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.
In the aftermath of the 2020 election, CISA officials asserted that the vote was secure and that there was no evidence of widespread fraud. This directly contradicted Trump’s claims of electoral misconduct, leading to the firing of CISA Director Christopher Krebs, whose dismissal shocked cybersecurity experts and public officials alike. That moment marked a turning point in the perception of DHS’s neutrality and reliability among some state governments.
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.
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.
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, 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 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 emphasized the importance of its role as a “trusted partner,” offering free services such as risk assessments, intrusion detection tools, and best practices guides for election infrastructure protection. However, the lingering impact of prior controversies continues to affect how some states perceive and utilize these offerings.
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.
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.
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 elections grow more complex and digital threats more sophisticated, ensuring that every level of government can work together securely is essential. Without it, the vulnerabilities aren’t just technological—they’re institutional, and they strike at the very foundation of democratic participation.