Who are the key leaders and board members of the Election Truth Alliance?
Executive summary
The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) is a nonprofit formed in late December 2024 that publishes forensic-style analyses of the 2024 U.S. election and has promoted local data reports and calls for audits; its public communications identify a small executive leadership (named as “Nathan, Lilli, and Jive”) and an Executive Director named Nathan Taylor in media outreach [1] [2] [3]. Available sources list contact names (including Josh Johnson) on press releases and show the group using a Substack and its own website to publish analyses, but they do not provide a full, conventionally formatted board roster with titles, bios, or governance documents in the materials supplied here [4] [1] [3] [2].
1. Who speaks for ETA: named executives and spokespeople
ETA’s public-facing material and press coverage identify a small core leadership team and spokespeople. The ETA executive-team page names “Nathan, Lilli, and Jive” as the three leaders who guide the organization’s work [2]. A January 2025 EIN Presswire item quotes “Nathan Taylor, Executive Director of the Election Truth Alliance,” and lists a media contact as Josh Johnson with an email for the group [3]. ETA’s Substack posts also describe the organization’s founding in December 2024 and promote its communications channels, indicating the organization intentionally uses named individuals to present findings [1] [5].
2. What public documents and platforms exist for verification
ETA publishes reports on its own website and runs a Substack newsletter where it posts updates, data analyses, and calls for audits; these channels are the primary sources to learn about leadership and activities [4] [1] [5]. The group’s website includes an “Executive Team” page [2]. Press-distributed items (EIN Presswire) carry contact names and quotes that function as public statements of leadership [3]. Available sources do not include an IRS Form 990, a corporate filing, or independent third‑party profiles that would confirm legal officers or a board beyond those named on ETA materials (not found in current reporting).
3. What is explicit about governance—and what is missing
ETA materials present a leadership narrative—three leaders and volunteer teams—but do not, in the supplied reporting, present a full board roster, officers’ biographies, term lengths, conflict-of-interest policies, or donor disclosures [2] [1]. The group describes itself as a “non-profit, non-partisan organization” [1], but the specific nonprofit registration details and comprehensive governance documents are not found in the sources provided here (not found in current reporting). That gap matters for readers assessing institutional independence and accountability.
4. Credibility signals in the record and limits to them
ETA’s work has been circulated through its own channels and presswire placements; an analysis of Clark County was distributed via EIN Presswire and picked up in a Resist.bot letter urging review of ETA findings, indicating the group engages in outreach to officials and the public [3] [6]. These are standard advocacy-era communications. However, the sources supplied do not show independent peer review of ETA’s analyses, nor government confirmation of the specific anomalies ETA highlights (not found in current reporting). Readers should treat ETA’s findings as claims published by the organization while seeking corroboration from election officials, independent auditors, or academic reviewers.
5. Competing perspectives and context readers should know
ETA frames itself as a non-partisan election-integrity group formed by “concerned citizens” in December 2024 to analyze anomalies and press for audits [1] [5]. The organization’s language—phrases such as “vote-flipping hack” in summaries of Clark County analysis—reflects an adversarial posture toward official results and equipment [3]. Available sources do not include rebuttals from county or state election officials regarding ETA’s specific technical claims; such responses would be a natural counterpoint but are not present in the material provided (not found in current reporting). For a full picture, readers should expect ETA’s assertions to be weighed against statements or audits from election authorities and independent forensic experts.
6. Practical next steps for verification
To confirm leadership and governance beyond the names on ETA pages and press releases, consult: (a) ETA’s website executive-team page and Substack for updated listings [2] [1], (b) state nonprofit registration databases or the organization’s public filings for articles of incorporation and board listings (not found in current reporting), and (c) independent media or official election office statements addressing ETA’s technical claims (not found in current reporting). The supplied sources show who has publicly represented ETA so far—Nathan Taylor, “Nathan, Lilli, and Jive,” and a media contact Josh Johnson—but they do not provide a complete, independently verified governance roster [2] [3] [1].
Limitations: This report uses only the documents you provided. If you want, I can search public charity registries, state filings, or news databases for formal board lists, IRS returns, or statements from election officials to fill the gaps.