Who is the founder or founding group behind Election Truth Alliance?
Executive summary
Available reporting identifies the Election Truth Alliance (ETA) as an organization that released analyses of the 2024 U.S. election and a North Carolina 2024 Election Data Analysis on its own website [1]. ETA’s own account on Substack describes three individual founders (named informally as Nathan, Lilli, and Jive) with backgrounds in cybersecurity, policy analysis, and auditing, respectively [2]. Public campaign‑finance and watchdog databases show unrelated groups with similar names (e.g., “Alliance for Truth”) exist in political finance records, but those entries do not, in the provided sources, link to ETA’s stated founders or operations [3] [4].
1. Who claims to have founded Election Truth Alliance — the group’s self‑description
The Election Truth Alliance’s own web presence and newsletter material identify the organization and its outputs: ETA posted a North Carolina 2024 Election Data Analysis and other election‑forensics material on its website [1]. Separately, a Substack post that presents an “ETA Update” recounts that three people came together after the 2024 election — described as “Nathan, a cybersecurity specialist and 25 Bravo in the U.S. Army Reserve; Lilli, a Canadian policy analyst; and Jive, an auditor and chartered accountant” — and credits those three as the founders who began analyzing election data [2]. Those Substack passages read like a first‑person origin story from within ETA rather than independent verification [2].
2. What independent records or third‑party reporting say (and what they do not say)
The sources provided do not include independent news outlets or government filings that confirm the Substack founder narrative. FollowTheMoney/OpenSecrets style databases in the search results show separate entities using “Alliance” and “Truth” in their names — for example, an “ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH” entity listing on FollowTheMoney and an “ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH PAC, LLC” entry on OpenSecrets — but these entries are distinct organizations in campaign finance contexts and are not tied in the available reporting to ETA’s leadership or to the Substack narrative [3] [4]. Therefore, available sources do not mention independent corroboration tying those finance records to ETA’s founders or internal personnel [3] [4].
3. How ETA positions itself and where its materials appear
ETA publishes election‑forensics materials directly on its website, including statements about alleged forensic audits and analyses of machine versus hand count precincts; the site claims to have released its North Carolina analysis and commentary about statistical “red flags” [1]. ETA has also used Substack to narrate its origin story and to solicit engagement or support from readers describing emotional reactions to the 2024 results, indicating both a public research output and a public outreach channel [1] [2].
4. Evidence gaps and what remains unverified
Crucial verifications are not present in the supplied material: no public business registration, tax filing, press‑verified biographies, or independent reporting is included that ties the named individuals (“Nathan,” “Lilli,” “Jive”) to ETA beyond the organization’s own Substack account [2]. The campaign‑finance entries for similarly named groups appear in the search results, but the documents provided do not connect those entities to ETA or its founders [3] [4]. Thus, available sources do not mention third‑party confirmation of the founders’ identities or any formal organizational filings.
5. Competing interpretations and possible motives to watch for
ETA presents itself as a non‑partisan election‑integrity organization producing forensic analyses [1] [2]. Readers and officials should note that groups conducting election forensics often arise from both civic‑minded and partisan motivations; the materials in the Substack and website include emotive language about being “stunned” by election outcomes and calls for audits, which could signal advocacy goals alongside research aims [2]. Meanwhile, similarly named political entities in finance databases may reflect separate advocacy or PAC activity; those database entries could be used by readers to infer broader networks, but the provided sources do not substantiate such links [3] [4].
6. What to look for next if you want confirmation
To move beyond ETA’s self‑reporting, look for (a) independent news reporting profiling ETA and interviewing its named founders; (b) business or nonprofit registrations listing the organization and officers; (c) IRS or state filings (if applicable) showing formal incorporation and officers; and (d) corroborating public‑records evidence linking the names on the Substack to the ETA website’s leadership statements. The current set of sources does not include such corroboration [2] [3] [4].
Sources cited: Election Truth Alliance website [1]; ETA Substack founder narrative [2]; FollowTheMoney entity page for “ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH” [3]; OpenSecrets “ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH PAC, LLC” entry [4].