A Justice Department lawyer told a federal judge that lists ordered by President Trump to identify noncitizens on voter rolls cannot be trusted by states seeking to verify eligibility.
Senior Counsel Stephen M. Pezzi made the admission during a May 14, 2026 hearing in Federal District Court in Washington. The proceeding examined President Trump's March 31 executive order that directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile citizenship data and send it to state election officials at least 60 days before every federal election.
Pezzi stated that the resulting lists are likely incomplete. He warned that no responsible state should use them as the sole basis for removing voters from the rolls. His comments came as the administration seeks greater federal influence over how states maintain their voter lists ahead of upcoming elections.
The executive order requires DHS to cross-reference federal records with state voter data. The goal is to flag individuals who may not be U.S. citizens. However, Pezzi acknowledged the practical limits of such an approach during the court session.
"Certainly, a responsible state wouldn’t throw everyone who isn’t on the list off the voter roll," Pezzi told the court. "No list is ever going to be perfect."
These statements mark a notable concession from the Justice Department in a case centered on the scope of the president's authority over election administration. The order itself aims to give the federal government a more direct role in what has traditionally been a state function.
Similar data comparisons conducted in Texas last year produced lists that prompted officials to begin removing roughly 2,700 voters identified as potential noncitizens. State authorities later faced questions about the accuracy of those removals and whether some eligible citizens had been caught in the process.
The Texas experience illustrated the challenges involved. Federal databases used for the comparisons do not always capture recent naturalizations or updated citizenship status for every individual. Gaps in the data can leave some eligible voters off the citizenship lists even though they are properly registered.
Brennan Center for Justice analysts who reviewed the March 31 order noted that incomplete federal records create real risks of erroneous purges. Their examination highlighted how reliance on such lists could disproportionately affect naturalized citizens and minority voters whose paperwork may not appear in every federal system.
During the hearing, Pezzi emphasized that the lists represent only one data point. He indicated that states retain responsibility for conducting their own verification processes before taking any action against registered voters. This position appeared to temper the administration's earlier push for more aggressive use of the federal data.
The court is weighing challenges to the executive order brought by voting rights organizations. Those groups argue that the order exceeds presidential authority and could suppress turnout by creating confusion over who remains eligible to cast ballots.
Administration officials have defended the order as a necessary step to protect election integrity. They point to past instances in which noncitizens appeared on voter rolls in several states, though documented cases remain relatively rare according to multiple audits.
Pezzi's remarks suggest the Justice Department recognizes the lists' limitations even as it continues to implement the order. The department has not withdrawn the directive but appears to be signaling that states must apply caution when using the information.
State election officials across the country now face a practical dilemma. They must decide whether to incorporate the forthcoming federal lists into their routine maintenance procedures or treat them as advisory only. Several secretaries of state have already expressed concerns about the administrative burden and potential legal liability if eligible voters are removed in error.
The next federal election cycle will test the order's reach. DHS is expected to transmit the first set of citizenship lists well in advance of the 2026 midterm contests. How states respond will determine whether the lists produce meaningful changes to voter rolls or remain largely unused due to reliability questions.
Legal experts following the case noted that Pezzi's statements could influence the judge's ruling on the scope of the executive order. If the court accepts the government's own assessment that the lists are imperfect, it may limit how aggressively states are required to act on the data.
Voting rights advocates welcomed the admission as validation of their warnings. They have long argued that federal citizenship databases contain significant gaps, particularly for individuals who became citizens through naturalization or whose records were updated after initial registration.
The hearing also touched on broader questions of federalism in election administration. While the Constitution assigns primary responsibility for running elections to the states, the Trump order represents an effort to insert federal data and standards into that process.
Pezzi stopped short of saying the lists should be ignored entirely. Instead, he framed them as a tool that states could consult alongside other records, such as state motor vehicle databases and Social Security Administration data, to build a more complete picture of voter eligibility.
Texas officials who conducted the earlier comparison reported that many of the 2,700 flagged individuals ultimately proved to be citizens after additional review. The episode prompted the state to refine its procedures and underscored the need for multiple verification steps before any removal occurs.
As the litigation proceeds, the Justice Department's position on the lists' reliability may evolve. For now, Pezzi's statements stand as the clearest acknowledgment yet that the data produced under the March 31 order carries inherent limitations that responsible election administrators cannot overlook.
The case is scheduled for further proceedings in the coming weeks. Observers expect additional arguments over how states should weigh the federal lists against other sources when updating their voter rolls.
