With Election Day set for Nov. 3, 2026, the Justice Department’s rules on timing are back at the center of a political fight after Homeland Security Investigations agents, acting on a court-approved warrant, searched the Washington home of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Oct. 12. A watchdog says the timing broke a long-standing norm; a representative for Attorney General Todd Blanche says it did not. Both sides are pointing to the same body of guidance, often called the DOJ election year policy. This explainer sets out what that guidance actually says.
Where it stands: The core rule, section 9-85.500 of the Justice Manual, remained in force when this article was checked on Oct. 28. The most widely cited reminder memo, from June 2024, now carries the label “This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website.”
The department’s position on the Omar case is that it followed the rules. Per The New York Times’ Oct. 28 account, “A representative for Mr. Blanche said that Justice Department ethics officials review and clear his appearances at political events, which are done in a personal capacity, and that the timing of the raid on Ms. Omar’s residence did not run afoul of department policy.” Only the Times has carried that statement, as far as an Oct. 28 review of coverage found. The department has described the search only as “part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.” Omar calls the search part of a campaign of “political intimidation” and denies wrongdoing; she has not been charged with any crime.
What does the DOJ election year policy say?
It forbids picking the timing of any step for the purpose of influencing an election. The governing text is in the Justice Manual, the department’s internal rulebook for prosecutors: “Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
The section also builds in a check. It says: “Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an issue under this provision requires consultation with the Public Integrity Section, and such action shall not be taken if the Public Integrity Section advises that further consultation is required with the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General. [added August 2022]” The Public Integrity Section (PIN) is the Criminal Division unit that handles corruption and election cases.
Note what the rule does not contain: a fixed number of days. It is a test of purpose, plus a duty to consult. Nothing in the cached text sets a blackout window before an election.
Where do the election-year memos come from?
Attorneys general traditionally restate the policy in a memo to all staff before a national election. The June 2024 version, signed by Merrick Garland, opened: “Now that the 2024 election season is upon us, and as in prior election cycles, I am issuing this memorandum to remind you of the Department’s existing policies with respect to political activities.” In other words, the memo restates rules; it does not create them.
Its central line is short: “Simply put, partisan politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges.” It also covers appearances, not only intent: “Such a purpose, or the appearance of such a purpose, is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution.” And it tells staff where to go: “If you face an issue, or the appearance of an issue, regarding the timing of statements, investigative steps, charges, or other actions near the time of a primary or general election, contact the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division (“PIN”) for further guidance.”
The memo points to an earlier layer as well, saying employees “must also adhere to the additional requirements issued by the Attorney General on February 5, 2020, governing the opening of criminal and counterintelligence investigations by the Department, including its law enforcement agencies, related to politically sensitive individuals and entities.” The memo identifies that directive as a “Memorandum of Attorney General William Barr, Additional Requirements for the Opening of Certain Sensitive Investigations.”
| Rule | What it requires |
|---|---|
| Justice Manual 9-85.500 | No timing for electoral purpose; consult PIN |
| Justice Manual 9-85.110 | PIN consultation or approval for cases involving members of Congress |
| Justice Manual 9-85.300 | No overt ballot-fraud steps until results are final |
| Justice Manual 9-85.210 | Campaign-finance consultation rule, suspended since June 2025 |
| June 2024 AG memo | Restates the above; now archived |
What extra rules apply when a member of Congress is involved?
More sign-off is required. Section 9-85.110 says: “Consultation with the Public Integrity Section (“PIN”) is required in all investigations involving a Member of Congress or congressional staff member.” Its table goes further for warrants, listing an “Application for Warrant for Records, Information, or Property Belonging to a Congressional Office, Member of Congress, or Congressional Staffer” among the steps that need PIN approval.
Omar is a sitting member: “Omar, 44, represents Minnesota’s 5th District, including Minneapolis,” per Reuters and AAP. Whether PIN reviewed or approved the warrant for the Oct. 12 search has not been made public.
How are critics and DOJ applying the policy in 2026?
They agree on the text and disagree on the facts. Democracy Defenders Fund, which filed a Hatch Act complaint on Oct. 13, frames the norm more broadly than the manual does, saying “DOJ officers and prosecutors should refrain from taking overt investigative steps against candidates shortly before an election to avoid influencing the electorate.” The group calls this a “rule of forbearance.” The manual’s own words turn on purpose. Blanche’s representative, as quoted by the Times, says the timing was within policy. Neither claim has been tested by an inspector general or a court. Our report on the complaint over the Omar search has the details and every response.
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
A different 2026 argument concerns DOJ leaders on the campaign trail. Government Executive reported that “Still, the nonprofit Public Citizen previously argued that Blanche broke the Hatch Act over a speech that he gave at an August campaign rally because his position is subject to stricter rules.” The department’s answer, per the same outlet: “An X account for the Justice Department replied that Blanche’s appearance did not run afoul of the Hatch Act because it was in his personal, rather than official, capacity and had been approved by ethics officials.” Both are claims; no finding exists. See our story on Blanche’s rally appearances.
The statute itself draws a line here. It bars most Criminal Division and National Security Division staff from campaigning, but with a carve-out: “(3) No employee of the Criminal Division or National Security Division of the Department of Justice (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.” The 2024 memo said further restrictions on off-duty political activity apply to “non-career appointees in the Department, and employees of the Criminal Division, National Security Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” That memo is now archived, and a 2026 counterpart was not located for this article.
Why do critics say Justice is different from other agencies?
Because the department can investigate and charge people, including candidates. Russell Riley, who “is the White Burkett Miller Center Professor of Ethics and Institutions” at the University of Virginia, made the point in remarks quoted on the Miller Center’s site: “If you have a political person in the Agriculture Department, if you have a political person in the Labor Department, even if you have a political person in the Defense Department, it does not have the same gravity and the same consequences as it does if you have a highly political person in the Justice Department.” That is his view, not a legal standard.
The FBI, a Justice Department component, faces its own pending complaints this cycle, covered in our report on the FBI video naming Abdul El-Sayed. Separately, the manual notes that a related consultation rule for campaign-finance and election-corruption cases is on hold: “Department leadership is currently revising this section. The Consultation Requirement is suspended while revisions are ongoing. [June 2025]”
The ballot-fraud rule, by contrast, is explicit about timing: “Accordingly, the Department should not engage in overt criminal investigative measures in matters involving alleged ballot fraud until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded.” That provision was in force when this article was checked on Oct. 28, six days before the vote.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the Justice Department have a 60-day rule before elections?
No written 60-day rule appears in the Justice Manual. Section 9-85.500 bars choosing the timing of any step for the purpose of affecting an election and requires consultation with the Public Integrity Section when an action could raise that issue.
Is the DOJ election-year memo a law?
No. It is internal department policy. The memos restate rules in the Justice Manual, which guides department staff but is not a statute.
Who enforces the DOJ timing rules?
Internally, the Public Integrity Section is consulted and the department’s leadership and inspector general can review conduct. A separate Hatch Act complaint goes to the Office of Special Counsel.
Did the search of Ilhan Omar’s home break DOJ policy?
No official body has found that it did. Democracy Defenders Fund alleges the timing shows political intent; a representative for Attorney General Todd Blanche told The New York Times the timing did not run afoul of department policy.
Do the rules require approval to search a member of Congress’s property?
Yes. The Justice Manual lists an application for a warrant for property belonging to a member of Congress among the steps that need approval from the Public Integrity Section.
Sources
- Memorandum for All Department Employees: Election Year Sensitivities — U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, June 24, 2024
- Justice Manual 9-85.000: Protection of Government Integrity — U.S. Department of Justice, accessed October 28, 2026
- Bipartisan Ethics Experts Accuse Trump Officials of Violating Federal Law in Raid on Rep. Omar’s Home — Democracy Defenders Fund (press release), October 13, 2026
- Cabinet Officials on the Campaign Trail? Ethics Experts Say Some Are Breaking the Law. — The New York Times, October 28, 2026
- US agents search congresswoman Omar’s home in probe — Australian Associated Press with Reuters (via Port Macquarie News), October 13, 2026
- Hatch Act complaints against Trump officials continue to pile up as investigations go on for nearly a year — Government Executive, September 14, 2026
- 5 U.S.C. Chapter 73, Subchapter III: Political Activities — U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), 2023 edition, accessed October 28, 2026
- Russell Riley — Miller Center, University of Virginia, accessed October 28, 2026
This article is news reporting and analysis based on the public sources listed above, as they stood on the dates shown. Where officials, lawmakers or analysts disagree, including on whether an action is lawful, their positions are attributed to them; Donald Trump Class Action is not a court and nothing here is legal advice. Facts in a developing story can change.