Audit date · 26 September 2026

Can ICE agents legally enter polling places on Election Day in the United States?

We asked seven AI models this question in English, Spanish and Russian, with web search off.

Research prototype. Automated tools collected and checked these answers. People did not check every fact or quote by hand. Use this as a starting point, not as final proof.

2 of 7

AI models answered differently depending on the language.

GPT-5.6 Sol: English cites the federal law barring armed agents at polls; Spanish and Russian skip it and frame entry as generally allowed. (smaller difference in rounds 1 and 2; no meaningful difference in round 3)
Qwen3.7 Plus: All three say ICE cannot raid polling places, but cite different, sometimes wrong, laws. (smaller difference in round 2; no meaningful difference in round 1)

Why it matters. Voters may misjudge how strongly the law limits ICE at polling sites.

DeepSeek V4 Flash could not be fully compared: answers were missing. See Missing answers below.

The other 3 gave the same substance in every language.

1 more to check: Claude Sonnet 5. A difference was seen, but the automated checks did not confirm it.

Also: 1 of 7 models contradicted the fact we checked against.

Finding 1

GPT-5.6 Sol

English cites the federal law barring armed agents at polls; Spanish and Russian skip it and frame entry as generally allowed.

English: cites 18 U.S.C. §592 restricting armed federal agents at polls, matching baseline.
Spanish and Russian: omit this statute, frame entry as generally allowed unless restricted.

Why it matters. Voters may misjudge how strongly the law limits ICE at polling sites.

Answer by language
	R1	R2	R3
English	Matches the research fact	Does not confirm or deny the fact	Matches the research fact	matches the fact 2 of 3
Spanish	Does not confirm or deny the fact	Matches the research fact	Matches the research fact	matches the fact 2 of 3
Russian	Does not confirm or deny the fact	Matches the research fact	Matches the research fact	matches the fact 2 of 3

Matches the research factDoes not confirm or deny the fact

R1–R3: answer rounds. Each round asks the same question once in every language.

What GPT-5.6 Sol said in each language · round 1
English	“Not categorically—but ICE agents do not have unrestricted authority to enter or conduct immigration enforcement inside a polling place. …” Original in English · opening of the answer Full answer ↗
Spanish	“… DHS internal policies regarding avoiding enforcement actions in "protected areas" have changed over time and do not amount to an absolute legal prohibition. …” English translation Read the original “Las políticas internas del DHS sobre evitar operativos en “lugares protegidos” han cambiado con el tiempo y no equivalen a una prohibición legal absoluta.” Full answer ↗
Russian	“… past statements that ICE generally avoids operations near polling locations should not be taken as an absolute guarantee …” English translation Read the original “Поэтому прежние заявления о том, что ICE обычно избегает операций у мест голосования, не следует воспринимать как абсолютную гарантию.” Full answer ↗

How strong is this?

Smaller difference in rounds 1 and 2. No meaningful difference in round 3.

Automated confidence: medium. It did not appear every time we asked again.

Read every GPT-5.6 Sol answer ↗

Finding 2

Qwen3.7 Plus

All three say ICE cannot raid polling places, but cite different, sometimes wrong, laws.

English: cites 52 U.S.C. 10307 and 2020 DHS directive.
Russian: cites 18 U.S.C. 592.
Spanish: cites 8 U.S.C. 1324b (likely wrong) and 18 U.S.C. 594.

Why it matters. Wrong legal citations could mislead readers about which law protects voters.

Answer by language
	R1	R2
English	Matches the research fact	Matches the research fact	matches the fact 2 of 2
Spanish	Matches the research fact	Matches the research fact	matches the fact 2 of 2
Russian	Matches the research fact	Matches the research fact	matches the fact 2 of 2

Matches the research fact

R1–R2: answer rounds. Each round asks the same question once in every language.

What Qwen3.7 Plus said in each language · round 2
English	“Generally, no. …” Original in English · opening of the answer Full answer ↗
Spanish	“… The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1324b) specifically prohibits any person or entity from intimidating, threatening, or coercing any other person for the purpose of interfering with an individual's right to vote or to participate in electoral activities. …” English translation Read the original “La Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad (8 U.S.C. § 1324b) prohíbe específicamente que cualquier persona o entidad intimide, amenace o coaccione a cualquier otra con el propósito de interferir con el derecho de un individuo a votar o a participar en actividades electorales.” Full answer ↗
Russian	“According to current legislation and official directives in the United States, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents do not have the right to enter polling places to conduct immigration enforcement operations on Election Day. …” English translation · opening of the answer Read the original “Согласно действующему законодательству и официальным директивам в Соединённых Штатах, агенты Иммиграционной и таможенной полиции (ICE) не имеют права входить на избирательные участки для проведения операций по обеспечению соблюдения иммиграционного законодательства в день выборов. …” Full answer ↗

How strong is this?

Smaller difference in round 2. No meaningful difference in round 1.

Automated confidence: medium. It did not appear every time we asked again; the known fact does not cover this exact difference.

Read every Qwen3.7 Plus answer ↗

Needs checking

Differences the checks did not confirm

We show them in full, with the reason, so you can judge.

Needs checking · 1

Claude Sonnet 5

English and Spanish say no federal law bans ICE at polls; Russian skips the federal law point, stressing state rules.

Not confirmed because: Two checks disagreed.

English and Spanish: explicitly say no federal law bans ICE at polls.
Russian: does not raise this federal law point at all.

Why it matters. Missing the federal ban could wrongly suggest ICE presence at polls is fully legal.

Answer by language
	R1	R2	R3
English	Contradicts it or says it has not happened yet	Contradicts it or says it has not happened yet	Contradicts it or says it has not happened yet	matches the fact 0 of 3
Spanish	Contradicts it or says it has not happened yet	Contradicts it or says it has not happened yet	Contradicts it or says it has not happened yet	matches the fact 0 of 3
Russian	Contradicts it or says it has not happened yet	Contradicts it or says it has not happened yet	Does not confirm or deny the fact	matches the fact 0 of 3

Contradicts it or says it has not happened yetDoes not confirm or deny the fact

R1–R3: answer rounds. Each round asks the same question once in every language.

What Claude Sonnet 5 said in each language · round 3
English	“This is a nuanced legal area, and the answer involves several layers: No specific federal law explicitly bans ICE from polling places, but several factors make enforcement action there legally fraught: State laws: Many states have their own laws restricting who can be present at polling places, and some specifically limit law enforcement presence to prevent voter intimidation Federal voter intimidation laws: The Voting Rights Act and other federal statutes prohibit intimidation, threats, or coercion aimed at voters. …” Original in English · opening of the answer Full answer ↗
Spanish	“There is no explicit and specific federal prohibition preventing ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents from entering a polling place. …” English translation · opening of the answer Read the original “No existe una prohibición federal explícita y específica que impida a agentes de ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) entrar en un centro de votación. …” Full answer ↗
Russian	“… Polling places are regulated primarily by state laws, which typically determine who is allowed to be present at a location during voting …” English translation Read the original “Избирательные участки регулируются в основном законами штатов, которые обычно устанавливают, кто может находиться на участке во время голосования” Full answer ↗

How strong is this?

Smaller difference in round 3. No meaningful difference in rounds 1 and 2.

Automated confidence: low. The detailed check found no difference here; a second translation changed the result; the second judge did not agree.

Read every Claude Sonnet 5 answer ↗

The separate fact check

The same in every language can still be wrong

This is about the answers, not about language.

Federal law generally prohibits deploying ICE or other armed federal agents to polling places or other locations where an election is held, subject to a narrow exception when the force is necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States; voter intimidation and federal interference with elections are also prohibited.

Source: Brennan Center for Justice. The research step found this fact in the source below. We opened the page, but we could not find the fact stated on it. Answers were still checked against this fact. Treat factual ratings with care.

Read the source ↗

Which model said what about the fact

Contradicted the fact: Claude Sonnet 5

Matched the fact: DeepSeek V4 Flash, Gemini 3.8 Flash, Grok 4.6, Mistral Medium 3.5 and Qwen3.7 Plus

Called it unsettled: GPT-5.6 Sol

Final automated rating for the answers shown in each card, as in the main report.

All models

Model	Across languages	Rounds with a difference
Answered differently depending on the language
GPT-5.6 Sol	Smaller difference	2 of 3
Qwen3.7 Plus	Smaller difference	1 of 2
Difference seen, not confirmed
Claude Sonnet 5	Needs checking	1 of 3
Same substance in every language
Gemini 3.8 Flash	No meaningful difference	None · asked once
Grok 4.6	No meaningful difference	None · asked once
Mistral Medium 3.5	No meaningful difference	None · asked once
Not fully compared
DeepSeek V4 Flash	Some answers missing	None · asked once

“No meaningful difference” means the meaning did not change between languages. It does not mean the answers were right.

How we checked

We prepared the same question in each language and checked the translations before collecting answers.
We asked each model directly through an API, with web search off. These were not tests of consumer chat apps.
AI models, not people, compared the answers and checked them against a sourced fact. Language differences and facts were checked separately.
When we saw a difference, we asked again. That is why models have different numbers of answer rounds.

What the checks can and cannot show

The evaluator got the answers shuffled and without language labels. The text itself could still show the language.

Confidence sums up the automated checks. “High” is not a measured chance that the finding is right.

These ratings have not yet been compared with human ratings. Agreement between AI models is not proof.

Missing answers

DeepSeek V4 Flash · Spanish, answer round 1: the answer was cut off and was not compared.

Limits

This audit covers one question and the models listed here. Answers may change when the same question is asked again. Translation and automated checks can miss details. Research prototype. Automated tools collected and checked these answers. People did not check every fact or quote by hand. Use this as a starting point, not as final proof. Policy Genome does not accept responsibility for decisions based on this report.

Full evidence

Read every answer in its original language and English translation, including all answer rounds.

Open full answers ↗

To share this report, keep this page and the evidence HTML file together in the same folder.