The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has charged six more lawful permanent residents with alleged voter fraud in California, escalating the Trump administration’s campaign against the state’s election processes on the eve of the midterm elections. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, announced the charges on Monday, accusing the six green card holders of unlawfully registering to vote and casting ballots in recent years.
The six defendants, from countries including Mexico, Israel, the Philippines, Canada and Iran, are each charged with a single count of making a false statement on a naturalization application. Prosecutors allege they registered and voted unlawfully, but they are not facing charges specifically for voting.
Essayli said the newly charged defendants were on a federal prosecutors’ list of roughly 20,000 voters who might be fraudulently registered. The DoJ is pursuing a federal lawsuit seeking to have California set aside ballots that prosecutors say may belong to noncitizens who fraudulently registered, until the state can confirm their citizenship. State election officials have argued the list and methodology are unreliable and that complying with the demands in the middle of an election would be logistically impossible. The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected the administration’s appeals, and multiple judges have rebuffed the DoJ’s efforts. A federal judge last week blocked the administration from continuing to threaten election officials, describing the DoJ’s conduct as “intimidation, threats, and attempts at coercion”.
The timing and presentation of the charges have drawn sharp criticism. Experts have said it was extraordinary for the DoJ to bring the cases during an election, with federal prosecutors traditionally avoiding steps that could be seen as politically motivated or as potential interference with an upcoming race. Former prosecutors and defense lawyers said the showy presentation of the arrests was especially galling. Democrats have accused the DoJ of seeking to sow doubt in the election results. Trent McCotter, the acting US deputy attorney general, said the list may not be perfect: “There may be some names on there who, it turns out, ultimately are citizens. We’re not perfect, and that’s why we’ve asked California to cooperate with us.”
An immigrants’ rights group that challenged the government’s data said its analysis found that more than 40 per cent of the names on the list could not be found on the state’s voter rolls. Essayli told reporters the government used “third-party databases” and that while it “may not be 100%” accurate, there was a “very, very high confidence rate”.
A federal judge last week ruled that Essayli was “unlawfully” serving as head of the US attorney’s office because he had not been formally appointed and confirmed by the Senate. The DoJ is appealing that ruling.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The DoJ prosecutions and legal campaign target election integrity amid ongoing partisan debate over voting access.
- The confrontation between the federal government and California tests the limits of federal power over state election administration.
- The prosecution of green card holders for registration could deter lawful permanent residents from civic participation.
Background
The Trump administration has consistently argued that noncitizen voting is a widespread problem, a claim strongly disputed by election integrity researchers. The DoJ actions in California represent the most forceful legal and prosecutorial push yet, targeting a large Democratic state with legal challenges and criminal charges in the lead-up to the 2026 midterms. The Supreme Court's rejection of the administration’s appeal marks a significant legal setback.
Key Perspectives
- Trump Administration / DoJ: Maintains it is protecting election integrity by prosecuting noncitizens who registered and voted, arguing its list of potentially fraudulent voters has a high confidence rate.
- California Election Officials: Counter that the DoJ’s data is unreliable, its logistical demands are impossible, and its threats intimidate election workers, risking the disenfranchisement of citizens.
- Federal Courts & Critics: A federal judge characterized the DoJ’s conduct as “intimidation, threats, and attempts at coercion”, and multiple judges have rejected the administration’s legal efforts. Experts and Democrats view the mid-election timing as politically motivated interference.
What to Watch
- How California election officials respond to the new charges and whether the standoff escalates.
- The outcome of the DoJ’s appeal against the ruling blocking it from threatening election workers.
- Whether the prosecutions of the six defendants lead to formal indictments or convictions.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 11 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedThe headline says the administration charged six more green card holders in a California voter-fraud crackdown.World news | The Guardian: “The six new defendants are all green card holders, according to criminal complaints filed in federal court”
- SupportedThe summary says the DOJ’s legal battle concerns roughly 20,000 ballots and that courts have pushed back.World news | The Guardian: “lawsuit seeking to force California election officials to set aside roughly 20,000 ballots”
- Partly supportedThe opening says the six were charged with alleged voter fraud, which can imply that voting itself is the charged offence.World news | The Guardian: “All six are accused of a single charge each of making false statements on a naturalization application”
- SupportedBill Essayli announced the charges on Monday and is the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.World news | The Guardian: “Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles ... announced on Monday that his office was prosecuting six lawful permanent residents”
- SupportedThe six defendants were accused of unlawfully registering to vote and casting ballots in recent years.World news | The Guardian: “The complaints said the defendants cast ballots in recent years, but they are not facing charges specifically relating to fraudulently voting.”
- SupportedThe defendants each face a single count of making a false statement on a naturalization application.World news | The Guardian: “All six are accused of a single charge each of making false statements on a naturalization application”
- SupportedThe defendants are from Mexico, Israel, the Philippines, Canada and Iran.World news | The Guardian: “The six defendants include people originally from Mexico, Israel, the Philippines, Canada and Iran, prosecutors said.”
- SupportedEssayli said the newly charged defendants were on a federal list of roughly 20,000 voters who might be fraudulently registered.World news | The Guardian: “Essayli said the newly arrested defendants were on federal prosecutors’ list of 20,000 voters who might be fraudulently registered”
- SupportedAn immigrants’ rights group said more than 40 per cent of the names on the list could not be found on state voter rolls.World news | The Guardian: “analyzed the list and said in a filing over the weekend that more than 40% of the people flagged as potentially fraudulent voters could not be found on the state’s voter rolls.”
- SupportedA federal judge blocked the administration from threatening election officials and described the conduct as “intimidation, threats, and attempts at coercion”.World news | The Guardian: “The judge blocked the administration from continuing to threaten election officials.”
- SupportedMcCotter said, “There may be some names on there who, it turns out, ultimately are citizens. We’re not perfect, and that’s why we’ve asked California to cooperate with us.”World news | The Guardian: “Trent McCotter, the acting US deputy attorney general, said: “There may be some names on there who, it turns out, ultimately are citizens. We’re not perfect, and that’s why we’ve asked California to cooperate with us.””
- SupportedEssayli was ruled to be unlawfully serving as head of the US attorney’s office, and the DOJ is appealing.World news | The Guardian: “a federal judge ruled last week that he was “unlawfully” serving as the head of the US attorney’s office since he was not formally appointed and confirmed by the Senate. The DoJ is appealing that ruling.”