Mullin says ICE would be at polling places only if there is "a threat to that polling place" or a warrant to serve
Secretary of Homeland Security
“I was being very, very clear when I said ICE isn't there to patrol the polling places. We're there to enforce specific threats. The only reason why we would be at polling places if there is a threat to that polling place or we're serving a warrant on someone that we have been actively tracking down. … If we're serving a warrant, we will be where we need to be.”
Source and context
Original video
About this source
C-SPAN's recording of Secretary Mullin's news conference at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services New York field office about ICE enforcement operations in New York. The polling-place answer responds to a reporter's question that referred to his Senate confirmation testimony. The quoted wording is our transcription of the video audio.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Reporting
About this source
Politico's same-day report on Mullin's New York remarks. It quotes a DHS statement given when Politico asked for more clarity, and says DHS also pointed to Mullin's comments at his March confirmation hearing.
Before the quotation
A reporter at a news conference on immigration enforcement operations in New York asked about Mullin's Senate confirmation testimony that ICE could be sent to polling places only in the event of a specific threat.
After the quotation
DHS gave Politico a statement the same day saying ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations.
How this statement is classified
Responding to: ICE officers would be at polling places only if there is a threat to the polling place or they are serving a warrant on someone ICE has been actively tracking down.
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. Mullin said ICE would not patrol polling places but would be at one for a threat or to serve a warrant, so his position depends on express conditions. Defends or excuses loses because he did not argue for agents at polling places generally, and denies loses because he did not rule out a presence.
- 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