States Face Foreign Threats — And A Fractured Federal Partnership — Ahead Of Midterms

State and local election officials have spent years preparing for a litany of election threats — from bomb threats at polling places to large-scale disinformation campaigns and state-backed hacking efforts.

But heading into the midterms, Republican and Democratic election officials told POLITICO they’re facing a new challenge: an increasingly contentious relationship with the federal government, which has long helped secure U.S. elections.

“Our number one risk at this point is the federal government,” said Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D). Colorado is one of 15 states the Department of Homeland Security reportedly flagged this summer to watch for “vulnerabilities in upholding election integrity.”

Griswold added that, for fear of federal meddling in the state’s election administration, federal officials will not be welcome inside the state’s Cyber Command Center, an effort the Colorado National Guard stands up every election to protect election infrastructure from cyber threats.

The Constitution gives states primary authority over election administration. But the Trump administration has spent most of the last two years pushing to overhaul the U.S. election system and voter registration.

These efforts include President Donald Trump urging Republicans to “nationalize” U.S. elections last fall and issuing an executive order to restrict mail-in voting in March, and the FBI earlier this year seizing years-old ballotsand other election materials from Fulton County, Georgia, as part of a broader investigation into repeatedly debunked claims the 2020 election was “stolen.”

Wesley Wilcox (R), supervisor of elections in Marion County, Florida, told POLITICO that the administration’s efforts have significantly damaged the relationship between states and the federal government.

“There is no sort of level of trust or anything else at this point in time” between his office and federal partners, he added.

The Trump administration has also mounted a nationwide effort to access voter rolls in every state and check them against a federal immigration database, a move that voter access and privacy advocate groups have scrutinized for reportedly purging eligible voters from state rolls. According to the Department of Justice, 18 states have turned over their voter rolls so far. But most have refused, prompting threats from the Department of Homeland Security to withhold federal election security grants and impose fines or prison time if election officials don’t comply with the administration’s broader election efforts.

“The assertion that DHS is attempting to exert more federal control over elections heading into the November midterms is totally false,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement. “DHS is fulfilling our obligation to protect election infrastructure under existing statutory authority so that our elections are fair, honest and accurate.”

The DOJ has filed a wave of lawsuits against states that did not submit their voter rolls, though no U.S. court has ruled in the department's favor so far. “We maintain that West Virginia law protects that information, and that we’re not going to provide that just because a federal agency demands it,” said West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner (R), one of the states the DOJ sued earlier this year for voter roll access. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in July, writing that the department failed to present a sufficient legal basis for its demand for sensitive voter data.

In a statement, the Department of Justice said federal law “requires states to keep accurate voter rolls, and the Department is enforcing that requirement so Americans can trust that only eligible citizens are voting.”

“Many states have already worked with us voluntarily, and we will continue to pursue compliance from those that have not,” the department added.

Both the federal government and cybersecurity professionals have long warned about legitimate threats to U.S. elections, including past efforts by Russia to influence public opinion on social media and vulnerabilities found inside U.S. voting machines. But security researchers and numerous state and federal agencies that audit elections have found no evidence that these have been exploited to change an election's outcome.

Historically, the federal government has supported state and local election officials in securing voting infrastructure and polling sites through cybersecurity penetration testing, physical security assessments and virtual situation rooms for sharing real-time information on election threats and incidents.

The Trump administration has significantly scaled back federal election security support, leaving states increasingly responsible for protecting their systems. These funding cuts forced the Election Infrastructure-Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), previously housed within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, to close briefly last year. The center provided election offices nationwide with free technical assistance and guidance, including sharing information on cyber threats affecting state and local elections and voting machine manufacturers.

The EI-ISAC now operates under the nonprofit Center for Internet Security’s Multi-State ISAC, though it has reportedly lost scores of state and local members who must weigh whether to keep using the service without federal funding to cover membership costs. Meanwhile, cuts to CISA’s election security staffing and a freeze on its broader election work curtailed the agency’s support during last year’s state and local elections.

CISA has recently announced some of its first public election security moves since last year’s cuts. This includes a joint warning with the FBI on Friday about artificial intelligence-boosted efforts to steal sensitive data from election officials, and a 13-page election security plan released late last month that outlines free resources for state and local election offices, including a platform through which election officials can receive threat information and ask questions in near real time.

Critics have argued that programs outlined in the plan, such as vulnerability scanning for potential software bugs in election networks, are services CISA has already provided states before its election security funding was cut last year.

Some also worry that the directive was issued too close to the midterms to make any real impact.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) said CISA’s plan could provide resources to help secure future elections, such as the 2028 presidential election, but it is unlikely to make a dent in preparations that state officials have mounted since last year. “The latest CISA plan is a day late and millions of dollars short,” Bellows said. “The states and localities are going to ensure that there’s a free, safe and secure midterm election, despite absence or interference from the federal government.”

Spokespeople for CISA and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Others worry that broader efforts to sow doubt about the validity of the voting process may lead to widespread skepticism about the nation’s democratic processes and discourage Americans from voting altogether.

“The biggest disservice to our country is to have people disengage with the civic process,” said Delaware Secretary of State Charuni Patibanda-Sanchez (D), whose office does not directly oversee the elections but co-chairs the state’s Task Force on Free, Fair and Secure Elections.