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.
Compounding the trust issue is a decline in staffing across key divisions within DHS that provide cybersecurity assistance to state and local governments. According to internal assessments and public reporting, many cybersecurity roles remain vacant, slowing the agency’s ability to offer timely support or deploy resources during critical election periods.
For instance, election authorities across multiple states mention postponed arrival of DHS risk evaluations or intelligence updates. These resources—which were previously regarded as crucial for countering cyber threats or misinformation efforts—are now more difficult to obtain because of insufficient staffing and challenging coordination between national and state entities.
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, some secretaries of state have pursued collaboration with the National Guard’s cybersecurity units or academic institutions with expertise in election integrity. These alternatives allow states to retain greater control over their systems while still benefiting from external 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 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 tackle these challenges, the agency is focusing on broadening its recruitment channels and enhancing collaboration with other agencies, yet restoring trust is an enduring endeavor. Election security authorities emphasize that uniformity, transparent communication, and maintaining political neutrality will be crucial for fortifying these alliances in the future.
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.
Some lawmakers have called for additional funding to bolster both DHS and state election offices, recognizing that robust defense requires investment at all levels. Others advocate for legislative reforms to clarify the agency’s responsibilities and insulate its leadership from political pressure.
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 history of previous disputes and current limitations in resources have led some states to doubt the dependability of the Department of Homeland Security in safeguarding elections. Although the agency is still a vital component in the wider cybersecurity field, restoring full confidence among state leaders hinges on being transparent, enhancing staffing, and showing a true dedication to impartial aid.
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.
