Sarah Martinez stared at her computer screen, reading the same email for the third time. As Colorado’s deputy secretary of state, she’d grown used to coordinating with federal agencies on election security. But this message felt different—colder, more distant than the collaborative tone she remembered from years past.
The FBI was inviting her and other state election officials to a briefing. Nothing unusual there. Except Sarah couldn’t remember the last time anyone from the Trump administration had reached out proactively about protecting elections. The timing felt odd, almost like an afterthought.
She wasn’t alone in her confusion. Across the country, state officials responsible for safeguarding American democracy were asking the same question: Where has federal support for election security gone?
The Partnership That Disappeared
For years, election security was a bipartisan priority that brought federal and state governments together. After 2016’s wake-up call about foreign interference, agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and FBI worked hand-in-hand with secretaries of state to build defenses against cyber threats.
That partnership appears to be fracturing. State officials from both parties say the Trump administration has become largely absent from election security efforts, leaving them to navigate increasingly complex threats with diminished federal support.
“We used to have regular communication, shared intelligence, coordinated responses,” explains Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. “Now it feels like we’re operating in a vacuum.”
The recent FBI briefing email that surprised state officials highlighted this disconnect. Many recipients initially questioned whether the message was legitimate—it included everyone’s email addresses openly and provided little context about the sudden outreach.
What State Officials Are Missing
The gaps in federal election security support are affecting states in multiple ways. Here’s what officials say they need but aren’t receiving:
- Regular threat intelligence briefings about foreign interference attempts
- Cybersecurity resources for aging election infrastructure
- Coordinated response protocols for Election Day incidents
- Funding assistance for security upgrades and training
- Technical expertise from federal cybersecurity specialists
| Security Area | Previous Federal Support | Current Status |
|---|---|---|
| Cyber Threat Intelligence | Weekly briefings | Sporadic updates |
| Infrastructure Assessment | Regular evaluations | Limited availability |
| Training Programs | Funded initiatives | Reduced offerings |
| Emergency Response | 24/7 hotline | Unclear protocols |
Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar describes the current situation as “flying blind.” His office used to receive detailed threat assessments that helped prioritize security investments. Now, those communications have dwindled to occasional, generic updates.
“We’re not asking for special treatment,” Aguilar says. “We just want the same level of partnership we had before—information sharing that keeps our elections safe.”
Real Consequences for Voters and Elections
This federal absence isn’t just an administrative inconvenience. It has practical implications for election integrity and voter confidence across America.
Without regular federal intelligence briefings, states struggle to identify emerging threats. Local election officials may miss critical warnings about phishing attempts, malware campaigns, or disinformation operations targeting their communities.
The funding gap is equally concerning. Many states rely on federal grants to upgrade voting equipment, train poll workers, and implement cybersecurity measures. Reduced federal engagement means fewer resources for these essential activities.
Georgia’s experience illustrates these challenges. After the FBI raided an elections office in the Atlanta area, state officials say they received little guidance about ongoing security protocols or how to handle similar situations in the future.
“We’re left to figure things out ourselves,” explains one Georgia election administrator who requested anonymity. “That’s not how you build confidence in the system.”
Voters ultimately bear the cost of this coordination breakdown. When state and federal agencies don’t work together effectively, it creates vulnerabilities that foreign adversaries or domestic bad actors could exploit.
The timing is particularly concerning given upcoming election cycles. Midterm elections require extensive preparation and coordination between different levels of government. Without strong federal partnerships, states face increased pressure to secure elections with limited resources and support.
Several secretaries of state have privately expressed frustration about being criticized for election problems while receiving diminished federal assistance to prevent those problems. They feel caught between public expectations for perfect elections and reduced federal cooperation.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes puts it bluntly: “Election security is national security. When the federal government steps back, everyone’s safety is at risk.”
Some states are responding by forming their own partnerships and sharing resources directly. But these state-to-state collaborations, while valuable, can’t fully replace federal intelligence capabilities and coordination mechanisms.
The Trump administration’s approach represents a significant shift from previous policies that treated election security as a shared federal-state responsibility. This change leaves many wondering whether America’s elections are adequately protected heading into future voting cycles.
FAQs
Why is federal involvement in election security important?
Federal agencies have unique intelligence capabilities and resources that help states identify and respond to sophisticated threats like foreign interference campaigns or coordinated cyberattacks.
What specific federal agencies typically work on election security?
The Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) traditionally coordinate with states on election protection efforts.
Are elections still secure without strong federal coordination?
While states maintain primary responsibility for elections, reduced federal coordination creates gaps in threat intelligence and response capabilities that could make elections more vulnerable.
How did previous administrations handle election security differently?
Past administrations maintained regular communication with state officials, provided consistent threat briefings, and treated election security as a collaborative federal-state partnership.
What can states do to compensate for reduced federal support?
States are forming direct partnerships with each other, investing more in their own cybersecurity capabilities, and working with private sector security firms to fill some gaps.
Will this affect voter confidence in elections?
Experts worry that visible coordination problems between federal and state governments could undermine public trust in election integrity and security measures.
About the Author
