President Donald Trump has escalated his efforts to contest election results in advance of the upcoming midterm elections, moving beyond rhetoric to direct intervention by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a Senate race in Alaska. Last week, the DOJ filed a lawsuit seeking to halt certification of the race’s outcome amid concerns that voter confusion over two candidates sharing the same name—both Dan Sullivan—may have affected the results.
The lawsuit demands that certification be delayed until it can be determined whether Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system led to voters being misled. The case marks a rare instance in which the federal government has sought to intervene in state election certification, a responsibility traditionally reserved for state authorities. Legal scholars note that such a move has not been seen since the civil rights era.
In parallel, Trump has called for the prosecution of Democratic candidate Mary Peltola, a former member of Congress, following a report that her campaign allegedly recruited a candidate with the same name as the Republican incumbent, Dan Sullivan, purportedly to siphon votes. Alaska’s governor has ordered an investigation into these allegations.
Trump has repeatedly claimed without evidence that elections are rigged against him and his party, a stance he has amplified during midterm rallies by accusing Democrats of cheating, naming election officials for criticism, and denouncing Alaska’s ranked-choice system as fraudulent. This week, he announced a $1 million reward for proof of voter fraud nationwide, though details on how this would be implemented remain unclear.
Justice Department officials maintain they do not seek to interfere improperly in elections. Attorney General Todd Blanche stated the department had “no choice” but to act in Alaska and denied any attempt by Trump to “take over” state elections. However, Trump acknowledged his directive to the DOJ, telling reporters, “I’m the one that said do it.”
Despite the administration’s position, Alaska’s Republican leaders have expressed unease. Senator Dan Sullivan declined to endorse the lawsuit, while the state’s Republican-controlled government filed court documents seeking its dismissal. Senator Lisa Murkowski stated the administration “should never have filed” the challenge.
The Alaska case fits into a broader pattern of the Justice Department pursuing election-related lawsuits this year. Similar actions include attempts to block ballot counting in California and Washington over alleged voter roll irregularities and a federal probe into the 2020 election ballots in Georgia’s Fulton County, though no evidence supporting widespread fraud has emerged. Courts have largely rejected the administration’s election-related cases, reinforcing the constitutional principle that election oversight primarily resides with states.
Legal experts have criticized the arguments underlying the Alaska lawsuit. Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame, described it as extremely weak and expressed confidence that courts will uphold election results. Nevertheless, political analysts warn that the lawsuits and allegations serve to mobilize Trump’s base by reinforcing claims that elections are fraudulent.
This situation echoes unresolved tensions from the 2020 presidential election, when Trump and his allies pursued numerous unsuccessful legal challenges to overturn the results. Unlike then, Trump’s current administration has placed political allies who supported the 2020 challenges in key positions, prompting concerns about potential federal interference in elections, including the deployment of law enforcement or other agencies at polling places. Officials deny any such plans.
Observers note the risk that actions taken prior to judicial rulings could be difficult to reverse. Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan cautioned that unilateral moves might undercut electoral integrity even before courts weigh in.
While the courts are expected to continue rejecting the administration’s efforts, the heightened legal and political activity surrounding the midterms is shaping a contentious election environment unprecedented in recent history.