The Department of Homeland Security has directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys to give priority to removal cases involving non-citizens accused of unlawfully voting in American elections or falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, according to officials familiar with the new enforcement guidance.
The directive marks another step in the Trump administration’s broader push to connect immigration enforcement with election-integrity measures. DHS officials say the policy is aimed at ensuring that existing immigration laws are applied more consistently when there is documented evidence that a non-citizen allegedly voted illegally, registered unlawfully, or made a false claim of citizenship in connection with the voting process.
Under the guidance, issued by DHS General Counsel James Percival, ICE attorneys are instructed to move forward with administrative removal proceedings when credible supporting evidence is available. That evidence may include voter-registration records, state election data, immigration files, or other documentation gathered through federal and state review processes.
The policy does not require a criminal conviction before immigration authorities may pursue a removal case. Instead, DHS says the immigration system can rely on administrative evidence and findings, a standard that is separate from criminal prosecution. Officials argue that this approach reflects existing immigration law, which already treats unlawful voting and false claims of U.S. citizenship as deportable offenses in certain cases.
TRENDING TODAY
The directive comes under the leadership of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, whose department has continued to roll out enforcement changes focused on immigration, fraud prevention, and election-related violations. DHS officials describe the latest move as an effort to standardize how ICE handles cases involving alleged unlawful participation in elections.
Supporters of the policy argue that non-citizen voting, even when limited in scope, can damage public confidence in election systems. They say immigration consequences should be clear when evidence shows that someone unlawfully participated in a process reserved for eligible voters. Federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, and most states also restrict voting in state and local contests to U.S. citizens, with limited local exceptions in some jurisdictions.
DHS officials say the new enforcement framework is tied to President Donald Trump’s election-integrity agenda, including Executive Order 14248, signed on March 25, 2025. That order directed federal agencies to strengthen enforcement of citizenship requirements, improve coordination with state election officials, and expand the use of federal databases to identify possible violations involving non-citizen voting or registration.
A separate White House order issued in March 2026 also called for expanded citizenship verification efforts in federal elections, including greater coordination between the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and state election officials. Together, those actions reflect the administration’s broader attempt to make voter eligibility enforcement a more central federal priority.
Under the new DHS guidance, ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor may pursue removal cases before immigration judges when attorneys believe the evidence supports deportability. In some cases, officials say proceedings may be handled more quickly if the records are clear and the legal basis is established.
Critics, however, warn that relying on administrative records rather than criminal convictions could widen the number of people placed into removal proceedings. Immigration advocates argue that voter databases and government records can contain errors, especially when names, citizenship status, or immigration records are not properly matched. They also caution that individuals with pending asylum cases, expired visas, or other complex immigration histories could face serious consequences before all facts are fully reviewed.
Another concern is the immigration court system itself. Courts are already dealing with large backlogs, and critics say a new category of prioritized cases could add pressure to an already strained system. They argue that alleged voting-related violations should be handled carefully, with strong safeguards to prevent mistaken enforcement actions.
The administration maintains that the directive does not create a new law. Instead, DHS says it is enforcing existing provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and related federal statutes. Officials say the focus is on cases where there is credible documentation, not on broad assumptions about immigrant communities or voting behavior.
The issue is politically sensitive because election integrity and immigration enforcement remain two of the most contested subjects in American politics. Republicans have generally argued for stronger verification rules and tougher penalties for non-citizens who unlawfully vote. Democrats and voting-rights groups often counter that documented cases of non-citizen voting are rare and that aggressive enforcement efforts can risk intimidating eligible voters or creating administrative barriers for lawful voters.
For DHS, the new directive represents a more direct link between immigration enforcement and election-law violations. For immigration courts and state election officials, the practical impact will depend on how many cases are referred, how strong the evidence is, and how immigration judges interpret the law in individual proceedings.
Why It Matters
The policy matters because it expands the federal government’s use of immigration enforcement tools in cases tied to alleged election-law violations. While unlawful voting by non-citizens is already prohibited, DHS is now directing ICE attorneys to treat these cases as a clearer enforcement priority when evidence is available.
The debate also highlights a broader divide over election integrity. Supporters say stronger enforcement protects public trust and deters unlawful participation. Critics argue that the government must avoid overreach, database errors, and enforcement actions that could affect people before claims are fully proven.
What Comes Next
The next key question is how often ICE attorneys will use the directive and whether state election offices will provide enough documentation to support removal cases. Immigration judges will also play a central role in deciding whether the evidence meets the legal standard for deportability.
Legal challenges or policy objections may follow if advocacy groups believe the guidance is being applied too broadly. At the same time, the Trump administration is likely to continue presenting the directive as part of its wider effort to strengthen voter eligibility verification and immigration-law enforcement.
Officials and commentators shared the DHS directive online as the administration framed the move as part of a broader election-integrity enforcement effort.
🚨 NOW: The Trump DHS has just EXPEDITED the DEPORTATION of any foreign citizen who illegally votes in US elections
GREAT! But a LOT of them that are voting are simply not being caught, because we don’t have the SAVE America Act and many states HIDE their data.
Expose it all,… pic.twitter.com/pLwGMYJpou
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 9, 2026
