Trump’s Voter Tool Flags US Citizens as Noncitizens, Sparking Chaos in Texas & Missouri

Federal Voter Verification Tool Flags U.S. Citizens as Potential Non-Citizens

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) tool designed to verify voter citizenship, called the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE), is generating a significant number of false positives, incorrectly flagging U.S. Citizens as potential non-citizens. The expanded use of SAVE, driven by former President Donald Trump’s claims of widespread non-citizen voting, has led to confusion and concern among election officials in multiple states, including Texas and Missouri.

The issues with SAVE surfaced in November when Boone County, Missouri, Clerk Brianna Lennon received a list of 74 potential non-citizens flagged by the system. Lennon, with seven years of election administration experience, suspected inaccuracies. Her suspicions were confirmed when the second person on the list had been registered at a naturalization ceremony with the assistance of her own staff. More than half of the flagged voters in Boone County were determined to be citizens.

SAVE was initially used to check eligibility for public benefits. However, at Trump’s direction, DHS broadened its scope, pooling confidential data from across the federal government to allow states to mass-verify voter citizenship. This expansion occurred despite concerns about the tool’s accuracy, and many Republican secretaries of state quickly adopted the system.

An investigation by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune reveals that the rollout of the revamped SAVE system was rushed, occurring while data was still being added and before the system could reliably discern up-to-date citizenship information. This has resulted in persistent errors, particularly concerning individuals born outside the U.S. Who have since become naturalized citizens.

According to correspondence between state and federal officials, DHS has had to correct information provided to at least five states after SAVE misidentified voters as non-citizens. Texas and Missouri were among the first states to implement the expanded tool.

In Missouri, state officials initially acted on SAVE’s findings without independent verification, directing county election administrators to temporarily suspend the voting eligibility of flagged individuals. This led to numerous errors, prompting concerns from county clerks like Lennon. “It really does not help my confidence,” Lennon stated, “that the information we are trying to use to make really important decisions, like the determination of voter eligibility, is so inaccurate.”

Similar issues arose in Texas, where news reports began surfacing in December about citizens being mistakenly flagged as non-citizens. Investigations revealed that these errors were more widespread than initially reported, affecting at least 87 voters across 29 counties. The Texas Secretary of State’s office sent lists of flagged voters to counties, instructing clerks to demand proof of citizenship and potentially remove individuals from the rolls if they didn’t respond.

Bobby Gonzalez, the elections administrator in Duval County, Texas, expressed frustration with the system, stating, “I really find no merit in any of this.” He noted that three voters flagged by SAVE in his county were ultimately confirmed as citizens.

Despite the errors, the initial bulk searches using SAVE have not substantiated Trump’s claims of widespread non-citizen voting. Seven states, representing approximately 35 million registered voters, have publicly reported the results of using SAVE, identifying roughly 4,200 potential non-citizens – about 0.01% of registered voters. This aligns with previous findings that non-citizens rarely register to vote.

Brian Broderick, who leads the verification division of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), acknowledged that SAVE may not always have the most current citizenship information. However, he defended the tool, stating that states ultimately decide how to use the data provided. “So we’re giving a tool to these folks to say, ‘Hey, if People can verify citizenship, great, you’re good. If we can’t, now it’s up to you to determine whether to let this person on your voter rolls,’” Broderick said.

Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson declined an interview, but her spokesperson, Alicia Pierce, stated that the office hadn’t reviewed SAVE’s citizenship determinations before sending lists to counties, as it is not an investigative agency. Pierce added that using SAVE is part of the office’s “constitutional and statutory duty to ensure that only eligible citizens participate in Texas elections.”

Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins called SAVE a valuable resource, even acknowledging that some flagged individuals might later be confirmed as citizens. “No system is 100% accurate,” Hoskins said, “but we’re working to get it right.” He conceded that directing clerks to temporarily bar voters from casting ballots before verifying SAVE’s findings was a “good point” for consideration.

While 27 states have agreed to use SAVE, others have hesitated due to concerns about inaccuracies, privacy, and the potential for data misuse in immigration enforcement. Broderick stated that when SAVE flags voters as non-citizens, they are also referred to DHS for possible criminal investigation, as falsely claiming citizenship when registering to vote is a crime.

Individuals incorrectly flagged by SAVE have expressed frustration at being required to provide proof of citizenship. Sofia Minotti, a Denton County, Texas resident born in Argentina and a U.S. Citizen for years, was flagged as a potential non-citizen. She provided a scan of her U.S. Passport to maintain her voting rights. “I felt offended,” Minotti said. “I’ve voted in every election since I was 18, and now my vote was coming under question.”

Historically, election administrators have sought better access to federal citizenship data. Previous attempts to identify non-citizens on voter rolls have been unsuccessful. Until recently, SAVE required voters’ DHS-assigned immigration ID numbers – information not typically collected during voter registration – and involved costly individual searches.

A March executive order from Trump mandated DHS to provide states with free access to federal citizenship data and collaborate with the Department of Government Efficiency to audit voter rolls. This led to a rapid overhaul of SAVE, with the addition of confidential Social Security Administration (SSA) data, allowing states to search using Social Security numbers.

David Jennings, Broderick’s deputy at USCIS, emphasized the speed of the rollout in a June video call with members of the Election Integrity Network, stating, “We tested it and deployed it to our users in two weeks. I think that’s remarkable. Kind of proud of it.” He also noted that accessing the SSA data required a partnership with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has since faced accusations of misusing Social Security data.

The accelerated timetable may have contributed to the system’s inaccuracies. USCIS expanded SAVE before fully meeting legal requirements to inform the public about data collection and usage, and concerns were raised about the accuracy of SSA’s citizenship data, which has been shown to be outdated or incomplete in multiple audits.

Emails obtained through public records requests reveal that SAVE initially checks SSA citizenship information. If a voter is not identified as a citizen in the SSA database, DHS searches other databases, but matching data can be challenging, leading to errors.

The initial results from Texas in late October identified 2,724 potential non-citizens. However, the implementation was marred by confusion, with county clerks receiving inconsistent guidance from the Secretary of State’s office. Several clerks reported recognizing citizens on the lists, including neighbors and individuals they had assisted with naturalization.

In Missouri, state officials initially instructed county administrators to temporarily suspend the voting eligibility of flagged individuals. This prompted widespread concern among clerks, who questioned the legality of the directive and the accuracy of the data. A group of 70 county clerks ultimately wrote a letter to the Missouri House Speaker, suggesting alternative methods for maintaining accurate voter rolls.

The situation highlights the challenges of using large-scale data verification systems in the context of election administration. While the goal of ensuring voter eligibility is paramount, the potential for errors and the risk of disenfranchising eligible citizens raise serious concerns. As SAVE continues to be implemented in more states, ongoing monitoring and refinement will be crucial to mitigate these risks.