THE BLIND SPOT | A SUNDAY FEATURE FROM OFF SCRIPT
By Tom Hicks | August 30, 2026
EDITORIAL NOTE
There’s no secret document behind this story. I don’t have a whistleblower whispering about some hidden master plan, and I’m not going to pretend I do. Almost everything you’re about to read has already appeared somewhere in the news. The Blind Spot is what happens when we stop treating those stories as unrelated and put the damn pieces on the same table.
That distinction matters because there’s a hell of a difference between evidence and prediction. I can show you what the Trump administration has done, what it says it intends to do, and what machinery it has put into place ahead of November 3. I can also show you what Donald Trump himself has said about controlling elections and what happened the last time he didn’t like an election result. From there, you’re perfectly capable of looking at the picture yourself.
Wyoming Wasn’t Supposed To Be The Problem
If I told you state officials were complaining about aggressive Trump Justice Department election monitors showing up at polling places, you might guess California. Maybe New York. You probably wouldn’t start with Wyoming, where Donald Trump won by almost 46 points in 2024, and Republicans control damn near everything worth controlling. That’s exactly why Wyoming is such a good place to begin.
Republican Gov. Mark Gordon ordered his attorney general to investigate after two DOJ monitors appeared during the August 18 primary in Laramie County. Gordon described their conduct as “aggressive” and “irregular,” while County Clerk Debra Lee said they sought voter interviews, information about poll-worker training and access to voting equipment. Lee refused some of those requests, and nobody has alleged that the monitors altered a vote or affected the result.
Gordon’s reaction was about as Wyoming as you’d expect. He said he doesn’t like Washington coming for the state’s guns, and he doesn’t like Washington coming for its votes either. When the Republican governor of one of the reddest states in America starts wondering what Donald Trump’s Justice Department is doing around his voting machines, I’m inclined to put down my drink and listen.
First, The Part That’s Completely Normal
The Justice Department has monitored elections for decades, and that by itself is no scandal. The Civil Rights Division sends attorneys, staff and, where legally authorized, federal observers to watch for violations of federal voting-rights laws. It’s legitimate work that has helped protect voters from discrimination, intimidation and barriers to casting a ballot.
The Biden Justice Department monitored 64 jurisdictions in 24 states during the 2022 general election and 86 jurisdictions in 27 states in 2024. Those are jurisdiction counts rather than individual personnel, so comparing them directly with this year’s planned 1,000 monitors would be bullshit in its own right. The important point is that federal monitoring didn’t suddenly begin when Trump returned to office.
That’s worth establishing before we go any further. The question isn’t whether federal election monitoring is inherently sinister, because it isn’t. The question is what this Justice Department is monitoring, how far its people believe their authority extends, and what else is happening around the election at the same time.
Now Let’s Talk About The 1,000
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who runs DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, says the department plans to deploy roughly 1,000 federal monitors for the November midterms. CBS News reported that Dhillon described it as a record deployment, while DOJ says the mission is neutral enforcement of federal election law rather than taking control of local election administration. That assurance matters and belongs in this story.
DOJ has already sent more than 80 monitors across seven states and more than 200 polling locations during this year’s primary season. Its own announcements describe the work as promoting transparency, ballot security, and communication with local election officials. Then Wyoming gave us an example of what can happen when federal officials and local officials have very different ideas about where monitoring ends.
Wyoming doesn’t prove November will be abusive. It proves that questions about the boundaries aren’t theoretical anymore. If you’re about to put roughly a thousand federal monitors into an already combustible election, the dress rehearsal is worth watching.
KEEP READING THE BLIND SPOT
So far we’ve got a legitimate federal function, a dramatically expanded deployment, and one Republican state already asking questions about how that function was exercised. None of that proves some grand plan to interfere with the election. The picture changes when we start adding the other pieces.
UPGRADE TO PAID TO CONTINUE READING
🔒 PAID SUBSCRIBER CONTENT BELOW
