On the morning of August 21, 2025, former President Donald Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to demand the immediate release of Tina Peters, the former Mesa County Clerk from Colorado, who is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence. In a flurry of posts, Trump described Peters as a "brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by Crooked Colorado politicians, including the big Mail-In Ballot supporting the governor of the State." He insisted, "Let Tina Peters out of jail, RIGHT NOW. She did nothing wrong, except catching the Democrats cheat in the Election. She is an old woman, and very sick. If she is not released, I am going to take harsh measures!!!" (as reported by Newsweek and Colorado Public Radio).
Trump’s public defense of Peters is just the latest escalation in a saga that has become a lightning rod for debate over election integrity, the rule of law, and partisan divides in the United States. But who is Tina Peters, and why has her case drawn such fierce national attention?
Peters, 69, was elected Mesa County Clerk in 2018. Initially, she focused on administrative improvements, but after the 2020 presidential election, she aligned herself with efforts to challenge the legitimacy of those results. According to Colorado Newsline and Newsweek, in 2021, Peters facilitated unauthorized access to her county’s voting systems. She allowed a conspiracy theorist to pose as a county employee during a software update with Dominion Voting Systems, enabling the copying of sensitive election data. This data was later posted online by individuals seeking to undermine faith in Colorado’s election system.
A jury found Peters guilty on seven out of ten charges brought against her. These included three felony counts of attempting to influence or impersonate a public servant, one felony count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, as well as several misdemeanors: official misconduct, violation of duty in elections, and failure to comply with orders from the secretary of state. The jury acquitted her on three other charges, including criminal impersonation and identity theft. At her sentencing, Judge Matthew Barrett did not mince words, stating Peters had done "immeasurable damage" to local elections and trust in the electoral system. He added that she "betrayed [her] oath" and showed no remorse, convinced she would repeat her actions if given another chance (Colorado Newsline).
Peters' actions and subsequent conviction have made her a symbol for election denial movements, which continue to cast doubt on the integrity of U.S. elections despite a lack of evidence and repeated court rejections of such claims. State audits confirmed the accuracy of Colorado's 2020 election, finding no evidence of fraud and verifying that machine vote counts matched the markings on paper ballots (Newsweek).
Trump’s intervention in the case has added significant political pressure. He has previously directed the Department of Justice to "take all necessary action to help secure the release" of Peters, and the Justice Department has indeed filed motions supporting her request for release while she appeals her conviction. However, Trump’s powers are limited: because Peters was convicted on state charges, he cannot pardon her as he did with some defendants involved in the January 6th Capitol riot. Legal experts note that while Trump could attempt to pressure Colorado by threatening to withhold federal funding—a tactic he has used before—he cannot unilaterally order her release or change how the state runs its elections (Colorado Public Radio).
In response to Trump’s latest outburst, Colorado officials have defended the integrity of the state’s election system and the legal process that led to Peters’ conviction. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold responded forcefully, stating, "Trump’s feeble attempts to put pressure on the justice system to rewrite history is an embarrassment. While he keeps digging himself lower and lower to free a criminal convicted by a jury of her peers, I will continue to uphold the law and our free and fair elections." Griswold previously called Peters a "criminal who compromised her own voting equipment to try to prove Trump’s Big Lie," and accused Trump of "weaponizing the Department of Justice" (Colorado Public Radio, Newsweek).
Governor Jared Polis’ office also weighed in, with spokesperson Shelby Wieman saying, "We appreciate the President's awareness and recognition of Colorado’s wildly popular ability to vote by mail, which is safe, secure, and has led to record turnout for Coloradans of every party." The state’s mail-in voting system, implemented more than a decade ago, has been praised for its security and accessibility, and remains popular among voters of all political affiliations. In fact, as Denver Clerk & Recorder Paul López pointed out, "In Colorado, mail-in voting is secure, accessible, and trusted by every party—including Republicans, who made big gains with it in 2024." López further criticized Trump’s call to eliminate mail-in voting and voting machines, calling it "both illegal and unconstitutional and would drag our country backward, stripping away rights that generations of Americans fought and died for." (Colorado Public Radio).
Despite Trump’s claims that Peters "did nothing wrong," the facts presented at trial painted a different picture. The local District Attorney investigated claims that the leaked hard drives showed evidence of vote tampering but concluded that the anomalies were created by a staff member attempting to troubleshoot a computer issue, not by any nefarious outside influence. No evidence of actual tampering or cheating in Colorado’s system was found (Colorado Public Radio).
Peters’ legal team has continued to fight her conviction. Most recently, she filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court, asking to be released on bond while she appeals her conviction at the state level. Her attorney, Patrick McSweeney, argued that "she has been subjected to conditions and targeted treatment that are unacceptable. Her nine-year sentence is utterly unacceptable for a woman of 69 years for violations that are non-violent and subject to challenge on appeal." He further claimed, "Her sentence also violates the First Amendment because it was expressly based on the exercise of her protected speech under the Free Speech Clause." The Colorado attorney general, however, has asked for the petition to be dismissed, citing Supreme Court precedent that federal courts should not interfere in ongoing state court proceedings (Fox 31 Denver, Colorado Public Radio).
As the legal battle continues, the political stakes remain high. Trump’s repeated calls for Peters’ release have energized his base and amplified ongoing debates about election security, the independence of the judiciary, and the boundaries of presidential power. Meanwhile, Colorado officials from both major parties insist that the state’s election system is among the most secure and accessible in the nation, and that Peters’ prosecution was necessary to maintain public trust in the democratic process.
For now, Tina Peters remains incarcerated at La Vista Correctional Facility, her fate entwined with broader national disputes over truth, accountability, and the future of American elections. With appeals pending and political rhetoric intensifying, the story of Tina Peters is far from over.
