A new Reuters investigation lays out how Trump’s obsession with voting machines spread across federal agencies. Not one office. Multiple agencies, pulled into the same project.
I spent years as a police officer, and here’s the question I’d ask any investigator: what’s the predicate? Is there evidence of a crime, a credible allegation, an actual vulnerability? Then you investigate, follow the facts, and go wherever they lead. That’s legitimate election security work, and it’s worth doing right.
But that’s not what Reuters describes. When the conclusion comes first and law enforcement gets sent to find proof of it, that isn’t an investigation. That’s validation. You’re not looking for the truth. You’re looking for a result a president already decided on.
And that’s dangerous. It burns through resources, it erodes public trust in elections, and it teaches agents that the job is to deliver what the boss wants, not what the evidence shows.
Policing is hard enough when it follows the facts. Point it at a preferred narrative and everybody pays for it.
I break down what Reuters found and what it means.