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 former President Donald Trump’s tenure, the relationship between DHS and state election officials was often contentious. Despite the formation of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in 2018—a DHS subdivision created to support critical infrastructure protection, including election systems—Trump’s rhetoric surrounding election legitimacy frequently clashed with CISA’s public statements.
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.
Now, even with new leadership in place, the agency faces lingering skepticism, especially among those who believe that its independence may have been compromised under political pressure. As a result, certain states are hesitant to fully rely on DHS for election-related support, despite growing cyber threats targeting voter databases, election infrastructure, and public trust.
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.
As a reaction to their worries, state election authorities have aimed to enhance their internal cybersecurity skills and establish collaborations with reliable federal or non-governmental organizations. A number of states have grown their election security departments, employed specialized information security personnel, and boosted spending on employee education and technological improvements.
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.
Even with this change, numerous states recognize that DHS still possesses useful assets, especially in areas such as threat intelligence, vulnerability assessments, and collaboration with intelligence organizations. The difficulty is in reestablishing a cooperative relationship that allows these resources to be both reliable and efficient.
Since the shift to the Biden administration, CISA has been actively working to re-establish its reputation as an impartial guardian of electoral security. With new management in place, the organization has initiated programs to reassure state authorities of its dedication to openness and impartiality. These efforts incorporate frequent threat updates, open-to-public online seminars, and local security conferences designed to address the specific needs of regional election officials.
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 election-related cyber threats continue to evolve, the importance of cohesive federal-state collaboration becomes even more critical. State systems remain frequent targets of ransomware attacks, phishing campaigns, and influence operations originating from abroad. Without unified defense strategies and shared information channels, the nation’s electoral integrity may become increasingly vulnerable.
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.
Yet that potential will only be realized if state officials trust the agency’s motives, capabilities, and professionalism. As one election official put it, “We don’t have the luxury of mistrust when the stakes are this high—but we do have to be cautious about who we 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.
Meanwhile, CISA continues to engage stakeholders, refine its messaging, and expand its support services in an effort to regain the confidence of all 50 states. The ultimate test will be whether those efforts translate into effective, trusted collaboration when the next major election cycle begins.
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.
