

        • By QuantumGood 2026-02-0423:28

          Complex systems have more unintended behaviors and failure modes, and interventions create new problems you didn’t anticipate. This is literally the Law of unintended consequences, and the more detailed you make the law, the harder it is to update to correct, current or actual circumstances.

        • By Analemma_ 2026-02-0421:24

          I disagree completely. There are a lot of tweaks which need to be made to the various mechanisms of American government, but ultimately there's no system you can design which can fix the problem of "approximately half the country is in a personality cult to one guy who demands absolute power, and his supporters in government refuse to enforce the law against him". Or at least no system which is remotely recognizable as democratic. How could that possibly work?

          It's user error, and trying to fix it without changing the minds and wants of those users just makes them angrier that "the Elites are undermining the will of the People" or whatever.

    • By toomuchtodo 2026-02-0418:051 reply

      Voters should exercise their second amendment constitutionally protected right when they arrive to vote.

      (As of early 2026, 29 states allow permitless (constitutional) concealed carry of firearms in most public spaces, while 21 states still generally require a permit. Major permitless carry states include Texas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, and Arizona. While 47 states allow some form of open carry, California, Illinois, and New York prohibit it)

      • By mothballed 2026-02-0418:062 reply

        Is there any state where it isn't illegal to carry at polling locations? I live in probably the most pro 2A state in the USA and it's illegal even here.

        • By jeffbee 2026-02-0418:451 reply

          If you live in the most pro-2A state, which is Texas, then you need not worry about this because not only will Texas vote Republican in a wildly lopsided fashion as usual, and not only will the state of Texas gleefully cooperate with Trump election interference, it is also the one place where ICE goons won't stalk the streets carrying arms and wearing skull masks because by statute and by jurisprudence Texas has already firmly established that it's reasonable to shoot such a person dead, due to doubt about their identity as genuine peace officers.

          And, to be perfectly clear, it is reasonable to shoot that person on sight. But so far only Texas has codified it.

          • By toomuchtodo 2026-02-0418:591 reply

            > A stand-your-ground law, sometimes called a "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law, provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against certain violent crimes (right of self-defense). Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present. The exact details vary by jurisdiction.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#United_S... (status by US state)

            • By mothballed 2026-02-0420:59

              Notably, Minneapolis, the epicenter of intimidation by ICE, is duty to retreat in public.

              So if you show up at the polls and someone threatens you, it appears you have to turn around and run away.

        • By toomuchtodo 2026-02-0418:08

          Only within X feet of a polling place typically. Check your local laws for compliance. Print them out, have them on your person. I am advocating for protecting yourself against unlawful federal force, including lethal force, while remaining within the letter of the law while exercising your right to vote. Definitely don't break the law as it relates to crossing a threshold (distance, whatever) with a firearm at a polling location, if that is the law in your jurisdiction. Certainly a better option than being dead and having ProPublica have to release the names of those who caused harm, imho. Alternatively, you should be talking to your governor already about local police and national guard being stationed to protect voters from federal agent intimidation, if needed. Pick your risk appetite.

          You are responsible for protecting you, no one else is or will. Know the law, operate within it to the best of your ability and from a position of good faith. Failing all of that, a jury will work it out.

          https://www.thetrace.org/2024/10/state-gun-bans-polling-plac...

          Lawyer. Passport. Locksmith. Gun. (A Talk About Risk and Preparedness) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33509164 - November 2022

    • By pickleglitch 2026-02-0517:43

      Yes, and? ICE is out there violating the law multiple times every day, in front of numerous witnesses and camera phones. The law isn't going to protect us.

  • By SilverElfin 2026-02-0417:432 reply

    A lot of people have been concerned that ICE is turning into a personal army for Trump. This year they will expand ICE to over 40,000 agents allegedly. This is enough to overwhelm police departments in every jurisdiction.

    There is a real possibility that these agents will continue detainment of people, even if they are US citizens, as they are trying to vote. Perhaps they will use their facial recognition app, Mobile Fortify (built by NEC), to identify people and decide if they’re a likely GOP voter or not. Who knows. Whatever they do, this feels like a serious threat to American democracy.

    • By rawgabbit 2026-02-0418:012 reply

      On Election Day, they will deploy ICE to traditionally Democratic voting precincts. This is how they will "solve" electoral fraud.

      • By breakpointalpha 2026-02-0419:37

        1. Deploy ICE agents wearing milsim gear to key Dem voting locations.

        2. Allow the crowd to yell at them.

        3. Use the crowd agitation as an opportunity to escalate and go "hands on".

        4. Cause a ruckus.

        5. Use the ruckus as justification for closing the polling location for the rest of the day.

        6. Count the Republican votes, discard the Dem votes.

        7. Declare landslide victory.

        8. Ignore calls for extended voting or recounts.

      • By OutOfHere 2026-02-0418:291 reply

        It is the swing precincts and states that they will deploy it to.

        • By dragonwriter 2026-02-0418:391 reply

          No, if it was maximizing suppression bang for the buck it would be the Democratic precincts in swing states, not “swing precincts and states”, because electoral votes (except for 5—out of the 9 in Nebraska and Maine—that are determined by Congressional district) are decided by statewide (not precinct level) outcomes, so you get the maximum effect on the outcome by suppressing the vote in Democratic-leaning areas of swing states, not by targeting precincts that are near parity in the same states.

          • By SilverElfin 2026-02-0421:521 reply

            That’s for the presidential elections right? For midterms wouldn’t they target swing districts that determine House seats?

            • By dragonwriter 2026-02-0422:09

              Sure, I was thinking in terms of the presidential; but its pretty similar for midterms, you'd still mostly want to target Democratic and not swing precincts, but those in swing congressional districts rather than swing states; precincts are typically on the several hundred to a few thousand people; congressional districts are several hundred thousand to just over a million people.

    • By convolvatron 2026-02-0417:52

      the swing is small enough that one doesn't even have to target individuals. delaying some mail from particular zip codes might be enough. suppressing urban voting a little might be enough. a few of these and you're done.

HackerNews