Sarah Martinez had worked as an election administrator in Arizona for twelve years, but she’d never felt as isolated as she did last Tuesday morning. Staring at her computer screen, she read the unexpected FBI email invitation three times before it sank in. After months of radio silence from Washington, federal officials were suddenly reaching out about election security.
The timing felt almost surreal. Just weeks earlier, her office had been dealing with voter registration system upgrades, cybersecurity assessments, and preparation for upcoming elections—all without any guidance or support from federal agencies. Now, out of nowhere, came this cryptic invitation to a briefing she hadn’t requested.
Sarah’s experience mirrors that of election officials across the country who say they’ve been operating in a vacuum when it comes to federal support for election security.
The Breakdown of Federal-State Election Security Partnership
For years after the 2016 election, federal and state officials worked hand-in-hand to strengthen America’s voting systems. The Department of Homeland Security established the Election Infrastructure Subsector, regular briefings kept states informed about emerging threats, and cybersecurity resources flowed freely to local jurisdictions.
- Democrats quietly promise Europe this won’t happen again after Trump leaves office
- Sydney streets erupt as Israeli President’s surprise visit triggers massive police crackdown
- Trump still wants Iran anti-nuclear deal despite what Netanyahu told him behind closed doors
- Why French prosecutors just quietly formed a secret Epstein files team that changes everything
- How France fell behind Cyprus: The economic decline nobody saw coming
- Venezuela Opposition Leader Kidnapped Just Hours After His Freedom – What Happened Next Shocks Everyone
But according to multiple state officials, that cooperation has largely disappeared under the current administration. The Trump administration election security approach has shifted dramatically, leaving states to navigate complex security challenges largely on their own.
“We used to have monthly calls, shared intelligence, and direct lines of communication,” explains one Midwest secretary of state who requested anonymity. “Now we’re lucky if we hear from them once a quarter, and usually it’s not helpful information.”
The recent FBI briefing invitation caught many officials off guard precisely because it represented the first proactive federal outreach some had received in months. Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar initially questioned whether the email was legitimate, given how long it had been since his office heard directly from federal agencies about election security matters.
What’s Missing from Current Election Security Efforts
State officials point to several specific areas where federal support has diminished or disappeared entirely:
- Regular threat intelligence briefings: Previously monthly calls have become sporadic or non-existent
- Cybersecurity resource sharing: Technical support and vulnerability assessments have been reduced
- Coordinated response planning: Joint exercises and incident response protocols have been scaled back
- Financial assistance programs: Funding for security upgrades has become more difficult to access
- Direct communication channels: Point-of-contact relationships have deteriorated
The contrast is particularly stark when compared to the previous administration’s approach. Between 2017 and 2020, the Election Assistance Commission and DHS worked closely with states to implement security measures, conduct risk assessments, and share real-time threat information.
| Security Support Area | 2020-2022 | 2023-Present |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly briefings | Regular | Sporadic |
| Cyber assessments | Proactive | On-request only |
| Direct communication | Multiple channels | Limited |
| Funding availability | Accessible | Reduced |
“The infrastructure is still there, but the partnership mindset has changed,” notes a former DHS official who worked on election security initiatives. “States are having to figure out threats and responses largely on their own.”
How States Are Filling the Federal Gap
Faced with reduced federal support, states have had to become more self-reliant in protecting their election systems. Many have formed regional partnerships, sharing threat intelligence and best practices among neighboring jurisdictions.
Some states have increased their own cybersecurity budgets to compensate for reduced federal assistance. Others have turned to private sector partnerships or academic institutions for technical expertise that was previously provided by federal agencies.
“We’ve had to build our own networks,” explains a Western state election director. “What used to come from Washington, we now get through relationships with other states and private partners.”
The National Association of Secretaries of State has also stepped up its role, facilitating information sharing and coordinating responses to emerging threats. However, state officials note that this peer-to-peer approach, while valuable, cannot fully replace the comprehensive intelligence and resources that federal agencies can provide.
Real-World Consequences for Election Security
The reduced federal engagement has practical implications for election security across the country. Smaller jurisdictions, which previously relied heavily on federal technical assistance, are particularly vulnerable.
Rural counties and townships often lack the resources to conduct their own cybersecurity assessments or respond to sophisticated threats. Without federal support, these jurisdictions may be operating voting systems with unidentified vulnerabilities.
“When federal agencies step back, it’s not just the big states that suffer,” points out an election security expert. “Small communities lose access to expertise and resources they can’t afford on their own.”
The timing is also concerning given upcoming election cycles. Threat actors, whether foreign governments or domestic extremists, often ramp up activities in the months leading up to major elections. Historically, this is when federal-state coordination becomes most critical.
Some officials worry that the current approach may be creating blind spots in the nation’s election security posture. Without regular intelligence sharing and coordinated threat assessments, emerging risks could go undetected until it’s too late to respond effectively.
The Political Dimensions of Election Security Cooperation
The shift in Trump administration election security policy reflects broader political tensions around voting and elections. Federal agencies appear more focused on investigating potential irregularities than on preventing security threats.
Recent Justice Department lawsuits demanding voter roll information and FBI raids on election offices have created a climate of suspicion rather than cooperation. Many state officials now view federal contact with wariness rather than welcome.
“The relationship has become adversarial rather than collaborative,” observes one longtime election administrator. “We used to see federal agencies as partners. Now we’re not sure what their agenda is.”
This dynamic makes meaningful security cooperation more difficult, even when both sides recognize the importance of protecting election infrastructure. Trust, once broken, takes time to rebuild.
FAQs
Why has federal election security support decreased under the Trump administration?
The administration has shifted focus from proactive security assistance to investigating alleged election irregularities, changing the relationship from partnership to enforcement.
Are elections less secure without federal support?
While states have adapted by building their own security networks, reduced federal intelligence and resources create potential vulnerabilities, especially in smaller jurisdictions.
What was different about election security cooperation in previous years?
Previous administrations provided regular threat briefings, cybersecurity assessments, direct communication channels, and technical assistance to help states secure their voting systems.
How are states compensating for reduced federal support?
States are forming regional partnerships, increasing their own cybersecurity budgets, and working with private sector partners to fill gaps in security support.
Could this approach create security risks?
Yes, particularly for smaller jurisdictions that lack resources for independent security measures and previously relied on federal technical assistance and threat intelligence.
What would improve the current situation?
Restoring regular communication channels, resuming proactive threat intelligence sharing, and rebuilding trust between federal agencies and state election officials would strengthen overall election security.