Trump Is Using a New, Highly Unusual Census Bureau Report to Claim He Won the 2020 Election

President Donald Trump lost the popular vote in the 2020 election by 4.4%. That hasn’t stopped him, though, from latching on to a highly unusual Census Bureau report published Tuesday afternoon that allegedly found less than two-hundredths of a percent of voters in that presidential election were noncitizens.

According to the report, 24,000 out of 128 million voters in the 2020 presidential election were ineligible “non-citizen” voters. Unnamed authors of the seven-page report, partially titled “A Beginning Analysis,” said the bureau still has to analyze 32 million voter records. According to Pew, some 158.4 million ballots were cast in the 2020 election. The Census Bureau’s report found 159.9 million ballots were cast in the election.

“The Census Bureau’s library of administrative records makes it uniquely capable of compiling and publishing statistics on election crime and other forms of fraud,” the report concludes, echoing the Trump administration’s prior attempts to link election and social service spending fraud to immigration.

The Census Bureau report comes after Trump has sought to lean on the statistical agency to uphold his administration’s monomaniacal goal of delegitimizing the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump used the report’s findings to urge the passing of the SAVE America Act, a sweeping voter suppression bill that Trump has been pressuring Congress to pass for months, but which does not have widespread support even among Republicans  in Congress. 

“On the first 128,000,000 Voters,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, “the Census Bureau proves that over 24,000 non-citizens voted illegally! The Census Bureau is going to analyze the next 32,000,000 Voters, and this number will explode. I WON THE ELECTION!”

Howard Lutnick, the secretary of the Department of Commerce, under which the Census Bureau falls, backed his boss in a post on X touting the report.

Experts have told TPM that there is “absolutely no basis” to Trump and the MAGA movement’s claims about noncitizen voting. Trump and Republicans have been propping up conspiracy theories about noncitizens voting en masse for Democrats in federal elections for years. Nevermind that the findings of Tuesday’s Census Bureau report obviously does not support any claim that the 2020 election was somehow rigged by a crush of ineligible, noncitizen voters. The bureau’s analysis diverts from normal operations in several ways, researchers and public data experts said Tuesday, which makes the veracity of its findings impossible to confirm.

“It lacks transparency and accountability,” Beth Jarosz, a senior fellow in demographic and socioeconomic analysis at the Georgetown University Massive Data Institute, told TPM.

Neither the Census Bureau nor the Commerce Department immediately responded to TPM requests for comment.

The Census Bureau used a roll of private voter data, compared with various federal data sources, to substantiate its finding. That’s unprecedented, Jarosz said.

“[O]ne of the red flags in the report is that the Census Bureau, when they start to use a new data source, typically goes through a very extensive process of trying to understand the data quality,” Jarosz said. “And I don’t see any evidence that they did that.”

On X, Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of policy and litigation strategy at Common Cause, said the Census Bureau doesn’t collect the information it would have needed to publish definitive findings about alleged noncitizen voting.

“The 2020 Census did not collect citizenship status, and the Census Bureau does not have a comprehensive individual ‘citizenship records’ file to definitively match against voter rolls,” Noureldin wrote. The type of data the Bureau did use in its report, according to its own methodology, “are modeled population estimates, not evidence that 24,000 people voted illegally,” he continued. 

The report doesn’t list any authors or even a bureau department from which the report came. According to Mike Schneider, an Associated Press reporter who covers the Census Bureau, that’s atypical.

“Every other report on the bureau’s ‘Census Publications’ site is credited to a statistician, economist, demographer or researcher,” Schneider wrote on his Substack.

Not even a department within the bureau is listed on the completely anonymous report. The report says its data was analyzed and published with “high confidence,” but lacks any definition on what high confidence means.

Tuesday’s report references legislation from 1902 which made the Census Bureau into a permanent governmental entity and empowers the Bureau to “collect statistics related to… crime, pauperism, and benevolence, including prisoners, paupers, juvenile delinquents,” and the like. The report’s authors cite this provision as giving the Bureau authority to “compile and

publish information on crime.”

This is an oversimplified interpretation of that provision, Mark Mather, the associate vice president of programs at the Population Reference Bureau, said in a data user forum. The legislation’s provision authorized the decennial Census to count “people already in institutions,” Mather wrote, not to identify “potential lawbreakers.”

“I’m concerned about the potential chilling effect of this work,” Mather continued, saying the report “sends a potentially troubling message about how administrative data shared with the Census Bureau might be used.”

Just in the last two months, the administration has:

The Department of Justice since 2025 has continued escalating its efforts to obtain voter roll data from states. Federal judges have dismissed 23 DOJ suits against states which have refused to turn over voter information.

Trump Admin and Its Allies Throw Up Roadblocks to Prosecuting ICE Agents

The Long Tail of Operation Metro Surge

The mostly below-the-radar effort to block Minnesota’s effort to prosecute federal agents for alleged crimes committed during Operation Metro Surge finally burst into public view yesterday.

On behalf of Minnesota, state Attorney General Keith Ellison sued Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who has refused to extradite ICE agent Christian Castro to face states charges arising from his pursuit of an undocumented immigrant that ended with him allegedly shooting Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis through the front door of a home in Minneapolis. Castro allegedly lied about the incident, claiming Sosa-Celis and another man attacked an ICE agent with a snow shovel and broom. Surveillance video later undermined that account, and the ICE agents involved have been under internal investigation by DHS.

The Jan. 14 non-fatal shooting of Sosa-Celis was sandwiched between the fatal ICE shootings that month of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. No one has been charged yet in those killings, but Minnesota continues to investigate and has succeeded in breaking through the Trump administration’s long-standing refusal to turn over evidence it gathered in those two shootings.

Castro was arrested in May in Texas on a nationwide warrant for the Minnesota charges. The new three-count lawsuit (which names as a co-defendant the sheriff of Cameron County, Texas, who has Castro in custody) filed in federal court in Brownsville seeks Castro’s extradition under the Constitution’s Extradition Clause, the federal Extradition Act, and the Texas Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.

Minnesota has been working since early June to secure Abbott’s sign-off on Castro’s extradition, according to the lawsuit. Repeated efforts to move the extradition paperwork off the governor’s desk have been slow rolled for more than two months now, Minnesota alleges. Meanwhile, extraditions of other defendants from Texas to Minnesota have proceeded as normal while the Castro extradition has languished.

But there’s more …

Trump DOJ Jumps In …

Meanwhile, in a separate case in which Minnesota is attempting to prosecute a federal agent for alleged misconduct, the Trump DOJ has leaped in to muddy the waters on behalf of ICE agent Gregory Morgan, Jr. of Maryland.

Morgan, who was charged in April with brandishing his service weapon in a road-rage-style incident, has sought to move the case against him from Minnesota state court to federal court. Under certain circumstances, federal law entitles federal officers to have their state criminal cases heard in federal court, though state prosecutors would still handle the case and it would be tried under Minnesota law.

The removal fight in the Morgan case has been bubbling for several weeks. There is a hot dispute between Morgan and Minnesota prosecutors over whether he is entitled to removal to federal court, mostly centered on whether Morgan was acting under color of his office at the time of the Feb. 5 incident in which he was driving in an unmarked rental vehicle back to the Whipple Federal Building with his partner at the end of their shift.

Into the middle of this dispute jumped the Trump DOJ last month, filing a Statement of Interest of the United States that weighed in on Morgan’s side to urge the removal of his case to federal court. But what really set things on a different course was that in its filing, the Trump DOJ alleged that the driver at whom Morgan brandished his weapon may have been guilty of criminal conduct for allegedly swerving to prevent Morgan from passing him illegally on the right shoulder of the roadway:

Given the probable cause to believe the driver committed a federal crime and may well have intended to do so again, Officer Morgan was justified in making a show of force.

The prospect of federal criminal prosecution of the driver prompted him and his passenger to assert their Fifth Amendment rights not to testify at the removal hearing without a grant of immunity. That has raised the prospect that the two victims won’t testify at trial either, which would undermine Minnesota’s ability to make its case.

Minnesota sought immunity for the victims to overcome their Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves, but the Trump DOJ declined to provide them with immunity. Minnesota is now asking the federal court to grant use immunity. It’s a complicated legal dispute over whose immunity it is to give: Minnesota’s or the federal government’s. The underlying removal question is arguable, too. The removal hearing has been cancelled twice. It has not yet been rescheduled.

The complexity of the legal questions and the slow pace of the proceedings makes this hard to capture with banner headlines and 24/7 coverage. But if you’re looking for accountability for the worst abuses during Operation Metro Surge, this below-the-radar fight to prevent it is where to focus.

The Deportation-Surveillance Complex

Greg Sargent:

It’s time to familiarize yourselves with the names “Operation Puppet Master” and “Operation Keyhole.” If those nefarious phrases evoke to you the U.S. government’s domestic spying on leftist groups in the 1960s and 1970s, it’s for good reason. The terms are coinages of today’s Department of Homeland Security, and they’re associated with a massive, covert surveillance effort that DHS unleashed earlier this year to track anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis, where Donald Trump’s violent paramilitary invasion triggered months of intense civil conflict.

Midterms Watch

Florida-Senate: A stunning win in the Democratic primary by longshot state Rep. Angie Nixon, a newly converted Democratic Socialist who was outspent 16-1 by Alex Vindman and did not run a single TV ad in the state, but still prevailed 56%-44%. Nixon will seek to unseat appointed Sen. Ashley Moody (R) in the special general election to finish Marco Rubio’s term.

Florida-07: Rep. Cory Mills was too sleazy even for Republicans, losing 47%-34% to former local TV news anchor Ryan Elijah in the GOP primary.

Alaska-Senate: In the unusual top-four-advance primary, former Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) outdrew incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) 48%-43% in a preview of the general election. The other Dan Sullivan drew 2%.

2 Dan Sullivans Prompts Criminal Probe?

With the news that federal grand jury subpoenas have been issued over the campaign of the other Dan Sullivan to unseat incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) in the Alaska Senate race, election law expert Rick Hasen cautions about the First Amendment implications of criminalizing this kind of election finagling which, as he notes, happens all the time:

I don’t see how the government could criminalize his running for office for having impure motives. And if it could do so, then it could be a crime every time that the Republican Party backs a Green Party candidate, or Democrats support a MAGA candidate in a primary in the hopes that the candidate would be weaker against a Democrat in the general election. This stuff happens all the time.

To put a blunter point on all of this: The Alaska Senate seat is key to Democrats’ difficult quest to win the Senate. Sen. Sullivan losing votes to the other Sullivan imperils that seat and puts President Trump at greater risk of facing a Democratic-controlled Congress for the rest of his term. Trump controls the DOJ with an iron fist. The DOJ is now investigating the matter.

Ipso Facto Collusion

Elaborating on many of themes from last Thursday’s Morning Memo, Harry Litman explains the inanity of the Trump DOJ suddenly parachuting into the anti-weaponization slush fund/IRS immunity case:

The best way for the Department to support Trump while being nominally opposed was to stay out of the fray. It worked for a time, until its very absence became a factor in the determination that the case was a collusive fraud on the court. Now it has to execute an impossible two-step: supporting Trump in every particular while feigning opposition to him.

DOJ Whistleblower Calls Out Ivy League Attack

Haley Van Erem, a former career attorney in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, is blowing the whistle on what everyone already knew: The Trump administration’s Title VI investigation into alleged antisemitism on Ivy League campuses was pretextual.

Van Erem’s allegations are detailed in a letter that her attorneys sent to Congress while seeking whistleblower protection.

As the WaPo notes:

Her disclosures Tuesday could bolster concerns raised by critics that the administration’s self-proclaimed push to combat antisemitism on campus was in fact an effort to punish schools it deemed ideologically opposed to its agenda. Van Erem’s account raised questions about past settlements the administration has struck with universities under investigation as well as pending probes that have yet to be resolved.

Van Erem says she resigned from the Justice Department in May 2025 rather than participate in politically motivated investigations.

Face Palm of the Day

The head of the once-famed DOJ Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, is openly galavanting in DC with Tina Peters, the convicted election denier from Colorado:

Quote of the Day

“I’m just going to be honest here. I’m not that informed on national security.”—Sen. Darline Graham (R-SC), during a TV debate ahead of next week’s runoff in the GOP primary to fill her late brother’s seat

The video:

Darlene Graham just bumbled through one of the worst responses to a question during a political debate you'll ever see

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-08-19T03:05:31.905Z

News? Tips? Feedback? Please let me know. For sensitive information, use the encrypted methods here.

After Chaotic Primary, Sen. Sullivan, Mary Peltola Head for the General Elections in Alaska

Former Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) and incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) are set to face off in the general elections following Tuesday’s nonpartisan primary. The other two candidates in Alaska’s crowded 16-person Senate field have not yet been called. 

As of 8 a.m. ET on Wednesday, Peltola had 48% of the vote and Sullivan had 42.8% with 80% of votes in. 

Continue reading “After Chaotic Primary, Sen. Sullivan, Mary Peltola Head for the General Elections in Alaska”

Florida Voters Reject Cory Mills’ Reelection Bid Amid Dating Violence Allegations

This story was originally reported by Mel Leonor Barclay of The 19th. Meet Mel and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

Republican voters in Florida rejected Rep. Cory Mills’ reelection bid in Tuesday’s primary, Decision Desk HQ projects, shutting out of Congress a lawmaker who is facing allegations that he assaulted a woman and threatened to publicize nude videos of a former girlfriend, among other possible misconduct.

Ryan Elijah, a former local Fox television news anchor, is the GOP nominee in the district, which President Donald Trump won by 12 percentage points in 2024.

Mills campaigned heavily on the president’s endorsement, which Trump renewed in February, months after the allegations against Mills surfaced. 

Continue reading “Florida Voters Reject Cory Mills’ Reelection Bid Amid Dating Violence Allegations”

Slotkin Asks Hegseth to Confirm He Won’t Send Troops to Polls

‘Laying the Breadcrumbs’

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) sent a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and to Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Tuesday, asking both Defense Department officials to confirm that the Pentagon will not send troops to polling places during the upcoming midterms.

Continue reading “Slotkin Asks Hegseth to Confirm He Won’t Send Troops to Polls”

From the Annals of Polling, Part 2

In my last post I mentioned this data analysis GOP pollster and consultant Pat Ruffini has put together looking at Senate polling going back through the last four cycles, so 2018 through 2024. Ruffini is a very partisan Republican in all the meanings of that word. But I think of him as broadly reliable when it comes to compiling and analyzing hard data. His analysis, probably not surprisingly, shows that polling in aggregate over-estimated Democrats in each cycle. Needless to say, there’s a lot of “cope” in this analysis, reassuring fretful Republicans that it’s not as bad as it looks. But I was curious because this at least broadly matches with my observations. Not always but more often than not.

You can read the analysis here. You have to subscribe to his Substack to read the whole thing. But you can get the gist before you get to the paywall. I’ve reached out to several polling analysts whose judgment I trust to get their sense of the analysis. So perhaps I’ll have more to say based on responses.

In any case, here are the main takeaways.

Continue reading “From the Annals of Polling, Part 2”

From The Annals of Polling, Part 1

Today I’m going to discuss two tidbits from the world of polling. In a second post I’m going to discuss an interesting and, for Democrats, somewhat chastening look at the last four cycles of Senate polling compiled by GOP pollster/consultant Pat Ruffini. But first some stunning news today about an out-of-nowhere polling outfit called Median Strategies. They polled a number of races but their survey showing DSA-backed Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong with a 23-point lead got the most attention. Today the firm announced it is ceasing operations, says it is withdrawing all its previous polls and says they should not be treated as “genuine polling data.”

They then go on to make this almost unbelievable statement: “Median Strategies was created as a short-term social experiment examining how purported polling information could enter and spread through the political information ecosystem wihtout independent verification.” They then follow with a “Thank you for your understanding.”

Continue reading “From The Annals of Polling, Part 1”

How the Supreme Court Kicked Off America’s Sports Betting Addiction Crisis

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at Balls and Strikes.

In 2017, Americans legally wagered $4.9 billion on sporting events. Last year, they bet over $165 billion. And the true costs of their bets were even higher: One-quarter of sports bettors, surveyed by U.S. News last summer, worried that they couldn’t control their gambling. Over 30,000 people reach out to the National Problem Gambling Helpline every month.

“Problem gambling,” a term referring to an inability to control gambling behavior that results in personal or financial harm, is at least twice as common among sports bettors as among gamblers in general. It’s unsurprising, then, that Congress enacted a law decades ago that prohibited sports gambling throughout much of the country. But in 2018, the Supreme Court struck that law down, freeing states to partner with the gambling industry to profit off their vulnerable residents. A growing body of research shows Americans are now paying the price.

Continue reading “How the Supreme Court Kicked Off America’s Sports Betting Addiction Crisis”

Appeals Court Blocks Trump Scheme on US Attorneys

It’s All Part of Retribution on Blue States

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling that disqualified Sigal Chattah as the purported top prosecutor in the Nevada United States Attorney’s Office.

The ruling deals a blow to the Trump scheme of bypassing Senate confirmation to install poorly qualified loyalists as top federal prosecutors in blue states — a key element of Trump’s campaign of retribution.

The particular element of the broader scheme at issue here was whether the attorney general can dole out the “first assistant U.S. attorney” designation to just anyone and install acting U.S. attorneys of its choosing in already-vacant positions.

Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, the first assistant U.S. attorney automatically assumes the role of acting U.S. attorney when that post becomes vacant. The Trump DOJ took that provision and ran with it, using the first assistant designation on people like Chattah to circumvent both Senate confirmation and the law allowing federal judges to name interim U.S. attorneys.

What the the three-judge 9th Circuit panel (two Trump appointees and a Clinton appointee) unanimously decided is that the first assistant must have been serving in that role at the time of the vacancy in the U.S. attorney position in order to automatically ascend. Someone like Chattah, who was designated first assistant after the fact of the vacancy, is not eligible to serve as acting U.S. attorney on the basis of that designation.

The “rule of automatic succession applies only to a first assistant who held that position at the time the vacancy arose; it does not apply to a first assistant who never served under a validly appointed official,” the appeal court decided.

The appeals court also rejected the attempts by Trump attorneys general to “create a de facto Acting U.S. Attorney by delegating all of the functions and duties of the U.S. Attorney to someone else.”

Chattah’s case is instructive because of how many elements of manipulation and scheming are involved. Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi properly named Chattah to the statutorily mandated 120-day term as acting U.S. attorney on April 1, 2025. Then things got weird.

Chattah is a Trump loyalist with no prior prosecutorial experience who has reportedly abused the office for personal and political gain. The federal judges in Nevada did not move to retain her in the role, which they have the power to do under statute.

Just before Chattah’s 120-day term ended, she resigned and Bond designated her as first assistant U.S. attorney. Bondi’s order declared that by law Chattah automatically ascended back into the acting role she had just resigned. In a belt-and-suspenders move, Bondi also made Chattah a special U.S. attorney and purported to delegate all the powers of the Nevada U.S. attorney to her.

The appeals court rejected both moves as unlawful.

It’s important to note that these challenges to the unlawful appointments of U.S. attorneys — like the similarly successful challenges of Alina Habba’s appointment in New Jersey — are coming from criminal defendants seeking to have their indictments thrown out. (The lower court in the consolidated cases brought by multiple criminal defendants had declined to dismiss the indictments, and the appeals court yesterday said it lacked jurisdiction at this stage to consider whether dismissal of the indictments was an appropriate remedy).

So not only is the Trump DOJ engaged in squirrelly workarounds to install loyalists in blue states and bypass the Senate, but it’s risking having legitimate criminal prosecutions thrown out in order to do so.

Keep an Eye on This

I know this seems even more in the weeds, but the precise mechanism has been finalized for running one portion of the Justice Department directly out of the White House to target what it euphemistically calls “fraud” but really means elected Democrats in blue states.

The move — reported by Bloomberg’s Ben Penn — shifts bureaucratic power from Main Justice’s Criminal Division to the new National Fraud Enforcement Division, which is being closely overseen at the White House by Vice President JD Vance and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.

“The regulation also creates leeway for the new operation to take on a vast array of unspecified other cases,” Penn notes.

All indications are that this will be a new tool of retribution even more directly wielded by the White House than Attorney General Todd Blanche is. Also, as I mentioned yesterday, these White House-driven investigations don’t have to yield prosecutions in order to be beneficial to Trump and damaging to his targets. Wide-ranging subpoenas on spurious claims of fraud gives the White House access to documents, communications, personal information, and other potentially useful fodder to use against Democrats and other Trump foes.

A Match Made in MAGA Heaven?

Shasta County, California — which has been a hotbed (or petri dish, as we once called it) of Big Lie boosterism — may be hiring Tina Peters, the convicted former Colorado county elections official newly freed from prison, to help run its elections.

Clint Curtis, the outgoing Shasta County clerk and registrar of voters, said in an interview with a conservative radio host that he’s bringing Peters on next month as the new assistant registrar of voters. “She has experience,” he said. “And she’s able to take the rocks and arrows.”

Some words of caution about the absurdity of all this, from the New York Times:

It was unclear how real Mr. Curtis’s job offer actually was or whether Ms. Peters would accept it. Ms. Peters’s prison sentence was commuted, but the terms of her parole limit her ability to leave Colorado. And Mr. Curtis will only be in office until January, after losing the June election to a former elections official whom he had fired.

So to summarize, Curtis was just voted out of office and he’s now claiming that for his last hurrah he will bring in Peters to help him run the midterms, but she might violate her parole by going to California. Got it.

The 9th Circuit Giveth and Taketh

In a 2-1 opinion, a 9th Circuit panel last week upheld one of the controversial administrative subpoenas targeting providers of transgender care and seeking invasive patient information, Chris Geidner reports in Law Dork. The majority consisted of a Bush II and Trump appointee; a Clinton appointee dissented.

Quote of the Day: Doth Protest Too Loudly

“Someday, your children will come across your disgusting and inhumane question. They will be sickened and embarrassed to have a parent be so callous and vindictive. It’s quite troubling.”—the Trump White House, in a post on X, attacking CNN reporter Kristen Holmes for asking the president an anodyne question about Natalie Harp

E. Jean Carroll Gets to Keep Trump’s $5M

The Supreme Court rejected for the second time President Trump’s bid to challenge E. Jean Carroll’s $5 million judgment against him for defamation and sexual abuse.

Construction Work Halted in Big Bend

Amid rising opposition, including from Republican elected officials in Texas, the head of Customs and Border Protection announced Monday a pause in the controversial construction underway in Big Bend National Park to deter illegal immigration.

News? Tips? Feedback? Please let me know. For sensitive information, use the encrypted methods here.

Blanche Hints Trump Admin Might Try to Take Voter Roll Fight to SCOTUS

‘We’re Not Going to Stop’

Newly-confirmed Attorney General Todd Blanche made headlines over the weekend for other, arguably, more alarming remarks and actions than what I am about to unpack. During an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Blanche refused to say that the Justice Department would act independently from the White House. On Friday, he and FBI Director Kash Patel openly campaigned for a Republican midterms candidate alongside President Trump.

But during his sprint of weekend public appearances, Blanche also acknowledged that he might take the Justice Department’s obviously-failing effort to seize election administration rights from states all the way to the Supreme Court. During an interview with Kristin Welker on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Welker asked whether Blanche would be willing to take his campaign to seize voter roll data from states to the Supreme Court. The DOJ’s efforts to sue for states’ voter roll data has been hit with 22 district court losses thus far, most recently in Nevada.

“We’ll see what happens,” Blanche said when asked about involving the high court in the floundering campaign that began under fired Attorney General Pam Bondi. “Absolutely, it’s a possibility.”

As TPM’s Khaya Himmelman has been tracking for months now, the Justice Department is trying to force states to hand over unredacted voter roll data ostensibly to purge states’ voters rolls of supposed noncitizens, whom President Trump has claimed are illegally voting en masse for Democrats in federal elections. This is a widely debunked myth that Republicans and Trump tend to elevate when it is politically convenient for them, but the truth is, noncitizens voting in federal elections is vanishingly rare, in part because it is illegal and the consequences for doing so are already incredibly harsh.

That said, the Justice Department has sued 30 states overall to try to exert authority over state’s constitutional right to administer elections. It wants this data so it can run it through a faulty database — known to mistakenly identify eligible voters as ineligible — and purge supposed noncitizens from the rolls, which states already do on a regular basis to clean up voter rolls ahead of elections.

When NBC’s Welker asked Blanche if it’d suffered enough legal defeats to give up the crusade, Blanche said, “we’re not going to stop.”

“We’re relying on a statute passed by Congress that allows us, in the right circumstances, to review and get those voter rolls,” said Blanche. “So, no, we’re not going to stop doing what I think every American should expect us to do.”

So far, not one single federal judge has sided with the Trump Justice Department’s argument for why it should have access to the data — and we’re talking about judges who have been appointed by Democratic and Republican administrations alike. As Khaya has reported for TPM:

The data the DOJ is after includes sensitive information like drivers licenses and Social Security numbers — personal identifying information that the federal government is not entitled to.

To make its case, the DOJ has been relying on provisions in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA) to argue it is allowed to seize the information. But, as the courts have found time and time again, none of these statutes give the federal government the authority to demand state’s voter rolls.  

View Article


Fox News Host Makes Fun of U.S. Sailors Experiencing Mental Health Crisis

Amid reports of both a lack of supplies and food, and a deteriorating mental health situation onboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln where multiple service members have tried to jump overboard, a Fox News host and former Marine made fun of the sailors, saying, “how weak are you?” The ship is stationed in the Arabian Sea, supporting the U.S.’s military operations in Iran and has not made a port call for over 200 days.

“I just do not understand the mentality,” Fox host Joey Jones said. “If this is a representation of who our military is now… we’re just Rome sitting here waiting to burn. We’ve got nothing left.”

Trump Defends Decision to Cut Exercises With South Korea

After directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to “substantially reduce” the U.S. military’s ongoing drills with South Korea, citing his “very good relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un,” Trump defended the decision in the Oval Office today. Trump argued that the U.S. should not be engaging in joint military exercises with South Korea if they’re not willing to help aid the U.S. in Trump’s ongoing, unpopular war with Iran.

“He said, ‘No, thanks,’” Trump said. “And I said … we have 39,000 soldiers over there guarding you from Kim Jong Un, your next-door neighbor, and you’re not going to help us on a very easy military operation in Iran? … I see. Well, why are we involved in helping you?”

“We’re guarding them from a country … that’s costing us billions and billions of dollars to protect not only them, but other countries,” he continued. “Look at NATO. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars protecting Europe from Russia, hundreds of billions, mostly from Russia, but from other things, too. And then they say, well, they don’t want to get involved with guarding the strait where they get most of their oil.”

If You Read One More Thing From TPM Today, Read This

Sarah Posner reports on the evangelical community as it looks for the Christian right’s next political leader when Trump’s term is up in 2028. They’ve somehow set their sights on … Mike Huckabee: Evangelicals Think They’ve Found Their Post-Trump Era Leader in … Mike Huckabee?

Yesterday’s Top Story

Let’s Take a Look-See at What ‘Far Left’ vs. ‘Far Right’ Candidates Actually Want

What I’m Reading

Planned Parenthood to spend more than $600,000 against Susan Collins in Maine 

Burnham exchanged messages with impersonator of top Trump aide  

We Tracked a Shipment of Rare Books.  It Ended at an Amazon AI Training Facility