Brian Barrett: Yes, please.
Leah Feiger: All right, great. So the report claims that out of over 128 million voter records analyzed, roughly 24,000 were tied to noncitizen status. To be clear, 24,000 might sound like a lot, but again, out of 128 million. These numbers are way too small to have changed the 2020 outcome, but they’re still numbers. So when Tori and David went to experts about them, the experts actually said that they’re more likely the product of data matching errors than actual noncitizens voting. So it was already this issue with the data themselves because the analysis combined so many disparate data sets. We’re talking commercial voter files, immigration records, IRS, social security. WIRED has been reporting for a long time about how so many of these different agencies have had their work knitted together in the era of DOGE, in the era of Trump 2.0, and this is a good example of that. So this process is really error prone, and especially with commercial data, and you get false positives here rather than actual instances of noncitizen voting. What do you think about that, Brian?
Brian Barrett: Yeah, it all makes sense. And also, Leah, it’s fair to say the amount of noncitizen voting that has been actually documented and found and prosecuted is vanishingly small.
Leah Feiger: Teeny tiny, like teeny, teeny tiny.
Brian Barrett: Which is not to say that there aren’t some cases that get missed, but the idea that somehow there are 24,000 just sort of defies belief on the face of it. And yes, you can also see it makes total sense that as you’re combining a bunch of databases, you are maybe double counting, you’re maybe miscategorizing. This is a group that is not known to be particularly meticulous with the use of data. What I want to know, Leah, is how does this strike? Should I think of this as a preview of how this administration and the people around it will continue to sort of weaponize data and misconstrue data in and around the midterms and especially after the midterms if they don’t like the results?
Leah Feiger: Great question. So you talk about the group that did this. I want to quickly hit that as we’re getting into what the repercussions are. So the authors weren’t listed on this report, which is crazy unusual, super, super unusual, hit up all sorts of red flags for our experts and former researchers at the US Census Bureau. Turns out WIRED was able to report for the first time that several of the reports authors have direct ties to the Trump administration and Republican political organizations.
Brian Barrett: No.
Leah Feiger: I know that shock of disbelief, it’s crazy, but report authors include a former DOGE-affiliated attorney who’s now at Commerce Department, a recent Census appointee who was previously at the Trump -aligned Claremont Institute, two staffers from the also Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute. So these aren’t necessarily people who have had experience in this before. So when we’re talking about impact on a larger scale, I think that we also have to really consider that some of these things, again, they appear on their face boring. An average citizen shouldn’t be like, “Well, why do I care that this person is authoring this report? These are all just federal employees that I’m paying their salaries via my taxes, et cetera, et cetera.” But obviously there is something like there appears to be political leanings here involved on these reports, and these reports have impact besides giving Trump and his administration credence to claims that the election was stolen. Census reports have to do with voting districts. It depends on who gets to vote going forward. And as we’re getting into the midterms, the Census Bureau has been weighing in on this already in very weird and politicized ways that are very concerning to people in the room.
Â
