Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has reinforced the threats issued by President Donald Trump toward states that resist his election‑reform agenda.
In his Friday remarks, Mullin largely echoed Trump’s comments from the previous night, vowing a hard‑line push to overhaul U.S. elections.
Drawing from Trump’s foreign‑policy playbook, Mullin pledged to apply a “maximum pressure” strategy to secure compliance.
He also suggested that individuals Trump accused of misleading the public about the 2020 election — which he falsely claims he won — could face repercussions.
Mullin said, “This isn’t about rehashing the 2020 election; it’s about exposing what occurred and ensuring it never repeats.”
He added that his department is examining individuals within the intelligence community and the Biden administration as potential targets.
Mullin explained, “Anyone who deliberately misled the American people, abused their authority, and abandoned their duties will be held accountable.”
Intensifying pressure on states
Although Trump repeatedly claimed a “deep state” cover‑up of election vulnerabilities in his Thursday prime‑time address, the declassified documents released by the White House did not support his broad assertions.
Following Trump’s lead, Mullin identified four states — California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Nevada — as the initial focus of the administration’s efforts.
These states are regarded as either key swing contests or Democratic strongholds, and each possesses a relatively large population with an above‑average allocation of Electoral College votes, which determine the outcome of U.S. presidential elections.
Mullin asserted that the four states together have 250,000 non‑citizens on their voter rolls, though he provided no evidence for this figure.
He also repeated Trump’s claim that the government has identified roughly 278,000 foreign nationals who are registered to vote.
The administration has not disclosed how it reached that estimate, and experts caution that registration does not guarantee the ability to cast a ballot.
Funds to be withheld
States already screen voters for eligibility, including citizenship, and documented cases of non‑citizen voting remain extremely rare.
For example, a Brennan Center for Justice study of 42 jurisdictions during the 2016 election — when Trump first won office — found that non‑citizen voting represented just 0.0001 % of ballots cast.
Trump has a long record of denying election results. Even in 2016, he secured the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, a discrepancy he attempted to explain by falsely alleging that millions of people voted illegally.
Election experts have broadly rejected the notion that non‑citizen voting poses a meaningful threat to U.S. election outcomes.
Nevertheless, Mullin warned that federal funding could be withheld from states that do not comply with Trump’s election‑security demands.
Mullin said, “We will make these security enhancements mandatory; states seeking grants or reimbursement for administering federal elections will need to implement the required security measures.”
He added, “Our focus is strictly on security — ensuring the machines are protected and the voter rolls are cleaned up.”
Raising doubts about electronic voting
Trump has repeatedly raised unverified concerns about electronic voting security, advocating a return to paper ballots and calling for limits on mail‑in voting, despite having used mail‑in ballots himself.
His administration has likewise urged states to hand over their voter rolls to the federal government, although several federal courts have blocked attempts to establish a national voter database.
Moreover, the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database, which the administration intends to use to consolidate voter data, has drawn criticism for mistakenly labeling foreign‑born citizens as non‑citizens.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration mailed letters to election officials nationwide, warning of possible prosecution if non‑citizen voters are discovered in their jurisdictions.
Critics contend that Trump is attempting to nationalize election administration, even though the Constitution reserves authority over elections to the states.
Already, officials in several states have signaled they may pursue legal action in response to Mullin’s comments.
California Governor Gavin Newsom declared on social media, linking to a video of Mullin’s Friday remarks, “California has free, fair, and secure elections, and we will defend them — try us.”
A clash with TV networks
Mullin also criticized the major television networks that chose not to air Trump’s prime‑time speech live on Thursday.
The White House had requested airtime for the address, though its contents were not disclosed ahead of time.
Critics urged the networks to deny Trump a platform for making unfounded election claims that could erode confidence in the forthcoming 2026 midterm elections.
In the end, ABC, NBC, and CNN did not broadcast the speech in full on their primary channels, whereas outlets such as Fox News aired it with qualifications.
Trump used his prime‑time slot to condemn the networks that opted out.
Trump said, “They and others in the media are part of a plot; they want to perpetuate this fraud and keep it going.”
He added, “A great nation cannot exist without free and fair elections; fraud of this sort should justify revoking their licenses.”
Mullin echoed that view when questioned about Trump’s threat, labeling the networks “shameful” and suggesting they were involved in a wider cover‑up.
Mullin asked, “What are they trying to cover up? Why would they not want to inform the American people? Why call themselves a news outlet if they aren’t actually trying to deliver the news?”
This was not the first occasion the Trump administration threatened to revoke broadcast licenses from outlets it disfavors; a similar move occurred last September during a dispute with late‑night host Jimmy Kimmel.
In response to Trump’s latest comments, the FCC’s sole Democratic commissioner, Anna Gomez, took to social media to denounce the threat as unconstitutional.
Gomez wrote, “The FCC lacks authority to penalize a station for refusing to air an overtly political speech. This is a blatant attempt to intimidate broadcasters, and the FCC should have no role in it.”
She added, “It is absurd to demand that broadcasters lose their licenses for making the same editorial judgments they have under administrations of both parties, especially when the remarks remained accessible online to anyone who wished to view them.”
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees broad protections for free speech and the press.
