Why the FBI Is Reinvestigating 2020 Election Claims Courts Rejected

Last updated 3 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

On January 28, 2026, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seized over 600 boxes of Fulton County, Georgia, election records from 2020 after obtaining a search warrant. The inquiry asks whether suspected problems with records and ballot handling were intentional crimes, even if they did not change who won. That differs from asking a court to overturn an election result.

A search warrant can authorize investigators to gather evidence without establishing that someone committed a crime or that the certified winner was wrong.

What the renewed investigation is examining

A warrant affidavit is a sworn written statement used to support a search warrant. The FBI’s warrant affidavit says the investigation began with a referral from Kurt Olsen, the presidentially appointed director of election security and integrity. The affidavit describes the question as whether election improprieties were intentional acts that violated federal criminal law.

The affidavit identified possible violations of federal laws requiring preservation of election records and prohibiting knowing, willful handling of fraudulent ballots. According to the court order describing the affidavit, the agent said intentional deficiencies could violate those laws regardless of whether they changed the outcome of an election.

The court order also describes the affidavit’s account of a witness who reported duplicate ballots but believed they did not change the election outcome. The witness also reported new ballots and test ballots (ballots used in pre-election checks of voting-machine accuracy) in the recount that did not appear in the original count. In the witness’s view, adding duplicate or new ballots could have been intentional, to make the recount match the original count.

The affidavit included a contrary explanation from Fulton County’s elections director: any duplication may have resulted from human error. The unresolved question in that account is intent, not simply whether a record contains an error.

On May 6, 2026, the court denied the county litigants’ request to return the seized property and ordered that case closed. The court applied a test for whether to use its special authority to intervene, including whether the government had shown callous disregard for the litigants’ rights. That ruling addressed judicial intervention in the seizure dispute; it was not a verdict that election fraud occurred.

The court order described the county litigants’ request to balance their privacy interests in the election records against the government’s need for evidence. It also described their argument that the time for prosecuting all potential criminal activity had expired, an argument the court did not accept as grounds for finding the search unconstitutional.

The inquiry continued beyond the search: on July 2, 2026, the Associated Press reported that an FBI memo called for 260 analysts and staff operations specialists for a priority investigation. The memo did not name the investigation, but unnamed people familiar with it told AP the assignment concerned the Georgia election inquiry.

A subpoena is a command issued under a court’s authority to give testimony; a document subpoena requires producing records. On July 7, 2026, a federal judge set aside a separate Justice Department subpoena seeking names, home and email addresses, and telephone numbers for Fulton County election workers. The court concluded that the government’s need for the information did not outweigh the burden of disclosing workers’ sensitive personal information.

The government appealed that order on August 6, 2026. It filed its opening brief in the Eleventh Circuit, the federal appeals court, on October 5, 2026. The brief asks for reversal, arguing that the judge used the wrong balancing test or wrongly assessed the interests on both sides.

The government argues that a list of workers could shed light on possible 2020 irregularities and would not be onerous for Fulton County’s Board of Registration and Elections to produce. It also argues that federal grand juries have broad investigative authority and that the board had not shown that complying would infringe constitutional rights or a privilege, or impose excessive costs.

The subpoena ruling limited one investigative demand. On prosecution timing, the brief argues that a possible limitations defense (a defense based on the deadline to prosecute) belongs to a future defendant after indictment, not to a witness seeking to avoid a subpoena. The appeal filing states the government’s objections to that ruling; it does not show that the appeals court accepted those objections.

What the election lawsuits did and did not decide

A Brookings analysis examined 194 judicial votes in 42 post-election cases and cautioned that many decisions concerned procedural or jurisdictional issues rather than a judge’s view of election fraud. A count of court losses therefore does not mean that every court held a trial on the same fraud allegations.

Standing is the ability to bring a lawsuit: the party must have a sufficient connection to, and harm from, the action being challenged. On December 11, 2020, the Supreme Court rejected Texas’s attempt to challenge other states’ election procedures for lack of standing, saying Texas had not shown a legally recognized interest in how another state conducted its elections.

In a November 27, 2020, appellate opinion about the Trump campaign’s Pennsylvania election lawsuit, the court noted that the campaign was not pleading fraud. The dispute concerned restrictions on poll watchers and allowing voters to correct technical defects in mail-in ballots. The appeal asked whether the lower court had wrongly denied another amendment to the complaint. The appeals court held that the lower court had not abused its discretion by denying that amendment.

The court also denied an injunction to undo Pennsylvania’s certification, finding that the campaign had not alleged worse treatment of Trump votes than Biden votes. It said the specifically challenged ballots were far fewer than the roughly 81,000-vote margin and that throwing out millions of mail-in ballots would be a grossly disproportionate remedy.

Arizona’s Ward v. Jackson election contest took a different route in 2020: the trial court authorized a review of 1,626 ballots, identified nine errors and concluded that the review showed 99.45 percent accuracy. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed that decision and confirmed the election of the Biden electors. These examples separate a barrier to bringing a lawsuit from a court’s examination of particular election evidence; neither is a universal ruling about every allegation.

What Georgia’s checks found

The certified national result recorded by the National Archives was 306 electoral votes for Joe Biden and 232 for Donald Trump. On December 1, 2020, Attorney General Barr told the Associated Press that the Justice Department had not seen fraud on a scale that could change the election outcome, according to the congressional report.

Georgia recertified its presidential result on December 7, 2020, after three counts of roughly 5 million ballots confirmed Joe Biden’s victory by about 12,000 votes, Georgia Public Broadcasting reported. The hand audit examined the human-readable choices on all the ballots because the margin was so close. After certification, the Trump campaign requested a recount that sent the ballots through machine scanners again.

An audit checks the integrity of the process and whether the original count identified the correct winner, the Carter Center explained in its report on Georgia’s audit. A sampling audit normally confirms the outcome rather than producing a new vote total, though a very close race can require examining every ballot. The hand count and machine recount supplied evidence about who won; they did not establish that every record was preserved or that every administrative act was lawful.

The congressional report also documented an earlier FBI investigation of the State Farm Arena ballot-counting video. According to former federal prosecutor BJay Pak’s testimony described in the committee report, FBI agents interviewed the workers and determined that nothing irregular happened in the counting. The report described the supposed suitcase of ballots as a secure storage container.

What investigators would have to prove

Federal election-record law requires officials to retain relevant records for 22 months after an election for federal office. Records can be transferred as required by law or placed with a state-designated custodian, who then takes over the preservation duty. The criminal penalty applies to an official or custodian who willfully fails to comply.

The false-ballot provision covers knowingly and willfully depriving or defrauding state residents of a fair federal election, including attempts to do so. It applies to procuring, casting or counting ballots known to be materially false, fictitious or fraudulent under state law. A separate part of that provision covers procuring or submitting voter registration applications known to be materially false, fictitious or fraudulent under state law. A registration offense and a claim that the wrong candidate won are different propositions: proving an intentional offense does not by itself establish an outcome-changing number of votes.

A historical example outside Georgia illustrates the distinction: on January 12, 2017, a Virginia registration worker pleaded guilty to two counts of forging a public record and one count of election fraud after inventing applicants and filing false registration forms. The City of Alexandria’s official release reported concurrent five-year prison sentences, with all but time already served suspended. It also quoted the prosecutor saying the investigation found no fraudulent ballots resulting from the scheme.

Probable cause is the legal standard for the amount of evidence or information needed to justify a search or arrest. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 requires a judge to find probable cause to authorize a search and requires the warrant to identify the property to be searched and seized. At a criminal trial, by contrast, the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; defendants do not have to prove their innocence. The warrant allows evidence gathering, while the trial standard asks whether the government has proved the defendant committed the crime.

The timing question depends on when the alleged offense occurred, not only on the date voters cast their ballots. The May 6 court order acknowledged a five-year prosecution deadline for the offenses in the affidavit and noted that much of the described activity occurred more than five years earlier. But the court also noted an allegation that ballot images had been modified as recently as January 11, 2024. It said possible misconduct during the 22-month retention period could still fall within the prosecution deadline.

The same order criticized the affidavit for omitting that the modification date could have resulted from personnel from the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office simply renaming the file. On that limited record, the court was not convinced that the government had no legitimate interest in the election records.

The July subpoena order drew a narrower distinction: possible later failures to preserve records might still fall within the prosecution deadline. But the demand focused on workers’ activities during the 2020 election and the weeks immediately afterward, when the court said viable prosecution was now barred.

The judge expressed no opinion on whether the later allegations were true and said the ruling did not prevent continued inquiry into election claims. A record allegation that could fall within the prosecution deadline still needs evidence of unlawful conduct. A file timestamp alone does not prove criminal alteration, and a ruling about workers’ information does not prove election fraud.

The intelligence question and foreign influence

Tulsi Gabbard, then director of national intelligence, told lawmakers Trump had directed her to observe the search, according to Fox News. In that letter, Gabbard said her election-security and counterintelligence responsibilities, including oversight of the FBI’s intelligence divisions, supplied statutory authority for her presence. That office heads the U.S. intelligence community and serves as the president’s principal adviser on national-security intelligence.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessment of the 2020 election distinguished foreign influence, efforts to affect candidates or voters’ preferences, from interference with technical voting processes such as casting or counting ballots. Drawing on information available through December 31, 2020, it found no indications that a foreign actor had attempted to alter voter registration, ballot casting, vote tabulation or reporting results.

ABC News reported on January 29, 2026, that Trump had reposted a claim that Italian military satellites had switched votes from him to Biden. An intelligence official’s involvement is not itself evidence of altered votes; an influence allegation and a technical vote-manipulation allegation need evidence about different activities.

Future findings in this Fulton County inquiry need to distinguish a specific offense, a flaw in administration and a wrong election result. Those conclusions require different evidence, and the existence of an investigation cannot substitute for it.