DOJ Asks States to Hold Ballots from 405 Suspected Noncitizens

The Justice Department under the Trump administration has moved in quick succession on two fronts that touch sensitive political terrain: charging two former FBI officials in connection with the agency’s handling of Hunter Biden’s laptop and demanding that Washington state set aside ballots from hundreds of people flagged as noncitizens.

The charges against Nichole Floris and Bradley Benavides, both former senior FBI managers, allege they made false statements to the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 about their knowledge of the laptop investigation. Prosecutors brought the case without convening a grand jury, an approach that is uncommon when felonies are at stake and that has drawn attention for its procedural shortcuts. The timing places the matter back in public view weeks before midterm voting, reviving a controversy that has long divided opinions along partisan lines over whether the FBI adequately pursued leads from the laptop or sought to contain them.

Separately, the department has written to Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs asking that ballots from more than 400 individuals identified as noncitizens be segregated until eligibility can be confirmed. Federal records indicate those individuals cast a total of roughly 1,500 ballots in prior elections, with at least one instance dating to 1994. Acting U.S. Attorney Neil Floyd in Seattle described the list as the “tip of the iceberg,” citing limits the state has placed on access to records. Washington runs all-mail elections for its more than five million registered voters, which means any review process must occur after ballots are already in the system.

Both actions reflect an administration emphasis on reexamining closed or dormant matters and on tightening enforcement around election administration. The laptop-related charges reopen questions about how federal agencies navigated politically charged investigations during the previous administration. The voter-eligibility push follows a similar request sent to California earlier this month and comes as control of Congress hangs in the balance.

Critics of the moves argue that selective use of prosecutorial tools and last-minute election interventions risk eroding public confidence in the even-handed application of law. Supporters counter that earlier reluctance to pursue certain lines of inquiry left legitimate oversight gaps that now require correction. In each instance, the department has framed its steps as routine enforcement rather than political signaling, yet the proximity to voting has amplified scrutiny over whether institutional norms are being stretched in service of immediate electoral concerns.

How these cases develop will test whether the Justice Department can maintain credibility across investigations that carry clear partisan resonance.