As the United States approaches another pivotal election season, several state officials have expressed growing unease about the capacity and reliability of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), particularly in light of diminished staffing and lingering distrust rooted in policies from the Trump administration. While DHS remains a key federal agency tasked with assisting states in safeguarding elections from both domestic and foreign threats, its perceived credibility and operational strength have come under scrutiny.
In recent months, a number of state election leaders have voiced apprehension about relying on DHS’s cybersecurity and infrastructure security divisions, citing concerns that stem from both institutional shifts during the previous administration and ongoing resource limitations. Their worries highlight a broader issue in America’s decentralized electoral system: how state and federal agencies collaborate to protect one of democracy’s most essential functions.
During the time when Donald Trump was President, there were often disputes between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and state election officials. Although the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was established in 2018 as a part of DHS to help safeguard essential infrastructures like election systems, Trump’s comments about the validity of elections often opposed CISA’s public declarations.
Following the 2020 election, representatives from CISA declared that the election process was secure and that there was no indication of significant fraud. This statement directly opposed Trump’s allegations of election wrongdoing, resulting in the termination of CISA Director Christopher Krebs. His removal surprised many in the cybersecurity community and public officials. This event signified a shift in how certain state authorities viewed the impartiality and dependability of DHS.
Currently, despite the change in leadership, the agency continues to deal with ongoing doubts, particularly from individuals who feel that political influence might have affected its autonomy. Consequently, some states remain cautious about completely trusting DHS for assistance related to elections, even as cyber threats to voter data, election systems, and public confidence increase.
Adding to the problem of trust is a decrease in personnel in essential departments within DHS that give cybersecurity support to state and local governments. Based on internal reviews and public reports, numerous cybersecurity positions are unfilled, hindering the agency’s capacity to provide prompt assistance or allocate resources during important election times.
For example, election officials in several states report delays in receiving DHS vulnerability assessments or intelligence briefings. These services—once seen as essential tools in preparing for cyberattacks or disinformation campaigns—have become harder to access due to limited personnel and strained coordination between federal and state actors.
In certain situations, states have looked to private cybersecurity companies or set up standalone teams to address what is seen as a lack of federal assistance. Although these actions can offer important safeguards, they might also result in uneven standards and disjointed security practices across different areas.
In response to their concerns, state election officials have sought to bolster in-house cybersecurity capabilities and forge partnerships with more trusted federal or non-governmental entities. Several states have expanded their own election security offices, hired dedicated information security officers, and increased investments in staff training and technological upgrades.
Additionally, certain state secretaries have sought to work alongside the National Guard’s cybersecurity teams or academic bodies with knowledge in maintaining election security. These approaches enable states to maintain more direct oversight of their systems while still leveraging outside expertise.
Despite this pivot, many states acknowledge that DHS still holds valuable resources, particularly in threat intelligence, vulnerability scanning, and coordination with intelligence agencies. The challenge lies in rebuilding the kind of collaborative relationship that can make these tools both effective and trusted.
Since the transition to the Biden administration, CISA has made visible efforts to restore its standing as a nonpartisan protector of election security. Under new leadership, the agency has launched outreach initiatives aimed at reassuring state officials of its commitment to transparency and neutrality. These include regular threat briefings, public webinars, and regional security summits tailored to the needs of local election administrators.
CISA has also highlighted the significance of its position as a “reliable partner,” providing complementary services like risk evaluations, intrusion detection instruments, and guidelines for safeguarding election infrastructure. Nevertheless, the lasting effects of past disputes still influence the way certain states view and employ these resources.
To address these challenges, the agency is working to expand its staffing pipeline and improve interagency coordination, but rebuilding trust remains a long-term project. Election security officials note that consistency, clear communication, and political independence will be key to strengthening these partnerships moving forward.
As cyber threats linked to elections keep changing, the significance of a unified federal-state partnership becomes increasingly crucial. Systems at the state level are often targeted by ransomware attacks, phishing schemes, and foreign influence operations. In the absence of coordinated defense plans and shared information networks, the integrity of the nation’s electoral process might face growing risks.
Experts caution that a disjointed approach in the security environment—where individual states operate autonomously with minimal collaboration—may lead to vulnerabilities that opponents can take advantage of. DHS, due to its extensive responsibilities and access to national intelligence, is distinctly placed to offer support for a coordinated response.
However, this potential can only be achieved if state authorities have confidence in the agency’s intentions, skills, and professionalism. As one election official stated, “We can’t afford distrust when the stakes are so high—though we must be careful about whom we choose to trust.”
With the 2024 general election on the horizon, state and local election officials are working to finalize their cybersecurity strategies and logistical preparations. Whether DHS will play a central role in those plans remains an open question for several states, especially those still grappling with concerns over staffing and past political interference.
Several legislators have proposed more financial support to strengthen both DHS and state election offices, acknowledging that strong protection needs investment at all tiers. Meanwhile, some push for changes in legislation to define the agency’s duties clearly and shield its leadership from political influence.
At the same time, CISA keeps collaborating with stakeholders, fine-tuning its communication strategies, and enhancing its assistance offerings to recover trust across all 50 states. The real challenge will be determining if these efforts lead to successful, reliable partnerships once the forthcoming major election period commences.
The legacy of past controversies and ongoing resource constraints have left some states questioning the reliability of the Department of Homeland Security’s role in election protection. While the agency remains a critical asset in the broader cybersecurity landscape, its ability to regain full trust from state officials depends on transparency, staffing improvements, and a demonstrated commitment to nonpartisan support.
As voting becomes increasingly intricate and cyber threats more advanced, it is crucial for all levels of government to collaborate in a safe manner. Lacking this cooperation, weaknesses extend beyond just the technological sphere—they become systemic, undermining the core of democratic engagement.
