Trump DOJ Official Misled Federal Judge About Sensitive Voter Data

The DOJ has been pooling and analyzing voter registration data from states, despite claims of not doing so.

Apr. 6, 2026 at 8:07pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A dimly lit, cinematic painting of a government office desk or filing cabinet, with warm sunlight streaming in through a window and casting deep shadows across the scene, conveying a sense of unease and uncertainty about the DOJ's handling of voter data.The DOJ's aggressive pursuit of sensitive voter data raises concerns about the security and privacy of this information, and the potential for misuse.Providence Today

A U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) official, Eric Neff, acting head of the DOJ's voting section, misled a federal judge in Providence, Rhode Island about the agency's handling of sensitive voter registration data. Neff initially told the judge that the DOJ had not done anything with the data, but later admitted that the agency had begun analyzing it to identify potential voting irregularities ahead of the midterm elections.

Why it matters

This revelation raises concerns about the DOJ's motives and the security of voter data, as the agency has been aggressively seeking to obtain unredacted voter rolls from states, many of which have pushed back due to privacy and security risks. The DOJ's actions under the Trump administration appear to be part of a broader effort to undermine confidence in the electoral process.

The details

According to the report, the DOJ, under Neff's leadership, has been pooling voter registration data from states and analyzing it to identify potential issues, despite Neff's initial claims to a federal judge that the agency had not done anything with the data. The DOJ has sent letters to election officials in at least 48 states and Washington, D.C., requesting unredacted voter rolls, and has sued 30 states in an effort to force them to hand over the information. However, courts have so far sided with the states, dismissing cases in California, Michigan, and Oregon, where state officials have pointed out the security risks involved in sharing such sensitive data.

  • In late March, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy questioned Eric Neff about what the DOJ had done with voting data for Rhode Island.
  • On March 27, Neff filed a court document walking back his previous claims, admitting that the DOJ had begun preliminary internal data analysis of the voter registration data.
  • The DOJ's initiative to obtain voter roll information from states began in May of the previous year.

The players

Eric Neff

The acting head of the U.S. Department of Justice's voting section, who initially misled a federal judge about the DOJ's handling of sensitive voter data.

Judge Mary McElroy

The U.S. District Judge in Providence, Rhode Island who questioned Neff about the DOJ's actions regarding voter data.

David Gilbert

The Wired reporter who wrote the article exposing Neff's misleading statements and the DOJ's actions regarding voter data.

David Becker

A former DOJ attorney who now heads the Center for Election Innovation and Research, and is sounding the alarm about the security risks of the DOJ's handling of voter data.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We have not done anything yet.... The United States is taking extra concern to make sure that we're complying with the Privacy Act in every conceivable way.”

— Eric Neff, Acting head of the U.S. Department of Justice's voting section

“To correct and clarify the record, preliminary internal data analysis of the nonpublic voter registration data has begun. In particular, the Civil Rights Division has begun the process of identifying and quantifying the number and type of duplicate and deceased registered voters in each state.”

— Eric Neff, Acting head of the U.S. Department of Justice's voting section

“We still have no idea what the government is doing with this data. No idea where it is being stored, how it is being protected, or who has access to it. This data is incredibly sensitive. If someone has any of these three data points on any of us, Social Security number, driver's license number, or date of birth, they can wreck us financially. This is why the states protect this data, and they do a good job of it.”

— David Becker, Former DOJ attorney, head of the Center for Election Innovation and Research

What’s next

The federal judge in the case is expected to rule on whether the DOJ can continue to access and analyze the voter registration data from the states.

The takeaway

This incident highlights the ongoing concerns about the Trump administration's efforts to undermine confidence in the electoral process, as well as the importance of protecting the privacy and security of sensitive voter data. It raises questions about the DOJ's true motives and the potential misuse of this information for political purposes.