One day after the president alleged BIG cheating, an unlawfully serving U.S. attorney announced election-fraud probes of California’s count

Editor's note: the timing of the probes after the president's post is documented, but no court or official finding establishes that the investigations are retaliatory or unlawful.

The sequence is one day, not two. On June 4, 2026 the president posted: "There's BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California. Votes are all tied up. May not be in for weeks. Under investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. Why the vote counting DELAY???" On the Friday morning after the post, the office he had named announced that it had multiple election-fraud investigations underway with the FBI. It criticised California's mail ballot system and said it would conduct a comprehensive audit of the state's voter rolls. The Secretary of State defended the pace of the count.

The prosecutor who announced the investigations had already been found to be serving unlawfully. On October 28, 2025 a federal court in the Central District of California held that Bilal Essayli was not lawfully serving as acting United States attorney for the district, that the Attorney General's July 2025 order did not put him in that role, and that he had been serving in it unlawfully since resigning as interim United States attorney. Two months after the June announcement, a review of federal court filings found that his office had filed no election prosecutions, despite his statement in June that he expected to charge people within one to two months, and the office declined to comment.

The ruling did not strip him of authority over the office's investigations. The judge held that he could continue to serve as first assistant United States attorney, and refused the defendants' request to throw out their charges. No court, inspector general or congressional body has found these investigations improper. An announced investigation without charges is also not, by itself, misconduct. What the record establishes is the order of events, the unlawful-service finding against the prosecutor who announced the investigations, and the absence of any charge two months later.