The United States Justice Department has issued a new wave of subpoenas in its criminal investigation into Alaska's Senate race, escalating a politically explosive dispute over a second candidate named Dan Sullivan just days before voters go to the polls on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Multiple sources familiar with the matter told ABC News that the subpoenas target Democratic officials believed to have been involved in recruiting Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher, to run against Republican incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan. The Associated Press also reported the subpoenas. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed them or named anyone who received one, and no charges have been filed against anyone in connection with the alleged recruitment effort.
The move marks a sharp escalation in the Trump administration's intervention in a race that could help decide control of the United States Senate. It follows a New York Times report on Wednesday, October 28, which said members of former congresswoman Mary Peltola's campaign, her lawyers and senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pushed to find a candidate with the same first and last name as the incumbent senator, hoping to draw votes away from him and benefit Peltola. Peltola's campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee both deny any involvement, and Daniel J. Sullivan himself has denied being recruited by Peltola's campaign or having contact with it about his candidacy.
According to ABC News, federal prosecutors have started issuing subpoenas stemming from an ongoing criminal investigation into the Alaska Senate race. The subpoenas are aimed at Democratic officials believed to be connected to the effort to put Daniel J. Sullivan on the ballot. The reports do not name the recipients, and the precise scope of the subpoenas remains unclear. What is clear is the timing: the new investigative steps landed five days before Election Day, in a contest the Trump administration has already tried to influence through the courts.
Last week, the Justice Department filed a separate civil lawsuit seeking to prevent Alaska from certifying its Senate results if Senator Sullivan narrowly loses, arguing that voter confusion caused by the second Sullivan candidacy could taint the outcome. A federal judge is expected to rule on that case in the coming days, and ABC News reported that the judge considering it has appeared sceptical of the department's legal arguments. The Justice Department now supports the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's intervention in that suit so it can obtain discovery on a possible voter-confusion claim, according to reporting on the case.
Federal prosecutors are separately examining whether the behind-the-scenes efforts to get Daniel J. Sullivan on the ballot could violate federal conspiracy laws, sources told ABC News. That is a significant legal question, because candidacy itself is not a crime: election law scholars have questioned whether recruiting a candidate, even with the aim of confusing voters, can be turned into a federal offence. Election law expert Rick Hasen has said it is hard to see how running with impure motives becomes a crime, a view that frames the central legal hurdle prosecutors would face if they ever brought charges.
Attorney General Todd Blanche left little doubt about how the administration views the episode. Speaking to Fox News on Wednesday, he described the alleged effort as "cheating" and "fraud" and indicated that further action by the Justice Department could follow. "I expect you're going to hear more from the Department of Justice this week as we learn more information," he said. President Donald Trump has gone further in public, repeatedly demanding that Peltola herself face prosecution, one of a series of instances in which he has called on the Justice Department to pursue cases against prominent Democrats.
The controversy began with the New York Times report on Wednesday, October 28, which cited 12 sources, text messages and documents. According to the report, members of Peltola's campaign, her lawyers and senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee discussed recruiting a candidate who shared the incumbent senator's first and last name, with the aim of siphoning votes from Senator Sullivan and potentially benefiting Peltola. The report said the effort had been denied for months by Peltola's campaign before the documents and messages came to light.
Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, Alaska, is on the ballot alongside the incumbent, Peltola and a fourth candidate, Gerald Heikes. In August's top-four primary, Peltola took 49.5 percent of the vote, Senator Sullivan 41.4 percent and Daniel J. Sullivan 2.5 percent. That primary result is part of why the dispute matters so much: even a small share of confused voters could matter in a close general election, and the race is among a handful of Senate contests this year expected to determine control of the chamber. Republicans currently hold 53 seats in the Senate, and Democrats need a net gain to take the majority.
Alaska's Supreme Court had previously upheld Daniel J. Sullivan's candidacy, even while acknowledging that the effort behind it might not have been undertaken in "good faith" and could have been intended to "confuse and mislead" voters, as Republicans and the Trump administration have alleged. That ruling is a key piece of context for the new subpoenas: the candidate's place on the ballot has already survived a legal challenge, so the Justice Department's criminal probe is now testing a different question — not whether Daniel J. Sullivan may stand, but whether the people who allegedly put him there broke the law in doing so.
The Justice Department has also been investigating the allegations for months, according to reporting on the probe. What changed this week is the pace and visibility: a newspaper exposé, a governor's criminal inquiry, an attorney general calling the conduct fraud on television, and now subpoenas, all within days of an election in which early voting is already under way and ends on October 31 in many states.
The subpoenas also raise a question about the Justice Department's own traditions. For decades, the department has followed a longstanding practice of avoiding overt investigative steps in politically sensitive cases within 60 days of an election, precisely to avoid the appearance that federal law enforcement is trying to influence the outcome. The Alaska subpoenas land squarely inside that window, five days before Election Day.
Blanche played down the significance of that practice in comments to reporters last week, and the administration's defenders argue that investigating alleged election manipulation is itself a defence of election integrity, not an interference with it. Critics argue the opposite: that a criminal probe announced through leaks, amplified by the attorney general on cable news and paired with a lawsuit to block certification, risks shaping voter perceptions in the final days regardless of whether charges ever follow. That tension — between investigating alleged wrongdoing and appearing to intervene in an election — is now the central argument around the case, and it is likely to dominate the final days of the Alaska campaign.
It is also worth being precise about what the subpoenas are not. A subpoena is a demand for testimony or documents, not a finding of guilt. The existence of an investigation does not establish that any individual or campaign has committed a crime, and authorities have not announced any final determination of criminal responsibility. The recipients have not been named publicly, and neither Peltola nor any Democratic official has been charged.
Governor Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, announced his own state inquiry on Thursday, directing Alaska's Department of Public Safety to investigate whether the recruitment effort violated state law and whether criminal charges or civil action were warranted. "The evidence will determine what happens next," he said. He added that the report had revealed new evidence of an organised attempt to manipulate the state's elections by recruiting candidates intended to confuse voters and divert their votes. "Alaskans have a fundamental right to vote for the candidate they actually intend to support," Dunleavy said. "Deliberately tricking voters into casting their ballots for someone else strikes at the integrity of our elections."
Peltola's campaign committee, Alaskans for Mary, said on Wednesday that it "has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign". The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee also said it was "not involved with Dan J. Sullivan". Peltola herself issued a personal denial from Juneau on Thursday, saying she knew nothing about any other candidate on the ballot except herself and the incumbent — a denial that came as the subpoena reports spread. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. has likewise denied being recruited by Peltola's campaign or having contact with it over his candidacy, according to Associated Press reporting.
Republicans in Washington have seized on the reports as evidence of a deliberate scheme, while Democrats have framed the Justice Department's moves as an extraordinary federal intervention in a state election days before voting ends. The White House has said it is protecting election security, and the administration's supporters note that the investigation predates the Times report by months. What neither side disputes is the basic ballot fact at the heart of the row: Alaska voters will see two men named Dan Sullivan on their Senate ballot on Tuesday, and the campaign to explain that fact to voters is now running alongside a criminal investigation into how it happened.
The Alaska race matters far beyond Alaska because the Senate majority is at stake. With Republicans holding a narrow majority, a handful of competitive races — including Alaska, Michigan, Texas, Ohio, Kansas, Iowa and Maine — will decide which party controls the chamber for the final two years of President Trump's second term. A seat flipping in Alaska would change the arithmetic for every major bill, confirmation and investigation that follows.
The case also matters as a precedent. If a criminal investigation into candidate recruitment proceeds days before an election, it will shape how future campaigns, parties and prosecutors behave in close races. Parties routinely recruit candidates for strategic reasons; the line between hardball politics and unlawful deception is exactly what prosecutors would have to define if this probe ever reaches a courtroom. And if it does not reach a courtroom, the episode will still be cited in every future argument about when federal law enforcement should — and should not — step into an election campaign.
For Alaska voters, the most immediate consequence is practical: they must navigate a ballot carrying two Sullivan names, with national attention, duelling investigations and a pending certification lawsuit all swirling around their choice. Election officials have not suggested the ballot itself will change before Tuesday, and the state supreme court has already ruled the candidacy lawful. The question for voters is not who is on the ballot, but what they believe about how he got there.
Several things will happen before — and just after — Election Day. A federal judge is expected to rule in the coming days on the Justice Department's separate lawsuit seeking to block certification if Senator Sullivan narrowly loses. Blanche has signalled more Justice Department action this week, which could mean additional subpoenas, interviews or public statements before Tuesday. Dunleavy's state investigation is under way through the Department of Public Safety, though it is unlikely to conclude before voters decide.
On Tuesday, November 3, Alaskans will vote, and the count will determine whether the certification fight ever becomes live. If either Peltola or Senator Sullivan wins comfortably, the lawsuit's premise — a narrow loss tainted by confusion — falls away. If the margin is tight, expect immediate litigation over certification, with the Justice Department's lawsuit, the subpoena probe and the state inquiry all converging on the same result. Either way, the Alaska Senate race has already become one of the defining election-integrity fights of the 2026 midterms, and its aftermath will be watched in every state where a close race meets a federal prosecutor.
They are part of a Justice Department criminal investigation into allegations that Democratic operatives recruited Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher, to run for Senate under the same name as Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan, allegedly to confuse voters and draw votes away from the incumbent.
The recipients have not been publicly named. ABC News reported, citing multiple sources, that the subpoenas target Democratic officials believed to be tied to the recruitment effort. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed the subpoenas.
No. No charges have been filed against anyone in connection with the alleged recruitment effort, and the existence of an investigation does not establish that any individual or campaign committed a crime.
Peltola's campaign committee says it has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee says it was not involved with Dan J. Sullivan, and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. has denied being recruited by Peltola's campaign.
The Justice Department has separately sued to block certification if Senator Sullivan narrowly loses. A federal judge is expected to rule on that lawsuit in the coming days, before or shortly after Election Day on November 3, 2026.
Related coverage on US News Pulse: Justice Department seeks to block Alaska certification if Sullivan loses, Peltola denies knowing about second Dan Sullivan, and Dunleavy orders Alaska ballot probe.
Leave a Comment
| Today's Date:
