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.
1,000People are also trading
You should be a bit careful with the "illegal" bit here as some conservative legal scholars are now arguing that after the presidential immunity decision any law restricting the president's use of the military (a "core executive function") can never be valid. The law aside, courts may find it was all legal all along.
@nonnihil In the scenario where SCOTUS says any use of the military is fine: if troops are deployed at voting booths, the market would still resolve YES. It isn’t required that anyone is charged or convicted for this, just that troops were deployed. I’m leaning on the existing legal standards because it is the currently-illegal version of troop presence that we’re betting on, future legality aside. Otherwise I’d have to go through and define every acceptable troop presence, which has mostly been done by the legal standard.
Thanks for clarifying.
The presence must be armed or in official capacity with election-related authority.
What if agents are not given any more authority/different orders than they have now, but:
a pursuit of a suspect brings agents close to - or into - a voting location, or
agents stake out voting locations on their own initiative (following similar logic to staking out any other public gathering)
@Jwags [example A] Pursuit of a suspect: it's transitive and incidental, so no, the agents are not "stationed", nor monitoring the election, they are reacting to other events unrelated to the process. This is aligned with what I said below re: drop boxes.
[example B] Agents staking out on their own initiative: this would be an unofficial action, agents present without direction. However, if a large number of agents did this simultaneously, reporting might describe a systemic issue or illegal activity (federal agents illegally acting as law enforcement at polling booths) and could fall into qualifying. Individual cases of unofficial actions will not qualify though.
Key litmus tests: (1) were they deployed/authorised by the chain of command to be at voting locations? (2) are their actions (deployment) in violation of the laws which prevent federal agents from being sent to voting locations?
[example A]: (1) no, (2) no
[example B]: (1) no, (2) possibly yes, if there are large numbers attending in a coordinated fashion, at multiple places, and a directive was given or can be reasonably inferred (i.e. if literally 100 voting booths had troops show up, we can probably assume someone up the chain of command directed them)
@Gen I may be too pedantic here, but if a single location with a singular voting booth or a singular vote drop box has an armed federal agent on it, then would that count?
How important is the plural-ness of the wording here? (ie "voting booths")
@Quroe plural isn’t so important, provided it’s a real illegal act and not something already excluded, i.e random agents being present without being directed, in an unofficial capacity
If Trump attempts to do it wide-scale and gives up after the first ‘toe dip’ attempt meets backlash, that would count despite only being implemented at one location
Drop boxes don’t count unless it’s explicitly an illegal act and reported to be so, e.g. if Trump directs agents to be present at drop boxes I’m sure it will be challenged, but if there were targeted federal deployments at places which happened to be near a few drop boxes in cities which were genuinely chaotic for unrelated reasons, I would probably go off of the response and see if people are calling for charges etc.
I may revise this response later to be more accurate but if it’s unclear I am happy for AI to determine if the law was broken and/or agents were deployed illegally
Interesting bet! Considering the rising security concerns, there might be a federal presence for safety reasons. What do you think?
@SemioticRivalry You said your credence was 5% that anything at all like this would happen, and so I’ve put up a generous initial offer at 11%