The Justice Department press office clashed with a reporter after she refused to print a statement that didn't address her question.

‪Jessica Huseman, editorial director for VoteBeat, the nonpartisan voting watchdog news site, reached out to the DOJ asking, "Does the DOJ have a response to widespread concern that requests for voter rolls violate the Privacy Act of 1974?" She posted the full exchange, saying, "I want you to see how they are talking about truth."

The article, written by Natalia Contreras, addressed the request by President Donald Trump's administration for "a list of registered voters, and the officials who check it."

The DOJ wanted to answer a question Huseman didn't ask. When she said it didn't address her question and wouldn't report it, the DOJ accused her of "incorrect and misleading reporting."

"We have no comment beyond the statement," the DOJ said about federal voting rights laws. "If you choose to print that the Department was unresponsive, that is a false reporting (sic) and will be remembered for future requests," Natalie Baldassarre threatened in her response.

Huseman issued a body slam in 103 words.

"I think I was pretty specific: I am going to say you did not respond to questions about the Privacy Act, which was the only thing I asked about," she wrote. "A question from a reporter does not allow the DOJ room to insert any comment into the story that it considers relevant. Given that I'll indicate that you did not respond to questions as they were asked. If this impacts how you choose to respond to us in the future, we'll simply explain this interaction in our future stories. I think our readers will understand. This is not 'false reporting.' Have a wonderful day,"

Again, Baldassarre insisted that if Huseman didn't publish their quote, it was a lie.

So, Huseman explained that her story would say, "'The DOJ would not respond to questions about the applicability of the Privacy.' This is, literally, true. I hope we can agree."

Baldassarre tried another tactic, saying that her statement "may be true, but she complained it was 'wildly unfair." She insisted that Huseman should include the statement that has nothing to do with her question about privacy for voters. Then she accused Huseman of refusing to put the quote in because it didn't fit a "pre-baked narrative."

"This is really strange to me," Huseman responded. "If I asked someone a question about what they wanted for dinner and they responded, 'I like trees' I would not consider that responsive to the question I asked. It is the same here. I'll go ahead — because this has been such an odd interaction - and save this entire conversation and hyperlink it in the text so that our readers are fully aware of what you are alleging here. I don't appreciate being falsely accused of misrepresentation."

When Huseman posted the thread to her Bluesky account, she remarked that she didn't see much of an alternative but to link to the exchange.

"If we exist in these two very different planes of reality, I don't see how journalists can do much but show people the entirety of all exchanges," she explained.

Loyola Law School Professor Justin Levitt told reporters that the Privacy Act of 1974 prevents the DOJ from obtaining certain information.

Read her full piece here.