Fabricated opinion polls are exposing serious weaknesses in the US electoral system, where inadequate oversight, partisan manipulation and the influence of powerful media institutions allow fraudulent information to shape political narratives, undermine campaigns and deepen public distrust ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The latest scandal emerged after Wedgewood Polls admitted earlier this month that it had fabricated survey results covering several battleground states, including Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Kansas and Maine, exposing how easily invented election data can enter the country’s mainstream political discourse.

The firm, which launched in June, described the operation as “an experimental project” intended to expose the “vulnerabilities, lack of oversight and overall low barrier to entry” in the US polling industry.

“Having previously worked in the polling and research sector, we watched as the public’s trust in polling eroded alongside a rise in unverified, low-quality methodology,” the firm said in a statement on its now-deleted social media account.

Wedgewood said it wanted to test how easily fabricated polling figures could gain traction among voters and the media.

“The short answer: Far too easy,” it said.

The admission came only after its fabricated surveys had already circulated through the US political information system, including appearing in The New York Times’ polling tracker.

The newspaper acknowledged that it had listed 15 Wedgewood surveys between June and October before removing them, despite the firm having provided information about its personnel, methodology and funding during the vetting process.

Although the newspaper said the surveys were not incorporated into its presidential approval or national congressional polling averages, their inclusion exposed the limitations of an industry whose influence over political narratives often exceeds the scrutiny applied to its findings.

The scandal followed a similar incident in August involving Median Strategies, which also admitted fabricating polling results as a “short-term social experiment”.

An investigation by polling and forecasting website FiftyPlusOne identified inconsistencies in Wedgewood’s raw data and technical identifiers associated with survey responses, eventually prompting the firm to acknowledge that most of its results were fabricated.

Wedgewood has denied intending to mislead the public, but data journalist G Elliott Morris, who participated in the investigation, rejected its explanation.

“We were investigating Wedgewood for faking their data,” Morris said. “They are trying to cover up for their fraud with the ‘we were doing a social experiment’ excuse.”

Beyond exposing failures in the polling industry, the scandal has highlighted how questionable surveys can directly affect political campaigns, particularly candidates with limited financial resources and weaker access to major media platforms.

Mallory McMorrow, who unsuccessfully contested Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, said a Wedgewood survey placing her support in the single digits seriously damaged her campaign.

She described the survey, alongside another conducted by Mitchell Research and Communications, as a “one-two punch” that “killed her campaign”.

According to McMorrow, the figures demoralised volunteers, prompted journalists to question whether she should abandon her candidacy and contributed to a decline in donations as Democratic supporters redirected their financial backing to other campaigns.

“By that point, we took a risk and we spend our money. We put our ads up. They were working. But the damage was done. And I was drowned out by outside spending and the narrative that we had completely collapsed,” she wrote in a social media post before suspending her Senate campaign in July.

The controversy has also become another weapon in America’s increasingly bitter partisan confrontation, with political commentators exploiting the scandal to discredit polling that does not support their preferred electoral narratives.

Researchers at the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public found that discussion of Wedgewood’s admission initially centered on polling experts before spreading through partisan media networks and influential political accounts.

The researchers said right-wing commentators used the revelations to question polling more broadly, particularly surveys indicating that Democrats were competitive in closely contested races.

“Within 24 hours, the right-wing media ecosystem had succeeded in drawing attention to the story and setting some of the most salient frames: that poll numbers around the midterms, especially poll numbers favoring Democrats, cannot be trusted,” the center wrote.

US President Donald Trump also seized on the scandal to attack The New York Times, which had included Wedgewood’s surveys in its polling tracker.

“The New York Times got caught,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, suggesting the revelations would strengthen his $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the newspaper.

“Our powerful Lawsuit against them is getting stronger and stronger every day,” he added.

Meanwhile, the absence of specific US legislation criminalizing the publication of fabricated opinion polls has raised further questions about accountability in an electoral environment increasingly vulnerable to information manipulation.

Legal scholars and advocacy groups have argued that deliberately fraudulent polling operations could potentially fall under federal fraud laws.

In a 2020 article for the Missouri Law Review, Tyler Yeargain argued that existing election-related laws had not been fully used to address fraudulent polling.

“Deterring this sort of fraud before it can happen – and raising awareness of it – is vital,” he wrote.

Yeargain argued that prosecution could help prevent fabricated surveys from being weaponized to manipulate elections.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also entered the dispute, with Chairman Brendan Carr warning broadcasters about what he described as “a significant surge” in fake polls during the 2026 midterms.

Carr said broadcasters could face consequences for promoting broadcast hoaxes or distorting news.

“Broadcasters are prohibited by the terms of their federal licenses from engaging in News Distortion or promoting Broadcast Hoaxes,” he wrote on social media.

However, the FCC’s sole Democratic commissioner, Anna Gomez, challenged his position, arguing that reporting publicly available polling data in good faith should not expose broadcasters to punishment.

“Pollsters who intentionally mislead the public should answer for it, but broadcasters who report publicly available polling data should never be punished when a poll is wrong,” she wrote on X.

“FCC rules on news distortion or hoaxes do not apply to a station that reports this data in good faith.”

With accountability remaining uncertain and political interests increasingly shaping the interpretation of election information, Mark Baldassare, survey director of the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), stressed the importance of transparency when evaluating polling organizations.

“Look for transparency,” Baldassare told PPIC’s Stephanie Barton in an interview. “A credible survey will list its mission, the purpose of its polling, and its sponsors or funders.”

“A poll guided by partisan groups or campaigns that is publicly released may have a message to relay to the public.”