Recent Changes in U.S. Election Security Efforts Raise Concerns
Over the past month, the U.S. government has taken swift actions to dismantle and restructure its efforts to combat foreign interference in elections, sparking alarm among federal lawmakers, election officials, and cybersecurity experts. These changes have raised concerns about the nation’s ability to protect its election systems from malicious actors, particularly as the 2024 presidential election approaches. Key initiatives aimed at preventing foreign meddling have been paused, disbanded, or defunded, leaving many to question the government’s commitment to safeguarding the integrity of American democracy.
Dismantling of Key Election Security Initiatives
The first major move came when the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) began forcing out personnel tasked with stopping foreign interference in U.S. elections. At least a dozen employees involved in election security efforts were either placed on leave or fired over the past month. Then, on February 5, Attorney General Pam Bondi disbanded the FBI task force dedicated to countering foreign influence operations originating from countries like Russia, China, and Iran. These actions have shifted the focus of election security efforts from forward-looking protection to backward-facing investigations.
CISA’s acting director, Bridget Bean, announced an internal investigation to assess every position and program related to election security, including efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation, dating back to President Trump’s first term. The findings of this investigation are expected to be released in a final report by March 6. Additionally, a nationwide program aimed at training state and local government officials and providing threat monitoring services through the "Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center" has been defunded. Bean justified these changes by stating that CISA needs to "rescope" its election security activities to focus solely on its cyber and physical security mission.
Internal Investigations and Restructuring at CISA
The memo outlining these changes was sent to CISA’s roughly 3,400 employees on Valentine’s Day, just hours before more than 130 probationary workers—about 4% of the agency’s workforce—were fired with form-letter terminations. The restructuring has drawn sharp criticism from top Democrats on the Senate and House committees overseeing election legislation, who argue that CISA’s establishing legislation explicitly directs it to work on elections. They expressed "grave concern" over the changes in a letter to CISA’s leaders, warning that the agency is abandoning its critical role in protecting the nation’s electoral infrastructure.
State election officials have also sounded the alarm. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon highlighted the importance of these efforts, recalling how Russia attempted to hack into election systems in 21 states, including Minnesota, during the 2016 presidential election. This led to the designation of elections as critical infrastructure in January 2017. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes likened the cuts to shutting down the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ahead of hurricane season, emphasizing the recklessness of undermining election security at a time when foreign adversaries are actively using online tools to push their agendas.
Concerns Over Weakened Election Security
The dismantling of these initiatives comes just months after CISA and the FBI played a critical role in helping states respond to a series of Election Day bomb threats, white powder mailings, and Russian-linked disinformation campaigns. For instance, CISA and the FBI debunked fake videos purporting to show election workers destroying ballots and uncovered a hack-and-leak operation involving Iranian cyber operatives. These agencies possess a unique "birds-eye view" of the threat landscape, which state and local election officials rely on to identify and respond to threats.
Without CISA and the FBI’s coordination, election officials are left with limited visibility into the origin and scope of attacks. As Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt explained, "Each state runs elections in accordance with federal and state law… but no state has a national or global perspective on the nature of threats and the capabilities of bad faith actors seeking to disrupt our electoral process." David Becker, a CBS News election law expert, added that states often only see the effects of attacks—such as disinformation targeting voters—but lack the resources to trace their origin or respond effectively.
Broader Implications for Election Security
The decision to defund and dismantle these programs has raised concerns about the potential consequences for the security of future elections. CISA’s Election Security Resilience Team, the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee, and Regional Election Security Advisors have all been impacted by the cuts. These teams have been instrumental in identifying and countering covert operations by foreign adversaries, including Russia, China, and Iran. Their work has been critical to safeguarding election infrastructure and preventing the spread of misinformation.
In a letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, nearly 40 chief election officials urged the administration to maintain the cybersecurity and physical security services provided to states. They emphasized that election administration systems have long been targeted by sophisticated cyber threat actors, including nation-states and criminal groups. CISA’s services, they argued, are essential for defending against these threats. While DHS officials have defended the changes as necessary to refocus CISA’s mission, critics warn that the cuts could undermine the agency’s ability to protect election systems from both physical and cyber threats.
Political Motivations and Controversies Surrounding the Changes
The restructuring of CISA and the FBI’s election security efforts has also sparked accusations of political motivation. The Trump administration and some conservatives have accused CISA of overstepping its authority by coordinating with social media companies to identify and combat online misinformation ahead of the 2020 election. They have alleged that these efforts amounted to censorship, a charge CISA officials have repeatedly denied. Despite a Supreme Court ruling dismissing a lawsuit over the government’s actions, the backlash led CISA to scale back its collaboration with tech platforms in 2021.
The internal investigation at CISA appears to align with a broader directive from the Trump administration to review Biden-era activities deemed inconsistent with its agenda, particularly the pledge to end "online censorship." While DHS and CISA have not disclosed who directed the audit or whether the final report will be made public, the changes have fueled concerns about the politicization of election security. As Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon warned, the retreat from combating disinformation could have dangerous consequences, as false narratives about the election system could incite violence or intimidation.
The Future of U.S. Election Security
The recent changes to CISA and the FBI’s election security efforts have left many questioning the future of U.S. election integrity. With no new CISA director nominated and key personnel removed, the agency’s ability to lead on election security is in jeopardy. The defunding of critical programs and the disbanded task force have created a void in the nation’s defenses against foreign interference. As foreign adversaries continue to seek ways to exploit vulnerabilities in the U.S. electoral system, the timeline for restoring these protections remains uncertain.
Election officials across the country are urging the administration to reconsider these changes and prioritize the security of the 2024 elections. Without a coordinated federal effort, the burden of defending against cyber and physical threats will fall heavily on state and local governments, which lack the resources and expertise to address these challenges alone. As the nation approaches another critical election cycle, the stakes could not be higher. The ability of the U.S. government to safeguard its democratic processes will depend on whether it can reverse these worrisome trends and reinvest in the programs and personnel essential to countering foreign meddling.
