Federal Prosecutors Launch Election Fraud Investigation in California Primary

Federal prosecutors announced last month they are investigating alleged election fraud in California’s June 2 primary election, following President Trump’s claims — offered without evidence — that Democrats were “cheating” as ballot counting continued weeks after Election Day.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in the Central District of California, said in a June 5 social media post that his office “has multiple election fraud investigations underway in coordination with FBI Los Angeles.” The same day, a federal prosecutor visited the Los Angeles County ballot processing center to observe the vote count.

Essayli’s announcement came one day after Trump accused California Democrats of trying to “steal” the state’s gubernatorial and mayoral primaries, pointing to the state’s slow ballot count as evidence of fraud. California Secretary of State Shirley Weber has said the delayed results are normal — the product of laws requiring counties to process mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, verify signatures, and give voters time to fix ballot problems so their votes can count.

As of mid-June, roughly 5.6 million ballots had been processed statewide, with an estimated 3.6 million ballots still outstanding. California law allows counties up to 30 days after an election to complete the count and requires them to process valid mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days.

“Accuracy comes before speed,” Weber said. “California is the nation’s largest voting state, with millions of ballots to process and count. Taking the time to do this work correctly protects voters’ rights and ensures the integrity of our elections.”

Essayli, a Trump loyalist who has remained in charge of the Los Angeles office through a legal loophole despite lacking Senate confirmation, framed California’s election system itself as the problem. “California’s election system has serious structural vulnerabilities,” he wrote. “Universal vote-by-mail with no voter ID requirements creates conditions where fraud can go undetected and unpunished, eroding public confidence.”

Neither Essayli nor Trump has presented public evidence that California’s ongoing count is fraudulent. Election experts say isolated cases of fraud exist but remain exceptionally rare and have never been shown to occur in volumes large enough to sway elections.

The investigation escalated on June 18, when roughly 20 FBI agents conducted interviews on Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles following claims that homeless individuals had been paid to vote in the June 2 primary. Agents questioned residents about whether they were paid to vote or knew of others who were approached with such offers. The Department of Justice confirmed only that agents were investigating a “criminal matter.”

The action followed the emergence of video clips showing Skid Row residents claiming they were paid to vote for incumbent Mayor Karen Bass and Councilwoman Nithya Raman. In one clip, a man said he received $4 to vote for Bass. The clips were provided to the Department of Justice.

Essayli also said his office is working with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon to “conduct a comprehensive audit of California’s voter rolls.” The Justice Department previously sued the state over voter rolls; a federal judge threw out the lawsuit, calling the demand “unprecedented and illegal” and accusing the federal government of trying to “abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots.” The case is now on appeal before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The investigation represents a sharp departure from longstanding Department of Justice policy. For decades, DOJ avoided conducting overt election investigations — including seizing state election records — until after results were certified, recognizing that federal intervention itself could become a factor in an election. The Trump administration has dismantled the internal oversight that enforced those policies, according to a detailed analysis published by Just Security, a nonprofit legal journal.

That analysis, co-authored by former DOJ Public Integrity Section Acting Chief John Keller and former federal prosecutor Chelsea Rice, describes how the administration has suspended the authority of DOJ’s Public Integrity Section over election investigations, shut down the Section’s Election Crimes Branch, and fired or forced out hundreds of career prosecutors and FBI agents with specialized experience in election and public corruption cases.

“With DOJ’s internal rules against election interference seemingly discarded, the magistrate judge who reviews and signs off on the government’s warrant has become the last meaningful check before a federal investigation can disrupt an election,” the analysis states.

The administration has also taken unprecedented investigative steps in other states. In January, the FBI seized roughly 656 boxes of materials from Fulton County, Georgia — the only copy of its 2020 ballots, along with tabulator tapes, ballot images, and voter rolls. The DOJ has also issued subpoenas or opened investigations into elections in Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all part of what the Just Security analysis describes as “the first time, the country faces the possibility that the DOJ may attempt to take over polling places, seize ballots during an election, or threaten to prosecute voters or election officials to interfere in the administration of an election.”

Some Republicans have distanced themselves from Trump’s fraud claims. The Los Angeles County Republican Party issued a statement saying the count is proceeding under California law. “Following the June 2, 2026 primary election, the vote counting process is underway and will continue in accordance with California law,” Los Angeles County GOP Chair Roxanne Hoge wrote. “While initial results were reported on election night, a significant number of ballots remain to be processed, which is standard for California’s elections.”

Essayli’s own authority has been the subject of legal scrutiny. A federal judge ruled in October that he had unlawfully continued serving as acting U.S. attorney without Senate confirmation, disqualifying him from supervising criminal cases, though the judge allowed him to remain first assistant U.S. attorney — effectively keeping him atop the Los Angeles office.

The Breakdown

• Federal prosecutors announced multiple election fraud investigations in California’s June 2 primary, following President Trump’s claims (offered without evidence) that Democrats were “cheating” as ballot counting continued.
• California law allows counties up to 30 days to complete the count and requires them to process valid mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days — a process state officials say is the reason for the delay, not fraud.
• FBI agents conducted interviews on Skid Row in Los Angeles following claims that homeless individuals were paid to vote; video clips showing such claims were provided to the Department of Justice.
• The investigation represents a departure from longstanding DOJ policy of avoiding overt election investigations until after results are certified; the Trump administration has dismantled the internal oversight offices that enforced those policies.
• The DOJ has also seized election records in Georgia and opened investigations in Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin as part of what a legal analysis describes as an unprecedented federal effort to intervene in state election administration.

What This Means for You

This investigation concerns how the federal executive branch — the President and the appointees he controls — is using DOJ and FBI resources to intervene in a state’s election administration. The question is whether the federal government should be investigating ongoing state elections based on a President’s claims before results are certified — a practice DOJ itself long avoided for fear that the investigation itself could become a factor in the outcome.

What to Watch

The investigation is being led by a prosecutor whose own authority to supervise criminal cases was ruled unlawful by a federal judge, and who lacks Senate confirmation — a question about who gets to decide whether the person running this probe is qualified to do so.

Watch whether the investigations produce actual evidence of fraud at a scale that could affect results, or whether they function primarily to cast doubt on California’s counting process itself.

Watch also how the 9th Circuit rules on the voter-roll lawsuit — a decision that will determine whether the federal government can compel a state to hand over voter registration data over the objection of state officials and a federal judge who called the demand “unprecedented and illegal.”

The broader pattern is worth watching too: this administration has now opened or escalated election investigations in California, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin — all states Trump lost or disputed in recent cycles — and has dismantled the DOJ offices that once screened such investigations for political motivation.

The question facing magistrate judges who approve search warrants is whether these are legitimate fraud investigations or whether the federal government is using the threat of prosecution to influence how states count votes. The stakes are not hypothetical — federal seizure of ballots or voting equipment during an election or the certification period could delay or invalidate results, exactly the outcome Trump has publicly sought in past elections he contested.