President Trump's directive to his supporters "to go into the polls and watch very carefully" has magnified anxiety that the election will soon become marred by violence and voter intimidation.
Since exhorting his allies in last week's debate, the president has not offered more detailed instructions. So it's not altogether clear if he wants fans to go through the process of becoming official partisan observers, who get to be inside voting stations — or if he was encouraging boisterous rallies of loyalists outside thousands of schools and libraries nationwide.
Either way, unnerved voting rights advocates and election officials fear his vague but incendiary call to action will lead to disturbances and chaos. Beyond the confusion between poll watching (formal and strictly overseen) and electioneering (informal and less regulated) are worries about an Election Day imperiled by polarized clashes between the left and the right.
Answers to several questions may help the nation rise above the muddle the president has created, if not the anger.
The concerns come at a time of already immense stress for election officials, who are contending with how to run an election during a pandemic and seeking to reassure voters the democratic process remains safe, fair and transparent despite Covid-19 and the president's baseless assertions about massive vote fraud.
The executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Kristen Clarke, says her organization has quadrupled its cohort to 21,000 attorneys in preparation for potential legal battles waged over voting and the election.
"We are deeply concerned about the chilling effect that President Trump's statements may have on the electorate," she told reporters after the debate, adding that her group is "committed to making sure voters can participate in this process free of intimidation."
Three Democratic attorneys general from battleground states — Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin — banded together to warn this week that anyone using tactics to scare away voters will be prosecuted.
"Intimidating voters to prevent them from casting a ballot is not only unacceptable — it's a felony," Wisconsin's Josh Kaul said. "Anyone who engages in that kind of illegal conduct should expect to be investigated and prosecuted."
At the same time, the Trump campaign is circulating training videos for the cadre of thousands of poll watchers it's hoping to deploy nationwide on Election Day. They emphasize rule-following, avoiding causing disruption and a focus on spotting suspicious behavior — not preventing the casting of legitimate ballots.
But they do not address the crowds of chanting Trump supporters who gathered at an early voting site in suburban Virginia last week.
To help understand the difference, here are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions.
Trump wants supporters to "go into the polls and watch very carefully." Is that legal?
Unless they are official poll watchers, no. Only election staffers and voters intending to cast a ballot are allowed inside polling stations while an election is ongoing.
So what is a poll watcher?
It's standard practice for political parties or candidates to enlist poll watchers to ensure ballots are being cast and counted properly. Partisan poll watchers are the most common type, but some states also authorize nonpartisan citizen observers, international observers and academic observers.
What is the poll watchers' job?
They observe Election Day activity at voting locations, including setup procedures before the polls open and onsite tabulating after they close, to ensure election administrators are complying with rules and regulations. While poll watchers can challenge a voter's eligibility, they cannot interfere directly with that voter. (Suspicions are reported to election administrators.) Poll watchers may also keep track of voter turnout for their political party.
Does every state allow poll watchers?
West Virginia is the only state that does not permit poll watchers of any kind while voting is in progress. Election officials are responsible for challenging voters.
Can anyone sign up to be a poll watcher?
Not necessarily. Forty states, plus D.C., have formal accreditation processes. Local party leaders, candidates or other political operatives can appoint observers, although in some cases the people must be approved by local or state election officials. Most states also require poll watchers to be registered voters. Law enforcement officers, candidates and their family members are often barred from serving as poll watchers.
How many poll watchers do states enlist for elections?
It varies, but generally one or two Republican and Democratic observers are allowed in each voting place. Some states require they wear badges identifying themselves.
Are poll watchers the same as poll workers?
No. Poll workers are trained (and in most cases, paid) temporary employees of the local election administrators. They help in the physical conduct of elections by setting up voting machines, checking-in voters and assuring they're registered, keeping the lines orderly, answering questions and passing out "I Voted" stickers.
What happens if a poll watcher, or somebody else, tries to interfere with a voter inside a polling place?
It is a federal crime to intimidate, threaten or coerce a person for the purpose of interfering with their right to vote. Many state laws also protect against voter intimidation. For more information about voter intimidation and how to report it, read this guide by the ACLU.
What about interfering outside?
Voter intimidation is forbidden inside or outside a polling location. It is also prohibited to interfere with or block voters in line or walking into a building to cast a ballot. However, beyond a certain perimeter outside of a polling location, electioneering is allowed.
What is electioneering?
The formal definition is audible or visible advocacy for or against a political issue, ballot measure or candidate. In other words, non-violent demonstration. Activity can include vocalizing political opinions or messaging, displaying campaign signs, waving flags or wearing candidate swag.
How close to a polling location can electioneering happen?
In 24 states, the electioneering perimeter is 100 feet from the door of a polling location. Thirteen states make people stand farther away — as far as 600 feet, in Louisiana. A dozen states allow electioneers to get closer, as close as 10 feet in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. Vermont leaves it up to county officials to decide, and Washington does not specify a distance (although it might not be as much of an issue because the state conducts elections primarily by mail).
Can military or law enforcement officers be present at polling locations?
Although Trump has promised to do so if voter fraud occurs, it is illegal to deploy federal troops or armed officers to polling stations. State and local laws also limit the presence of law enforcement at the polls. The Brennan Center for Justice released a report this week outlining the roles law enforcement can and cannot play at the polls.
Need more help?
For answers to additional questions, or assistance if challenged when trying to vote, one option is calling the Election Protection hotline. It offers help in English, Spanish, Arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, Hindi, Urdu, Korean, Mandarin, Tagalog and Vietnamese.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.