Lyons writes there is "no reason for ICE personnel to be deployed to polling places"
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
“Therefore, there is no reason for ICE personnel to be deployed to polling places. ICE officers and special agents are sworn federal law enforcement officials that are responsible for enforcing violations of immigration and criminal laws. However, as the principal investigative component of DHS, ICE Homeland Security Investigations plays an important role in investigating voter fraud and will continue to perform this vital mission.”
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
ICE's one-page reply, signed by Todd M. Lyons as Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director, to the March 9 letter from nine secretaries of state. The copy was published by the Colorado Secretary of State's office.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Official statement
About this source
Release publishing the May 11 reply from ICE's Todd Lyons. It says the reply was dated more than a month after the April 8 response deadline the secretaries requested, quotes Griswold's reaction, and links both letters.
Before the quotation
The March 9 letter from nine secretaries of state had asked for confirmation that ICE officers and special agents will not be present at voting and election administration locations during the 2026 election.
After the quotation
The Colorado Secretary of State's office released the letter on May 27 and said it was dated more than a month after the April 8 response deadline the secretaries had requested.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Should ICE and other armed federal agents be allowed at or near polling places in the 2026 election?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The fixed reference point is the administration's stated or threatened use of ICE at or near polling places. Lyons answered a request for confirmation that ICE would not be present by writing that there is no reason for ICE personnel to be deployed to polling places, which rejects the premise of a planned presence. Mixed or conditional loses because the added sentence concerns voter-fraud investigations, not a polling-place deployment.
- Recorded on
- Published here
Should ICE and other armed federal agents be allowed at or near polling places in the 2026 election?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“We are taking strong, joint legal action to block Donald Trump’s threats to deploy federal agents, including ICE and FBI agents, to polling places this November. … Federal law explicitly forbids voter intimidation and stationing armed federal agents at polling places.”Read statement
NAACP
“We reject this administration’s attempt to desecrate our polling sites by converting them into militarized zones through the unlawful deployment of ICE or any other federal agent … The Voting Rights Act prohibits intimidation tactics that stand to deny and deter voters from exercising their voice and their rights.”Read statement
“I have not seen any operational plans or any discussions on any immigration enforcement operation at polling places. This is another fear tactic. This is another attack on ICE and this administration. … I want to put that to bed. There is no plan to sweep polling places looking for illegal aliens.”Read statement