An explainer on ETA's allegations

Could 2024's election results have been tampered with — and is there evidence they were?

This walks through claims made by the Election Truth Alliance (ETA) in a single video by Nathan Taylor. Every claim below is attributed to that source. As ETA itself says: capability is not the same as evidence.

scroll
The trigger

What did Ashley St. Clair say Musk told her?

In early 2026, Ashley St. Clair — described in the video as Elon Musk's ex and the mother of his child — posted a TikTok describing private conversations she says she had with Musk during the 2024 campaign.

the post

St. Clair posts a TikTok describing private conversations with Musk during the 2024 campaign.

her account

She says Musk talked about "unleashing an anomaly in the matrix," using chess and space-laser metaphors.

her account

He described having "a piece on the chess board they won't see."

her account

Musk appeared to have near real-time access to election data on election night — and she questioned how.

Taylor frames St. Clair's account as the news hook for revisiting a set of older Musk quotes — not as proof of anything on its own.

The quotes

Do Musk's own words back up her account?

ETA points to three Musk statements made around the 2024 election:

pre-election · House race

"We can take the Senate pretty easily... our little secret is having a big impact."

pre-election · voting computers + Starlink

Vote-counting computers being "too easy" to hack — "to add just one line" — paired with: "if you're in space... quietly just do whatever we want."

post-election · Pennsylvania

A comment crediting his time in Pennsylvania, and his knowledge of "those vote counting computers," for the state's result.

Taylor's own framing: these quotes "carry more weight" considered alongside St. Clair's account — but he stops short of saying they prove anything by themselves.

The technical premise

Could a satellite reach a voting machine that was never connected to the internet?

Four reported facts, taken together, are what ETA points to as the reason to ask the question. None of them, on their own, says what happened in 2024.

satellite

Starlink operates a satellite constellation with direct-to-cell service — it can reach an ordinary cellular modem without a traditional internet hookup.

cell network

Cellular modems have reportedly been found inside voting tabulators and precinct equipment from major vendors, used in an estimated 60–70% of U.S. voting infrastructure.

modem

If a modem inside a tabulator can be reached from outside, the question becomes whether that connection could be used to send something to the machine.

tabulator

ETA's own framing: reachability is not evidence of use. “There is not yet evidence that this is what happened.”

This is the chain ETA lays out to explain why the question gets asked at all. Capability and confirmation are not the same thing — and as of this video, ETA says it has the first, not the second.

The vulnerabilities

How many of these flaws have already been found?

ETA cites a 2020–2021 finding on internet-connected systems, plus a separate New York State software review:

0
voting systems across 11 states found connected to the internet via EMS
0
DS200 tabulators reportedly had online modems
0
vulnerabilities found in core 2024 election software (NY review)

Taylor's conclusion, stated explicitly as a hypothetical: if someone had satellite or cellular access and exploited these vulnerabilities, votes could theoretically be altered. He frames this as a capability under discussion, not a confirmed event.

The audit problem

Can the people running the audits be trusted to catch their own mistakes?

Taylor draws an analogy to the Volkswagen emissions scandal: vehicles passed standard regulatory testing, but an independent nonprofit's own road test caught a "defeat device" that standard testing had missed.

Standard testing

VW's vehicles passed official lab emissions tests. The same self-administered model is used for most county election audits today.

vs.

Independent road test

A nonprofit's real-world test caught a hidden "defeat device" the lab test missed — ETA's case for why independent, outside checks matter.

ETA's core argument is that county-level self-audits create a conflict of interest — the people checking the results have an incentive to overlook problems, or fix them quietly, rather than disclose them publicly.

ETA's ask: independent, third-party hand-count audits of the most anomalous precincts — especially where ballot chain-of-custody is verifiably intact. Their example is Pennsylvania.
The air-gap workaround

If these machines aren't online during an election, how would anyone reach them?

ETA's answer borrows from a well-documented historical case: a system can be air-gapped during operation and still be reachable at the edges.

Stuxnet precedent

Malware reportedly built by the US/Israel crossed an air gap to damage Iranian nuclear centrifuges — introduced via an infected USB device.

still updated

Voting systems aren't online during an election — but they still receive software updates and data transfers via USB before and after one.

ES&S Texas finding

A 2020–2021 EAC investigation into ES&S reportedly found an uncertified USB stick in Texas running software that didn't match the certified version — and reportedly expanded to concerns in 19 states, never made fully public.

no forensic trace

Malware introduced this way could "self-destruct," leaving no forensic trace — which Taylor uses to explain the absence of direct evidence.

None of this is unique to voting machines — it's the same logic security researchers apply to any air-gapped system. ETA's point is narrower: the gap isn't as wide as "not connected to the internet" makes it sound.

Pennsylvania

What specifically happened in Pennsylvania that ETA is suing over?

Four county-level data points, plus one analytical method, are what ETA's active lawsuit is built on.

Cambria County

A logic-and-accuracy testing document ETA says appears not legitimate, with internal emails suggesting required testing wasn't actually performed — and scanning equipment reportedly failed countywide for part of election day.

Erie & Allegheny

Both counties are described in the video as having "mismatching reports."

forensic analysis

Applying election-forensic methods — cited as methods used by Russian-election researchers — ETA says the vote patterns looked more formulaic than human-driven.

red flag, not a finding

ETA calls this a "red flag," not a finding of fraud. It underlies ETA's active Pennsylvania lawsuit seeking a judge-ordered hand-count audit — a ruling was pending as of this video.

Every item above is an anomaly ETA is asking a court to look into — not a result a court, or anyone else, has yet confirmed was caused by tampering.

The evidence gap

So does ETA actually have evidence that the election was tampered with?

"There is not yet evidence that that is what happened."
— Nathan Taylor, ETA

What ETA says it has

  • A documented technical pathway (satellite → modem → tabulator)
  • Real, cited software vulnerabilities
  • Musk's own quotes, read together
  • County-level anomalies and "formulaic" vote patterns

What ETA says it does NOT have

  • Direct evidence any machine was actually accessed remotely
  • A confirmed exploit of the cited vulnerabilities
  • Forensic proof tying Musk or Starlink to a specific act
  • A court finding of fraud — the PA case is still pending

The capability-vs-evidence distinction is repeated throughout the video: vulnerabilities and theoretical means are documented; an actual exploit is not.

The ask

What does ETA want to happen next?

Independent, judge-ordered hand-count audits in Pennsylvania — and eventually elsewhere.
Remove cellular modems from voting equipment; eliminate internet-connected election management systems.
Improve chain-of-custody and paper-vs-digital reconciliation before the midterms.

ETA is recruiting volunteers in cybersecurity, IT, data forensics, and social media.

Visit electiontruthalliance.org