Whistleblower Alleges DHS Built Voter-Fraud Records From Unreliable California Data

New disclosure says rushed reviews produced federal records

WASHINGTON — An anonymous federal whistleblower alleges that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services personnel were diverted from immigration-fraud and national-security work, given less than two hours of training and ordered to begin reviewing people for possible unlawful voting four days later.

The September 14 disclosure, released by Democratic Senators Alex Padilla of California and Chuck Schumer of New York, says officers were assigned quotas of at least five subjects per hour, or 40 per day. It alleges they were expected within roughly 12 minutes to assess citizenship and voting information and decide whether to create a TECS federal law-enforcement record.

Those claims come from an anonymous whistleblower represented by Democracy Defenders Fund. The disclosure includes training transcripts and screenshots, but its accusations have not been tested in court or resolved by an inspector general. DHS and the White House did not provide a new response to the Associated Press before publication.

California records are central to the accuracy warning

The disclosure says officers were frequently unable to confirm California voter information through the state's voter-status website, which requires personal identifying information such as a driver-license or identification-card number or the final four digits of a Social Security number for an exact match.

According to the whistleblower, supervisors nevertheless directed officers to create TECS records from DHS-provided registration or voting dates even when the source was unclear, inconsistent with another record or impossible to corroborate through the California portal. The disclosure alleges that this process could produce thousands or tens of thousands of records involving California residents, including naturalized U.S. citizens.

That is an allegation about risk and process—not a confirmed count of wrongly flagged Californians. The public materials do not identify affected voters, establish that anyone has been removed from a voter roll or prove that an erroneous record changed a person's eligibility to vote.

Portal-access allegations raise separate legal questions

The disclosure alleges officers were directed to use DHS-held personal information to access state voter-status websites as though they were the voter or had the voter's authorization. Virginia's portal expressly requires such an attestation; the materials also identify Florida and Massachusetts as having voter-only restrictions and describe California's portal as requiring sensitive personal identifiers.

The whistleblower says officers who questioned the practice were told that government lawyers considered the searches permissible open-source research for official investigations and that individual employees would not be personally liable when acting within their duties. The disclosure argues that those assurances did not explain how false attestations or access restrictions would be lawful.

No court has ruled that DHS employees committed state computer crimes through this initiative. Padilla and Schumer asked Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and USCIS Director Joseph Edlow to halt the operation, preserve records and answer detailed questions about its authority, data sources and consequences. That request is congressional oversight, not a binding order.

Federal lawsuit seeks to stop California voter-list review

LOS ANGELES — The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and Pedro Trujillo, a naturalized U.S. citizen registered to vote in California, filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to stop the Trump administration's review of California voter information.

The 36-page complaint names the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Attorney General Todd Blanche. It asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to halt the California voter-list review, require the administration to rescind its demand for voter information and declare the challenged actions unlawful and unconstitutional.

Those are requests by the plaintiffs—not court orders. No judge has ruled on the merits, and the complaint does not establish that any naturalized citizen has been removed from California's voter rolls.

Plaintiffs allege database matching could misidentify citizens

The lawsuit alleges that federal officials may be comparing voter records with undisclosed government databases that can contain outdated or inconsistent information. It argues that matching names, birth dates or addresses without reliable unique identifiers can falsely classify naturalized citizens as noncitizens.

The complaint says the administration has not disclosed how it calculated its claim that 190,832 noncitizens may be registered in California. Secretary of State Shirley Weber has challenged that figure, saying her office did not provide California's statewide voter-registration list to DHS and has not received the methodology needed to evaluate the claim.

A disputed database match is not proof that a person registered illegally or cast an illegal ballot. It can reflect stale immigration records, name changes, formatting differences, duplicate entries or a person who naturalized after an older federal record was created.

DHS says it used public voter data and immigration records

DHS told the Associated Press that it accessed publicly available state voter-roll data and cross-referenced it with people the department classifies as being in the country illegally. The agency said it is focused on prosecuting noncitizens who vote and protecting citizens' votes.

That statement confirms the administration is matching voter information against federal immigration data. It does not disclose the matching methodology, error rate, validation process or evidence supporting the California total challenged in court.

Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and California requires applicants to attest under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens. Naturalized citizens possess the same federal voting rights as citizens born in the United States.

Homeland Security is using an ICE investigative unit before the midterms

The Department of Homeland Security has begun a coordinated voter-fraud investigation in nine states, including California, using Homeland Security Investigations—the investigative arm of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The initiative is expected to run from early September into mid-October, shortly before the November 3 midterm elections. Public reporting says agents may pursue investigative leads and conduct field interviews, but DHS has not publicly identified confirmed California cases that justify describing the effort as proof of widespread fraud.

An investigation is a process for testing allegations. It is not a finding that fraud occurred, that any named voter is ineligible or that California's election results are unreliable.

Kern County's clerk says the local counting system is offline

Kern County Auditor-Controller-County Clerk Amy Espinoza addressed election security during Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting. She said the county's voting system is not connected to the internet or another outside system, according to BakersfieldNow.

Espinoza also described the state-required one-percent manual tally: election workers hand-count a sample of ballots and compare the result with the voting system's tabulation. She said past discrepancies were traced to human error and prompted recounting.

Those safeguards do not mean questions are forbidden. They mean claims about compromised machines or inaccurate counts should be tested against audit records, certification documents and specific evidence rather than repeated as assumptions.

The administration's numbers do not establish illegal ballots

The administration has promoted estimates suggesting large numbers of possible noncitizens may appear in voter data across several states. The public accounts do not establish how many entries represent current registrations, data mismatches, naturalized citizens, duplicate records or actual illegal ballots.

California's Secretary of State says registrants must attest under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens and eligible to vote. The office says it asked the administration for the methodology and data behind its allegations and has not received a sufficient answer.

DHS separately announced grant conditions encouraging hand-marked paper ballots, citizenship checks and larger manual audits. Whether federal agencies can compel every condition or obtain sensitive voter data remains subject to state resistance and litigation.

Trump still has not declared an election emergency

President Donald Trump has not declared a national emergency involving the 2026 midterm elections. But voting-rights experts and lawmakers are increasingly concerned that his administration may be creating a justification for extraordinary action as voters prepare to decide control of Congress.

The latest concerns intensified after conservative television host Wayne Allyn Root suggested that Trump declare a national security emergency to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements, voter-identification rules and restrictions on mail voting without waiting for Congress.

Trump did not reject the proposal. He responded that stranger things have happened and said he would leave it at that. The remark was not an official announcement or confirmation that an emergency declaration is being prepared. His refusal to dismiss the suggestion has nevertheless taken on greater significance because of actions already undertaken by his administration.

A campaign to increase federal influence over elections

Trump and his allies have repeatedly promoted claims about widespread noncitizen voting, foreign interference and fraud despite the absence of evidence showing that these problems occur at a scale capable of determining national elections.

The administration has pursued access to state voter information, supported stricter citizenship-verification requirements and attempted to place new conditions on mail voting. Trump has also said he wants the federal government to take over election administration in certain Democratic-controlled areas.

The Constitution does not give the president general authority to control elections. States administer elections under rules established primarily by state legislatures and Congress. Federal courts have blocked major portions of Trump’s election-related executive orders on separation-of-powers grounds, and the administration has appealed.

Emergency powers would not legally give Trump control

Legal experts say declaring an emergency would not automatically give Trump the power to cancel elections, delay voting, prohibit mail ballots or seize control of state election systems.

Protect Democracy’s analysis states that none of the emergency authorities previously authorized by Congress would permit a president to lawfully nationalize election administration. The date of a federal election is established by law, and the president cannot simply cancel or postpone it through an executive order.

An attempted declaration could still create confusion, provoke court battles, intimidate election officials and undermine public confidence. Litigation could continue while voters, local officials and federal agencies struggle to determine which rules apply.

Lawmakers are seeking assurances about the military

Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan recently asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine to promise that the military would not be used at polling locations or to seize election equipment during the midterms.

Federal law generally prohibits armed federal forces from being sent to election sites except under extremely limited circumstances involving an armed threat. The request reflects memories of the period following Trump’s 2020 defeat, when allies discussed using federal authority to seize voting machines as Trump attempted to overturn the result.

The Pentagon has not announced any plan to interfere with voting, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has called allegations that the administration intends to use military forces to suppress votes categorically false. Those denials matter. So does the fact that lawmakers believe explicit assurances are now necessary.

No declaration—but the warning signs deserve scrutiny

The Justice Department is preparing to deploy as many as 1,000 election monitors during the midterms. Federal monitoring is not inherently improper and has historically been used to enforce voting-rights laws. Experts are watching how this administration could use the monitors’ presence or findings alongside its demands for state voter data.

It would be inaccurate to report that Trump has already declared an election emergency or definitely intends to do so. What can be reported is that he was publicly encouraged to take that step and declined to rule it out. His administration has also attempted to impose election requirements that courts found exceeded presidential authority.

The legal safeguards surrounding American elections remain substantial. States retain primary responsibility for conducting elections, Congress establishes federal election law and courts can block unconstitutional executive actions.

Trump may never declare an election emergency. The possibility should not be presented as an established fact. Neither should his words and actions be dismissed as meaningless. When a president questions the legitimacy of elections, seeks authority the Constitution does not give him and refuses to rule out emergency action, vigilance is not an overreaction. It is a democratic responsibility.