Nicolai Haugsted
Trump faces accusations of laying the groundwork to dispute a potential Republican defeat in the midterms.
American elections have long been accompanied by fierce arguments over who gets to vote, how ballots are counted and whether the system can be trusted.
With the midterm elections approaching, those disagreements have acquired fresh urgency as the Trump administration intensifies its efforts to investigate alleged illegal voting.
The White House has presented election enforcement as a necessary safeguard against fraud. Critics, however, question whether the administration’s actions are proportionate to the evidence uncovered.
According to Raw Story, former Republican strategist Amanda Carpenter believes the implications could extend well beyond individual criminal investigations.
Writing in a guest column for The Bulwark, Carpenter argues that Donald Trump’s administration may be preparing the groundwork for challenging unfavorable midterm election results.
Her concerns center on a controversial early-morning arrest in California, a series of voter-fraud allegations and legal challenges that could remain unresolved until after Election Day.
A dawn raid in California raises questions
The incident that caught Carpenter’s attention occurred in Commerce, California, where federal agents arrived at the home of 72-year-old Omar Muñoz before sunrise on Monday.
Muñoz, a lawful permanent resident originally from Belize, was accused of registering and voting illegally.
According to the account cited by Carpenter, armed officers surrounded his home before escorting him outside while he was still wearing pajamas.
The operation was recorded by a government film crew, with invited journalists also present.
Muñoz denies the allegations against him.
His daughter criticized the manner in which the arrest was carried out.
“They’re trying to instill fear in society,” she said.
For Carpenter, the presence of cameras was particularly significant.
She suggested that the operation appeared designed not merely to pursue a suspected election offense, but also to send a public message about alleged voter fraud.
That interpretation remains Carpenter’s assessment rather than an established finding about the authorities’ intentions.
The numbers tell a rather different story
Carpenter also questioned the scale of the alleged problem compared with the number of criminal cases actually brought.
According to figures cited in her column, 28 green card holders were charged in the California operation.
The state has approximately 23 million registered voters.
Carpenter argued that the relatively small number of cases contrasted sharply with the administration’s earlier public allegations.
She described a progression from claims involving approximately 190,000 supposedly illegal voters in July to a list containing 20,000 names, followed by the 28 criminal cases.
The distinction matters because allegations involving voter registration records do not automatically establish that individuals illegally cast ballots.
Carpenter pointed to a similar dispute in Nevada, where an allegation involving nearly 16,000 noncitizen voters reportedly failed to withstand closer examination.
She also cited 156 voting-related criminal charges brought by the Justice Department during the current administration.
Those figures, as presented in her analysis, raise questions about whether the administration’s rhetoric accurately reflects the scale of substantiated election offenses.
However, criminal charge totals alone cannot establish the full prevalence of illegal voting, and the figures require context concerning the periods and offenses they cover.
A former Republican strategist suspects a bigger political strategy
Carpenter, who previously worked as a Republican strategist and now writes for Protect Democracy, believes the administration’s election-related activity deserves scrutiny for reasons beyond the individual cases.
Her argument is that high-profile enforcement operations could influence public perceptions of election integrity before voters head to the polls.
She also raised concerns about lawsuits filed close to Election Day.
According to Carpenter, legal challenges that appear unlikely to succeed immediately could still serve a political purpose if they remain unresolved when election results are announced.
She described such cases as “zombie lawsuits.”
The term refers to legal actions that remain dormant or unresolved before an election but could be revived afterward as part of an attempt to contest the outcome.
Carpenter’s warning is not proof that Trump has adopted such a strategy. It is her interpretation of the administration’s actions and the potential uses of pending litigation.
A disputed election in North Carolina provides a warning
To illustrate her concerns, Carpenter pointed to North Carolina’s 2024 state Supreme Court election.
That contest became the subject of prolonged litigation over the eligibility of certain ballots after Election Day.
Carpenter argued that the episode demonstrated how disputes over voting rules can continue long after ballots have been cast.
Her concern is that similar legal tactics could be deployed in other races if results are politically unfavorable.
The comparison is important, but the existence of earlier election litigation does not establish that current lawsuits have been filed for the same purpose.
The legal merits, evidence and timing of each challenge would have to be assessed separately.
Still, Carpenter believes the North Carolina example shows why election-related court proceedings deserve attention before the results are known.
Election rules are also under scrutiny
Another element of Carpenter’s criticism concerns the timing of the administration’s actions.
Federal law includes restrictions intended to prevent certain systematic voter-registration removals immediately before federal elections.
Under the National Voter Registration Act, states generally must complete qualifying systematic removal programs at least 90 days before an election.
Carpenter accused the administration of disregarding that protection while pursuing election-related legal action after ballots had already been mailed.
The 90-day provision, however, does not prohibit every voter-registration investigation, individual eligibility action or lawsuit during the final months of an election campaign.
Whether any particular government action violates the law depends on its nature and the applicable legal requirements.
Carpenter nevertheless argued that last-minute challenges could create uncertainty for voters and election administrators at a sensitive point in the process.
Trump’s possible response to defeat remains a matter of debate
The broader question raised by Carpenter’s column is whether the administration’s current approach could later be used to dispute election results.
Trump has repeatedly made election integrity a central political issue, while critics have challenged the evidence supporting some of his claims about widespread fraud.
Carpenter sees the latest enforcement operations and lawsuits as warning signs.
Yet her article offers an argument about potential future conduct, not evidence that a coordinated plan to overturn the upcoming midterm results has been established.
The California defendants remain entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the outcome of the individual cases is separate from the legitimacy of the wider election.
Carpenter concluded her column with a reminder of what she believes should remain the guiding principle.
“Voters still control our elections — not armed agents pounding on doors,” she wrote.
