For whatever reason (ie, "stop the illegals from voting!"), will ICE be deployed in a meaningful fashion to or around polling stations during the 2026 midterm elections?
"ICE" is being used as shorthand for all forms of immigration enforcement, including: DHS and its derivative organizations (such as CBP), or the National Guard when deployed for the purposes of immigration enforcement.
Resolution criteria
The 2026 midterm elections are scheduled for November 3, 2026. This market resolves YES if ICE is deployed in a meaningful fashion to or around polling stations on or immediately before Election Day. "Meaningful" means visible, coordinated presence that could reasonably be characterized as enforcement operations targeting polling locations—not incidental encounters or routine operations unrelated to voting sites.
Resolution will be determined by credible reporting from major news outlets, election monitoring organizations, or official statements from election officials, DHS, or ICE confirming deployment. Isolated incidents or unverified social media claims do not constitute meaningful deployment. The market resolves NO if no such deployment occurs.
Update 2026-01-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified that deployment must feel like a concerted effort to suppress polling stations, not just a single isolated incident. While no exact number of polling stations is specified, the deployment must be substantial enough to be characterized as such by news reports.
Update 2026-02-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): ICE is being used as shorthand for the current administration's immigration-related enforcement forces. The following agencies would also count toward resolution:
CBP (Customs and Border Protection)
Other DHS agencies
National Guard (when deployed for immigration enforcement purposes)
Update 2026-02-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has provided a detailed tier system for evaluating deployment:
Tier 0 - Noise (NO): Social media, anecdotal reports, rumors, unverified claims with nearly nonexistent media coverage
Tier 1 - Isolated Incidents (NO): A small handful of encounters near polling locations that could be plausibly explained as routine or coincidental. Media coverage frames them as isolated/unclear/unrelated
Tier 2 - Localized Patterns (NO): Multiple incidents within a single city or county with mixed reporting on intent ("officials deny")
Tier 3 - Multi-Location Presence (NO):* Multiple states or regions report activity near polling places. Officials deny targeting polls, but some journalists or NGOs raise concerns. Reports use cautious language ("critics say" "may have had a chilling effect"). *Resolves YES only if all parameters are met, which would constitute a greater sum than its individual parts
Tier 4 - Coordinated Deployment (YES): Any of the following triggers this tier:
Major outlets (Reuters, AP, NYT, WaPo, etc.) explicitly describe a coordinated deployment near polling locations
Election monitoring organizations characterize the activity as a concerted effort affecting polling access
State or local officials confirm coordinated enforcement tied to polling sites
Tier 5 - Official Acknowledgment (YES): White House, DHS, CBP, National Guard, or other relevant agencies openly acknowledge deployment. Internal memos or directives clearly indicate action. Court filings/official testimony confirm it.
Update 2026-02-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If the 2026 midterm elections do not occur, the market will resolve based on whether immigration enforcement was deployed in a coordinated, visible way to polling locations or planned polling locations as part of denying the elections. If such deployment occurred, the market resolves YES. Otherwise, it resolves NO. This market is not a catch-all for midterm interference.
Update 2026-02-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): ICE is being used as shorthand for the current administration's immigration-related enforcement forces. The following agencies would also count toward resolution:
CBP (Customs and Border Protection)
Other DHS agencies
National Guard (when deployed for immigration enforcement purposes)
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,586 | |
| 2 | Ṁ326 | |
| 3 | Ṁ296 | |
| 4 | Ṁ292 | |
| 5 | Ṁ238 |
People are also trading
I've resolved this question NO under the following criteria with a news sweep from Claude Opus 5.5:
Determination: NO
Nothing came close to the creator's Tier 4 bar. Every major outlet and election-monitoring group says no coordinated deployment happened, and the DHS Secretary publicly denied sending agents.
Evidence mapped to the creator's tiers
Remaining risk
The creator said they're delaying resolution a few days after the election so stories have time to appear. A late story would need to show coordination across multiple sites, which is very unlikely when every monitoring network came up empty. I'd put fair value at about 1%.
Recommendation: NO. The market is at 4% and closes Nov 10, so it's already priced correctly. Buying NO earns only about 3 points of play money, so it's only worth doing to park spare mana until resolution.
I then asked for a follow-up sweep a day later, and it gave the following results:
Running a final sweep for anything published since this morning.
Still NO. The new reporting strengthens it.
Closest thing to a YES argument, and why it fails
A surge of ICE operations in California's Central Valley drew accusations of voter intimidation during a close House race. But those arrests were at homes, schools, gas stations, parking lots and intersections, not polling places. That's community-level chilling, which the creator explicitly scoped out ("this market isn't meant to be a catch-all for midterm interference").
Recommendation: Resolve NO. No credible source describes coordinated deployment to polling sites. Both Florida incidents were investigated and cleared by the elections officials who first raised them, and DHS leadership denied sending agents.
Sources:
Manifold marketProPublica: Election Day chaos didn't materialize
CNN: Federal interference failed to materialize
Washington Post: Midterms went smoothly
Yahoo/The Independent: Mullin says he didn't send ICE
Yahoo: No reports of federal agents at the polls
Scripps News: Agents at polls for unrelated reasons
NAACP LDF: Court order on DOJ monitors
Keys Weekly: Supervisor concludes review of CBP stop
Spokesman-Review: Fears of Election Day interference fizzle
Yahoo/The Independent: Trump threatened ICE agents at the polls
Betting NO at 51%. My estimate: ~25% YES.
The Tier 4-5 resolution bar is extremely high — requires coordinated deployment confirmed by major outlets or official acknowledgment, not isolated incidents.
Three strong NO signals:
DHS officially denied it — Deputy Assistant Secretary Heather Honey called ICE-at-polls suggestions "disinformation" (Feb 2026)
ICE chief admitted no reason for agents to be at voting locations
6+ states are actively legislating to ban federal agents at polling locations
The main YES risk: Todd Blanche (now acting AG after Bondi firing) has backed ICE at polls, and Bannon is pushing hard. But DOJ doesn't command ICE — DHS does. And courts would almost certainly issue emergency injunctions against any coordinated deployment.
The gap between rhetoric and Tier 4-5 action is wide.
UPDATE: I will be adding a clarification. For the purposes of this market, I am using "ICE" as a shorthand for immigration enforcement forces. This can include ICE, CBP, and other DHS agencies, or the National Guard deployed for immigration enforcement.
This does not otherwise change the resolution criteria; it clarifies how that criteria has been applied in discussions on this thread.
@BrunoParga I will remain true to the proposal. This market isn't meant to be a catch-all for midterm interference.
Was immigration enforcement used as a part of denying the elections in some fashion (I.E., deployed in coordinated, visible ways to polling locations/planned polling locations)? I will vote YES. Otherwise, the market will resolve NO.
@EvanDaniel I've just been using ICE as a shorthand for the current administration's immigration-related paramilitary force - so, yes, they would count.
@digory I would argue it has to feel like a concerted effort to suppress polling stations. I don't have a way of giving you an exact number, but if news reports are strong enough, that should suffice.
@Vandell There's a good chance that this market will start swinging wildly back and forth anticipating how you personally will judge this after isolated news stories come out, if they do. Be careful when this happens -- this administration likes to play coy with resolution criteria like this. It may be very difficult to make a judgement call.
@Quroe Here is the scaling tiers for what I would/wouldn't accept:
• Tier 0 - Noise (NO)
Social media, anecdotal reports, rumours, unverified claims. Media coverage is nearly nonexistent about it.
• Tier 1 - Isolated Incidents (NO)
A small handful of encounters near polling locations. Could be plausibly explained as routine or coincidental. Media coverage might exist about it, but it clearly frames them as isolated/unclear/unrelated.
• Tier 2 - Localized Patterns (NO)
Multiple incidents within a single city or country with mixed reporting on intent ("officials deny").
• Tier 3 - Multi-Location Presence (NO*)
Multiple states or regions report activity near polling places. Officials deny targeting polls, but some journalists or NGOs raise concerns. Reports use cautious language ("critics say" "may have had a chilling effect").
• Tier 4 - Coordinated Deployment (YES)
Any of the following will trigger this tier: Major outlets (Reuters, AP, NYT, WaPo, etc.) explicitly describe a coordinated deployment near polling locations. Election monitoring organizations characterize the activity as a concerted effort affecting polling access. State or local officials confirm coordinated enforcement tied to polling sites.
• Tier 5 - Official Acknowledgment (YES)
White House, DHS, CBP, National Guard, et al, openly acknowledge deployment. Internal memos or directives clearly indicate action. Court filings/official testimony confirm it.
*Unless all parameters are met in this tier, which feels like a greater sum than its individual parts.