Issues & Insights
White House photo

Trump Indicted for Citing Data From Ph.D.-Vetted Study On Election Fraud

The recent indictment of Donald Trump alleges that he criminally lied about election fraud when contesting the 2020 presidential election. In the words of the indictment, Trump “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.”

The indictment claims that Trump lied because he “was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts—and he deliberately disregarded the truth.”

For example, the indictment accuses Trump of lying because he “said that more than 30,000 non-citizens had voted in Arizona” even though:

  • his “own campaign manager had explained to him that such claims were false.”
  • “the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, who had supported the Defendant in the election, had issued a public statement that there was no evidence of substantial fraud in Arizona.”

The indictment creates the impression that Trump pulled the figure of “more than 30,000” out of thin air. In reality, it’s from a rigorously documented study that was vetted by two Ph.D. scholars, published by the research institute Just Facts, and conducted by James D. Agresti, the organization’s president and author of the present article. Reinforcing the integrity of the study, a Facebook-funded attempt by USA Today to “fact check” it fell flat.

In brief, a D.C.-based grand jury indicted Trump in part for citing a factual study instead of claims from people the jury deems to be reliable. These jurors were drawn from the politically stacked jury pool of Washington, D.C. where 92% of the population voted for Joe Biden. The indictment was obtained by Jack Smith, a prosecutor who was hand-picked by the Biden administration.

The Study

The figure cited by Trump is from a study conducted by Just Facts, a research and educational institute that has been cited by a diverse array of media outlets, universities, governments, think tanks, and peer-reviewed journals. By adhering to exacting Standards of Credibility, Just Facts has been presciently accurate about far-reaching issues that other organizations widely botched.

As with all studies from Just Facts, the study on voting by non-citizens is rigorously documented with fully transparent data and extensive hyperlinks and quotations of primary sources, including:

  • a study in the journal Electoral Studies conducted by three scholars, including two university professors.
  • a follow-up working paper by the same scholars.
  • a study by the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration.
  • an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
  • three surveys conducted by Harvard/YouGov.
  • a scientific bilingual survey of Hispanic adults conducted by McLaughlin & Associates.
  • the U.S. Census Bureau.
  • a legal brief by the Obama administration Department of Justice.
  • the Voter Registration Guide of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
  • a video of President Obama stating in 2016 that non-citizens would not be deported if they voted because “there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etcetera.”
  • a video of Democratic California Senate Leader Kevin De Leon stating in 2017 that “anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.”
  • a ruling by the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just Facts asked two Ph.D. scholars who specialize in data analytics to critically review the study, and they assessed it as follows:

  • “I find this research of great value—clear in its assumptions, clear about the sources of data used, methodologically sound, and fair in its conclusions. Furthermore, it contains enough references to allow any interested person to ‘fact-check’ every aspect of it.” – Michael Cook, Ph.D. Mathematician, Scientific and Quantitative Researcher
  • “Instead of adding politics, vitriol, and bias to this timely, heated topic, this study provides a credible data analysis that supports a strong hypothesis of non-citizens having a significant effect on this election. Any serious critic should try improving on these estimates, as opposed to dismissing them with unproven claims.” – Dr. Andrew Glen, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Operations Research, The United States Military Academy, and Award-Winning Researcher in the Field of Computational Probability

The study estimated that votes cast by non-citizens—who cannot legally vote in federal elections—netted Joe Biden 51,081 ± 17,689 votes in Arizona. The lower bound of this range accords with the figure of “more than 30,0000” from the indictment.

Trump campaign attorney Rudy Giuliani cited another figure from Just Facts’ study in a November 2020 hearing before the Arizona legislature. Giuliani stated that a study found “236,000 illegal aliens voted.” This is the study’s midpoint estimate for non-citizen votes netted by Joe Biden in the seven battleground states of the 2020 election.

Critiques of the Study

A week and a half after Just Facts published this study, USA Today attempted to debunk it with a “fact check” that was “supported in part by a grant from Facebook.” Facebook then used the fact check—which contained 10 misrepresentations, unsupported claims, half-truths, and outright falsehoods—to suppress Just Facts’ study.

Furthermore, USA Today altered its article 18 hours after publication to remove an embarrassing error—without issuing a correction. This is a breach of journalistic ethics that require reporters and media outlets to “acknowledge mistakes” and explain them “carefully and clearly.”

Likewise, Snopes, PolitiFact, and the Huffington Post attempted to refute a 2017 study by Just Facts that used a similar methodology to estimate non-citizen votes in the 2008 presidential election. Instead of providing facts, all they could muster was mathematically illiterate notions, half-truths, and full-fledged falsehoods.

The total failure of the “fact check” brigade to poke even small holes in Just Facts’ work is more evidence the studies are solid.

Other Aspects of the Indictment

Beyond voting by non-citizens, the indictment also accuses Trump of lying about:

  • “dead voters” in Georgia.
  • “more votes than voters in Pennsylvania.”
  • a “suspicious vote dump in Detroit, Michigan.”
  • “double votes and other fraud in Nevada.”
  • voting machines switching votes.

With the exception of the last of those items, the indictment presents no facts that Trump was wrong—much less that he lied. Instead, the indictment declares that Trump knew he wrong just because certain people said so.

Likewise, the indictment alleges that “Co-Conspirator 1”—who is probably Rudy Giuliani—lied because be “played a misleading excerpt of a video recording of ballot-counting at State Farm Arena in Atlanta and insinuated that it showed election workers counting ‘suitcases’ of illegal ballots.” Here again, the evidence that Giuliani lied rests on the notion that he must have believed the claims of selected people—in this case—the Georgia Secretary of State’s Chief Operating Officer.

One of the blatant flaws of such arguments is the common human foible of confirmation bias, which could have led Trump and Giuliani to make some honest mistakes. Britannica defines confirmation bias as “people’s tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs.” “This biased approach to decision making,” explains Britannica, “is largely unintentional” and “results in a person ignoring information that is inconsistent with their beliefs.”

Another flagrant weakness of the indictment is its assumption that specific people were telling the truth merely because they “were best positioned to know the facts.” This presumes that such people are incapable of making mistakes or lying. The fallibility of this “trust the experts” mantra was frequently exposed during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The indictment also alleges that Trump “directed” his supporters “to the Capitol to obstruct” the presidential “certification proceeding” on January 6, 2021. The supposed proof of this is that he told them to “fight like hell,” march to the Capitol, and show Congress “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” These half-truths fail to reveal that:

  • Trump told his supporters to go “to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
  • the official Capitol Police timeline of the January 6th riot reveals that:
    • the Department of Defense—which was under the authority of Trump—suggested to the Capitol Police that the National Guard protect the Capitol.
    • Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund then asked the House Sergeant at Arms and the Senate Sergeant at Arms for “authority to have National Guard to assist with security for the January 6, 2021 event.”
    • the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms—who were under the authority of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell—“denied” this request.
  • the transcript of Trump’s speech on January 6th shows that he recurrently used the word “fight” in reference to legal and political fighting, not physical violence or even trespassing. For example, he said, “If they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them.”

Highlighting the duplicity of those who voted to impeach Trump because he used the word “fight,” Trump’s attorneys showed videos of Congressional Democrats using the same word more than 200 times, including more than a dozen times in which they used the exact phrase for which they impeached Trump: “fight like hell.”


The D.C. grand jury’s indictment of Donald Trump accuses him and at least six other people of engaging in a “conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted, in violation” of a federal law against obstructing people’s Constitutional rights.

However, every illegal vote cast by a non-citizen cancels out the vote of a citizen, thereby infringing their right to vote. Thus, Trump and his allies—depending on their motives—may have been trying to protect people’s right to vote, not thwart it, as the indictment claims.

Conversely, those who fought Trump’s efforts to exclude illegal votes may be guilty of the very charges the indictment levels against Trump. The same applies to an array of politicians and judges who have left open large pathways to unlawful voting by non-citizens.

James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts, a research institute dedicated to publishing facts about public policies and teaching research skills.

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.



  • It’s not that he cast doubt on the result but that he led a campaign to launch false electors after the state declared their ballot. This is clearly fraud. BTW I’m fairly conservitive on most issues.

  • I should spend some time looking through the research of JustFacts, however this statement should be thought through a bit.

    “However, every illegal vote cast by a non-citizen cancels out the vote of a citizen, thereby infringing their right to vote. ”

    It’s actually possible that such votes amplify those of a citizen. However, the very important principle of all elections that is being overlooked here is “One man one vote.” The inclusion of non-eligible citizens dilutes the votes of citizens — “One man something less than one vote” in selected districts or “One man something more than one vote” in others.

    It is the same principle violated by NGOs who fill out ballots gained through errors in the voter databases, and a principle easliy violated by ballot harvesting, and has been proven the basis of very large election frauds. Democrats at one time worked against the principle of “one man, one vote” in order to suppress voting by southern Black Americans; then they were for it once the thought occurred they could win elections using it, now it appears they are against it again because they define ballots and votes as equivalent and can dispense with actual voters.

  • It is my opinion, but to me Trump (with a couple of exceptions-viz COVID [which wasn’t his area of expertise] and underestimating the perfidy of the Washington Swamp Rats, was right much more than he was wrong. He seems to be nearly always INSTINCTIVELY right-even when “Washinton’s Liberal Clerisy” inveighs against him.
    Not only are high ranking bureaucrats-who disagree with Trump- wrong they are blatantly and intentionally mendaciously wrong (eg the 50 intelligence officers who advertised against him regarding Hunter’s laptop)!
    What did Trump analyze and conclude correctly, inter alia: Afghanistan; the economy; the border and immigration; Fossil Fuel; the Middle East; China (he never gets the credit he deserves for this: recognizing that China is an adversary-and not merely a backwater competitor (or as Joe Biden put it: a country “…whose lunch we’ll eat!”); the build-up of our military.
    Now what did Joe Biden-as our President– get wrong? All of the above.

  • In all fairness, at least a few of those “switched votes” were likely the result of long fingernails creating an error. My polling place reduces that chance by providing those little tablet ‘pens’ for use when voting

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

We Could Use Your Help

Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left. Issues & Insights is published by the editors of what once was Investor's Business Daily's award-winning opinion pages. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on donate button above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!
%d bloggers like this: