The preparations also cover possible attempts to seize ballots or voting equipment, as well as challenges to election results. Officials say they do not know whether any of those scenarios will occur, and some federal officials have dismissed the prospect of agents or troops being sent to polling places.

“This is the first time ever that we have had to engage in scenario planning to safeguard against potential federal interference in elections,” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said. She described the federal government as increasingly adversarial to states.

State and local officials have consulted lawyers and law enforcement, trained election workers and reviewed the rules governing polling places. Bellows said Maine added a slide to its law-enforcement training that lays out the federal statute barring armed federal agents from voting locations.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon described the preparations as “shadowboxing,” because officials cannot predict whether an intervention will happen or what form it could take. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said his concern was a seven on a 10-point scale, adding that it was the highest he could recall.

The planning comes amid a series of actions by President Donald Trump’s administration that officials say have heightened concern. Trump has repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims that U.S. elections are rigged. His administration has sought voter registration lists from states and tried, unsuccessfully, to change mail-voting rules. The Justice Department also sued in Alaska last week, seeking to block certification of the state’s Senate race in advance if the Republican candidate loses narrowly.

Earlier this year, federal authorities seized ballots in Fulton County, Ga., as part of a criminal investigation that had not resulted in charges at the time of the report. Officials are considering whether similar action could be attempted elsewhere. Trump has also declined to rule out invoking the Insurrection Act in connection with an election, though the circumstances of any such move remain uncertain.

Courts have blocked most of Trump’s efforts to expand the federal role in state and local election administration. David Becker, a former Justice Department voting-rights lawyer who leads the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the most alarming possibilities were unlikely because courts would probably intervene. Still, he said, officials are reassured by having considered how to respond.

Concerns about federal monitors have also led to additional training. Barb Byrum, the Ingham County, Mich., clerk, said the Justice Department sent monitors to her county during the August primary for the first time in her nearly 14 years in the position. She disputed federal monitors’ reported observations about long lines, provisional ballots and workers’ use of voter records, and subsequently trained staff on what monitors may do under state law.

“They can watch the process,” Byrum said. “They can’t touch anything, they can’t ask any questions. They can literally just watch — monitor.”

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said the Justice Department’s civil-rights division had notified seven municipalities that federal monitors planned to visit polling places on Election Day. Nessel said such observers are a standard part of election oversight and that the state expected them to follow the law. Loyola Marymount University law professor Justin Levitt said that in nearly all jurisdictions, Justice Department observers must follow the same polling-place conduct rules as members of the public.

Republican officials have also prepared for possible federal intervention. Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson said she did not necessarily expect interference, but her state was planning for it. The White House rejected bipartisan concerns, with spokesperson Lauren Bis arguing that election-security worries were unfounded and defending Trump’s record.

Some officials and voting-rights groups have offered training on responding to federal investigations, subpoenas and search warrants. Tina Barton, co-chair of the Committee for Safe and Secure Elections, said her team had conducted about 140 training sessions for local government and law-enforcement officials this year, compared with 67 in 2024. One exercise considered the possibility of immigration enforcement activity near a polling place.

Officials say they must balance public reassurance with the risk that warnings about possible interference could discourage people from voting. They also worry that federal actions or rhetoric challenging election integrity could undermine confidence in the results and keep voters away.

In a recent online forum, Kent County, Mich., Clerk and Register of Deeds Lisa Lyons said her staff was in regular contact with county lawyers about potential problems. “We’re going to follow the law,” she said. “We’re going to follow the Constitution. We’re going to protect our election equipment.”