State and local election officials across the country are confronting a new challenge ahead of the midterms: a tense and increasingly adversarial relationship with the federal government, an entity that has historically served as a key partner in securing American elections.
While election administrators have spent years preparing for traditional threats such as bomb threats at polling places, state-backed hacking efforts, and large-scale disinformation campaigns, many now view federal actions as a primary risk to election integrity. The Constitution grants states primary authority over election administration, but the administration has spent the past two years pushing to overhaul the U.S. election system and voter registration protocols.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, pointed directly to the federal government as the state’s leading risk. Colorado is among 15 states reportedly flagged this summer by the Department of Homeland Security for vulnerabilities in upholding election integrity. In response to concerns over federal meddling, state officials have barred federal representatives from entering Colorado’s Cyber Command Center, an initiative established by the Colorado National Guard each election cycle to protect voting infrastructure from cyber threats.
Friction has intensified over several federal initiatives, including President Donald Trump urging Republicans to nationalize U.S. elections last fall and issuing an executive order restricting mail-in voting in March. Earlier this year, the FBI seized years-old ballots and other election materials from Fulton County, Georgia, as part of an investigation into repeatedly debunked claims regarding the 2020 election.
Wesley Wilcox, a Republican supervisor of elections in Marion County, Florida, noted that these actions have severely damaged the working relationship between local administrators and federal partners, stating that trust has eroded significantly.
Tensions have also flared over a nationwide push by the administration to access state voter rolls and cross-reference them with a federal immigration database. Voter access and advocacy groups have criticized the effort, warning it could purge eligible voters from registration lists. According to the Department of Justice, 18 states have complied and turned over their rolls. However, numerous states have refused, leading the Department of Homeland Security to threaten withheld federal election security grants, fines, and potential criminal penalties for noncompliance.
The Department of Homeland Security defended its actions in a statement, asserting that it is fulfilling its statutory obligations to protect election infrastructure and ensure fair, honest, and accurate elections, while dismissing claims that it is attempting to exert inappropriate control.
In response to state pushback, the Department of Justice has filed a wave of lawsuits against noncompliant states, though no federal court has ruled in the department’s favor to date. West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner, a Republican whose state was sued earlier this year for refusing to hand over voter data, maintained that state law protects the information. A federal judge dismissed the DOJ lawsuit in July, ruling that the department failed to establish a sufficient legal basis for demanding sensitive voter records.
The Department of Justice maintained that federal law mandates accurate voter rolls and that the agency will continue pursuing compliance from remaining states, noting that many jurisdictions cooperated voluntarily.
Historically, the federal government provided crucial support to local officials through cybersecurity penetration testing, physical security assessments, and virtual situation rooms for real-time threat sharing. However, the administration has scaled back this support, leaving states to shoulder a larger share of security responsibilities. Funding reductions previously forced the temporary closure of the Election Infrastructure-Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which had been housed within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to offer free technical guidance to election offices nationwide. The center now operates under the nonprofit Center for Internet Security’s Multi-State ISAC, though it has lost numerous members who cannot afford membership costs without federal assistance. Staffing cuts and a freeze on broader election work at CISA further curtailed agency support during previous state and local elections.
CISA has recently rolled out new public initiatives, including a joint warning with the FBI regarding artificial intelligence-driven efforts to steal sensitive data from election officials, and a 13-page election security plan detailing free resources such as a platform for real-time threat reporting.
Critics contend that the programs outlined in the plan merely repackage vulnerability scanning and other services CISA provided before its funding was cut, and argue the directives arrived too late to impact midterm preparations.
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, dismissed the CISA plan as arriving too late to alter preparations already underway, noting that states and localities will ensure secure midterms despite federal absence or interference.
Other administrators expressed concern that broader efforts to sow doubt about voting procedures could foster widespread skepticism and discourage civic participation. Delaware Secretary of State Charuni Patibanda-Sanchez, who co-chairs the state’s Task Force on Free, Fair and Secure Elections, warned that voter disengagement represents a significant disservice to the nation.
