logo
Bomb Threats, Deep Fakes, and Cyber Threats Target Our Elections. Congress Must Act Now

Bomb Threats, Deep Fakes, and Cyber Threats Target Our Elections. Congress Must Act Now

Newsweek16 hours ago
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
American democracy runs on a simple promise: your vote matters. But that promise means nothing if foreign adversaries can hack our systems, if bomb threats shut down polling places, or if election workers flee their posts in fear.
Right now, the infrastructure that protects this promise is at risk of collapse—threatening not just democracy, but Americans' power to influence everything from our local schools to the economy.
Budget negotiations are now underway, and Congress has an opportunity to reverse this dangerous course before it's too late.
Voting booths are pictured.
Voting booths are pictured.Pennsylvania's frontline experience illustrates exactly what's at stake. The state's Republican Secretary of State Al Schmidt warned of "serious consequences" in a letter to the Department of Homeland Security.
In 2024, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)—the federal agency created to protect our country's critical infrastructure, including election systems—helped Pennsylvania election officials respond to bomb threats on Election Day, quickly debunk a Russian-manufactured fake video targeting Bucks County that claimed to show ballots being destroyed, and coordinate responses when election offices received envelopes containing suspicious white powder.
CISA was created through bipartisan legislation and overwhelmingly approved by Congress.
The agency serves as the backbone of America's election security infrastructure, providing cybersecurity assessments, threat intelligence briefings, and physical security support. It coordinates critical information sharing between federal, state, and local officials.
Last year alone, it conducted over 700 cybersecurity assessments, 1,300 physical security assessments, and provided weekly vulnerability assessments to nearly 1,000 election officials.
These networks give local officials real-time threat intelligence and rapid response coordination.
This has never been more important.
Foreign adversaries including Russia, China, and Iran are conducting increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks against election infrastructure. In Western Pennsylvania, the Iranians hacked the Aliquippa Water Authority. Physical threats are mounting too—from bomb threats and vandalism to suspicious packages targeting election offices.
With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, now is the time to prepare. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening.
As Schmidt noted, "No state has a national or global perspective on the nature of threats and the capabilities of bad faith actors."
Local jurisdictions lack both the funds and expertise to replace federal programs that provide global threat assessments and coordinate responses across thousands of election offices.
Yet the Trump administration has systematically gutted this security infrastructure.
CISA has been hit by funding cuts from DOGE, the elimination of partnerships with states, mission changes away from countering misinformation, and hostility from Trump himself over the agency's affirmation of 2020 election results.
Nearly 1,000 people—one-third of CISA's workforce—have already left the agency. Election security activities remain frozen, and funding for information sharing networks has been terminated. The Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center—which provided free cybersecurity services to cash-strapped communities—has been shuttered entirely.
Meanwhile, the president's proposed budget seeks massive cuts to election funding, including an 18 percent cut to CISA's funding and complete elimination of election security grants.
There's strong bipartisan precedent for robust federal election security funding. The largest election security investment in recent history—$825 million—happened under President Donald Trump in 2020.
Republican and Democratic election officials across the country are now calling for restored support for election security programs.
Congress must act immediately.
First, Congress needs to restore CISA's election security activities and rebuild the workforce of advisors who serve as critical contacts for local officials during incidents.
Second, Congress must appropriate at least $825 million in Help America Vote Act funding, matching the successful 2020 investment.
Third, Congress must include a requirement ensuring two-thirds of funds go directly to the local officials who actually run our elections.
Pennsylvania faces particular targeting as a key swing state, but every state depends on federal coordination and expertise that only agencies like CISA can provide.
States and local communities shouldn't be abandoned and forced to face foreign adversaries and domestic threats alone. Congress has the power to restore the defenses that keep our elections secure. Our democracy has survived for nearly 250 years because each generation defended it when it mattered most.
Congressman Chris Deluzio represents Pennsylvania's 17th congressional district.
Brian Lemek is the executive director of Defend The Vote Action Fund.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

These are the voters who should scare Democrats most
These are the voters who should scare Democrats most

Boston Globe

time23 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

These are the voters who should scare Democrats most

In dozens of interviews, working-class swing voters said they had misgivings about the Trump presidency -- but many also said they were just as skeptical of the Democratic Party. Five years ago, Raymond Teachey voted, as usual, for the Democratic presidential nominee. But by last fall, Teachey, an aircraft mechanic from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, was rethinking his political allegiances. To him, the Democratic Party seemed increasingly focused on issues of identity at the expense of more tangible day-to-day concerns, such as public safety or the economy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Some of them turned their back on their base,' Teachey, 54, said. Advertisement Working-class voters like Teachey, who supported Biden in 2020 but either backed Trump last year or, as Teachey did, skipped the 2024 presidential election, help explain why Democrats lost pivotal swing counties like Bucks and vividly illustrate how the traditional Democratic coalition has eroded in the Trump era. Now, Democrats hope to bring these voters back into the fold for the midterm elections in 2026, betting on a backlash to Trump and his party's far-reaching moves to slash the social safety net. Sarah Smarty, a home health aide and an author who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 but flipped to President Trump last year, in Mifflin County, Penn. HANNAH YOON/NYT But in interviews with nearly 30 predominantly working-class voters who supported Biden in 2020 before defecting or struggling deeply with their choices last year, many had a stinging message for the Democratic Party. Advertisement Just because we have misgivings about Trump, they say, it doesn't mean we like you. 'I think I'm done with the Democrats,' said Desmond Smith, 24, a deli worker from Smithdale, Mississippi, and a Black man who said he backed Biden in 2020 at the height of the racial justice protests. But last year, disillusioned by what he saw as the party's overemphasis on identity politics and concerned about illegal immigration, he voted for Trump. Asked how Democrats could win him back, he said, 'Fight for Americans instead of fighting for everybody else.' An in-depth postelection study from Pew Research Center suggests that about 5% of Biden's voters in 2020 switched to Trump in 2024, while roughly 15% of those voters stayed home last year. Trump retained more of his 2020 voters than Democrats did, a crucial factor in winning the election. Polling on the current attitudes of those Biden defectors is limited, but it is clear the Democratic brand, broadly, continues to struggle. A Wall Street Journal poll released in late July found that the party's image was at its lowest point in more than three decades, with just 33% of voters saying they held a favorable view of Democrats. 'They're doing nothing to move their own numbers because they don't have an economic message,' said John Anzalone, a veteran Democratic pollster who worked on that survey. 'They think that this is about Trump's numbers getting worse,' he added. 'They need to worry about their numbers.' Certainly, anger with Trump, an energized Democratic base and the headwinds a president's party typically confronts in midterm elections could help propel Democrats to victory next year. Advertisement Democrats have had some recruitment success (and luck), and they see growing openings to argue that Trump's domestic agenda helps the wealthy at the expense of the working class, a message they are already beginning to push in advertising. There is no top-of-the-ticket national Democrat to defend or avoid, while Republicans have virtually no room to distance themselves from Trump's least popular ideas. But interviews with the voters whom Democrats are most desperate to reclaim also suggest that the party's challenges could extend well beyond next year's races. Here are five takeaways from those conversations. Biden's disastrous reelection bid fueled a trust issue. It hasn't gone away. Bielski, 35, an executive chef at a private club, said he had typically voted for Democrats until last year's presidential election, when he backed Trump. Democratic leaders had insisted that the plainly frail Biden was vigorous enough to run, and they had encouraged skeptical voters to fall in line. Instantly after he dropped out, they urged Democrats to unite behind the candidacy of Kamala Harris, who was then the vice president. That did not sit right with Bielski, who said he was already distrustful of Democrats who had pushed pandemic-era lockdowns. Harris, he said, 'wasn't someone that I got to vote for in a primary.' 'It almost seemed wrong,' continued Bielski, who lives in Phoenix. 'It was kind of like, OK, the same people that were just running the country are now telling us that this is the person that we should vote for.' After Harris became the Democratic nominee, some voters interpreted her meandering answers in televised interviews as an unwillingness to be straight with them. By contrast, while Trump gave outlandish and rambling public remarks riddled with conspiracy theories and lies, some said they had gotten the general sense that he wanted to tackle the cost of living and curb illegal immigration. Advertisement 'It was difficult to understand what her point of view was,' said Bruce Gamble, 67, a retired substation maintainer for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. Gamble said he voted for Biden in 2020 and Trump last year. Trump 'was able to communicate better to me,' he added, while Harris 'felt like she was talking over my head, so I didn't quite trust her.' Raymond Teachey, an aircraft mechanic in Bristol, Penn. HANNAH YOON/NYT Worried about paying the bills, they saw Democrats as too focused on cultural issues. Many in this multiracial group of voters said they thought Democrats had gone too far in promoting transgender rights or in emphasizing matters of racial identity. But often, they were more bothered by their perception that those discussions had come at the expense of addressing economic anxieties. 'It seemed like they were more concerned with DEI and LGBTQ issues and really just things that didn't pertain to me or concern me at all,' said Kendall Wood, 32, a truck driver from Henrico County, Virginia. He said he voted for Trump last year after backing Biden in 2020. 'They weren't concerned with, really, kitchen-table issues.' A poll from The New York Times and Ipsos conducted this year found that many Americans did not believe that the Democratic Party was focused on the economic issues that mattered most to them. 'Maybe talk about real-world problems,' said Maya Garcia, 23, a restaurant server from the San Fernando Valley in California. She said she voted for Biden in 2020 and did not vote for president last year. Democrats talk 'a lot about us emotionally, but what are we going to do financially?' Advertisement She added, 'I understand that you want, you know, equal rights and things like that. But I feel like we need to talk more about the economics.' But in a warning sign for Republicans, a recent CNN poll found that a growing share of Americans -- 63% -- felt as if Trump had not paid enough attention to the country's most important problems. Marlon Flores, a technician at a car dealership in Houston. DESIREE RIOS/NYT 'America First' gained new resonance amid wars abroad. As wars raged in the Middle East and Ukraine, some working-class voters thought the Biden administration cared more about events abroad than about the problems in their communities. 'They were funding in other countries, while we do not have the money to fund ourselves,' said Smarty, 33, a home health aide and an author. She said she voted for Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024, adding that she viewed Trump as a man of action. 'I would really like to see more jobs,' she said. 'I would like to see them take good care of people who are homeless in our area.' Bielski said that against the backdrop of overseas turmoil, Trump's 'America First' message resonated. But these days, he does not think Trump is living up to that mantra. 'We're getting into more stuff abroad and not really focusing on economics here,' he said. 'It doesn't seem like he's holding true to anything that he's promised.' Flores, 22, a technician at a car dealership, said the foreign policy emphasis -- and a sense that life was tough regardless of the party in power -- helped explain why he skipped last year's election as well as the 2020 presidential race. Advertisement 'No matter how many times have we gone red, or even blue, the blue-collar workers' have seen little progress, Flores said. President Trump at the White House on Aug. 11. Alex Brandon/Associated Press They worry about illegal immigration. But some think Trump's crackdowns are going too far. These voters often said they agreed with Trump on the need to stem the flow of illegal immigration and strengthen border security. But some worried about the administration's crackdown, which has resulted in sweeping raids, children being separated from their parents, the deportation of American citizens and a growing sense of fear in immigrant communities. Several people interviewed said they knew people who had been personally affected. Smarty, for instance, said her friend's husband, who had lived in the United States for 25 years, had suddenly been deported to Mexico. Her friend is 'going through some health problems, and they have kids, and that's really hard on their family,' Smarty said. 'I don't really feel that's exactly right.' They're not done with every Democrat. But they're tired of the old guard. Many of the voters interviewed said they remained open to supporting Democrats -- or at least the younger ones. 'Stop being friggin' old,' said Cinnamon Boffa, 57, from Langhorne, Pennsylvania. As she recalled, she supported Biden in 2020 but voted only downballot last year, lamenting that 'our choices suck.' Teachey thought there was still room for seasoned politicians, but in many cases, it was time to get 'the boomers out of there.' He is increasingly inclined to support Democrats next year to check unfettered Republican power. 'They're totally far right,' he said of the GOP. 'Honestly, I don't identify with any party.' This article originally appeared in

Read: White House launches "comprehensive" review of Smithsonian exhibits
Read: White House launches "comprehensive" review of Smithsonian exhibits

Axios

time23 minutes ago

  • Axios

Read: White House launches "comprehensive" review of Smithsonian exhibits

The Trump administration told the Smithsonian Institution it's launching a "comprehensive internal review" of the world's biggest museum and research complex, per a letter the White House released Tuesday. The big picture: "As we prepare to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Nation's founding, it is more important than ever that our national museums reflect the unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story," states the letter to Smithsonian secretary Lonnie Bunch, signed by White House officials Lindsey Halligan, Vince Haley and Russell Vought. "This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions." The letter says the action is in accordance with President Trump's March executive order on reshaping the Smithsonian and removing what he deems "improper ideology" from the institution. Of note: The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History in July removed mentions of Trump's two impeachments from an exhibit, before restoring his name to an impeachment display with revisions. What to expect: The review will initially focus on the following museums before shifting focus to others: National Museum of American History. National Museum of Natural History. National Museum of African American History and Culture. National Museum of the American Indian. National Air and Space Museum. Smithsonian American Art Museum National Portrait Gallery. Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. Zoom in: Each museum must submit within 30 days all requested materials, including current exhibition descriptions and draft plans for upcoming shows, according to the letter. An inventory of all permanent holdings must be submitted within 75 days and each museum "should finalize and submit its updated plan to commemorate America's 250th anniversary," among other requirements. Within 120 days, museums "should begin implementing content corrections where necessary, replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions across placards, wall didactics, digital displays, and other public-facing materials," per the letter. What they're saying: "The Smithsonian's work is grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history," the institution said in a media statement Tuesday.

Ukraine's Zelensky Says Putin Will Benefit From Trump Meeting in 3 Ways
Ukraine's Zelensky Says Putin Will Benefit From Trump Meeting in 3 Ways

Newsweek

time24 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Ukraine's Zelensky Says Putin Will Benefit From Trump Meeting in 3 Ways

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a new interview Tuesday that he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin will benefit from his upcoming summit with President Donald Trump in three key ways. Why It Matters Trump and Putin are slated to meet in Alaska on Friday to discuss bringing an end to Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine, which Putin launched in February 2022. The White House said the Russian strongman reached out to request the meeting and that Zelensky has not been invited. The Trump administration has also sought to temper expectations around the president's meeting with Putin. Trump said in the past that he would end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours of being elected or shortly after being inaugurated. Neither promise has come to fruition and the White House this week framed talks between Trump and Putin as a "listening exercise" and a "fact-finding" mission. U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands at the conclusion of their joint news conference at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland, on July 16, 2018. U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands at the conclusion of their joint news conference at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland, on July 16, 2018. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP What To Know Zelensky was asked by NewsNation on Tuesday what he believes Putin will take away from his meeting with Trump. The Ukrainian leader didn't mince words, telling the outlet, "I believe that Putin will benefit from this, because what he is seeking, frankly, is photographs. He needs a photo from a meeting with President Trump." Zelensky continued: "First, he will be meeting on U.S. soil, which I believe is his personal victory. Second, he is coming out of isolation because he is meeting on U.S. soil. Third, with this meeting, he has somehow postponed the sanctions policy. President Trump has serious sanctions, and we are very much looking forward to these sanctions." "We will see what happens next," he added. Indeed, the Trump administration's decision to allow Putin into the country is striking, given that the Russian leader has been accused of war crimes against Ukraine by the International Criminal Court. That the meeting will take place in Alaska—which Russia sold to the U.S. for a little over $7 million in 1867—adds another layer of significance. Putin's meeting with Trump will be the first time the Russian leader has met with an American president since June 2021, when he encountered then-President Joe Biden for a bilateral summit. Russia invaded Ukraine less than eight months later, cementing Putin's status as a pariah in the Western world. Trump addressed the upcoming meeting with his Russian counterpart while speaking to reporters last week and suggested that there would be "swapping of territories" between Russia and Ukraine. Zelensky flatly rejected the notion, saying that Ukrainians "will not give their land to an occupier." The Ukrainian leader's refusal to cede land to Russia irked Trump, who said Monday that he disagreed "very, very severely" with him. "I get along with Zelensky, but, you know, I disagree with what he's done," Trump told reporters at the White House. "Very, very severely disagree. This is a war that should have never happened." Zelensky spoke by phone with Trump, special envoy Steve Witkoff and European leaders on Tuesday. After the call, the Ukrainian president said he was told Russia is showing signs that it may want to end the war. "During the call, there was a signal from Mr. Witkoff, who was also on the call, that Russia is ready to end the war, or at least to make a first step toward a ceasefire, and that this was the first such signal from them," Zelensky said. "Everyone on the call felt positive about this, that there was some kind of shift." But he emphasized that it was still unclear to him what Putin may have told Witkoff regarding a cessation of hostilities. Trump's announcement on Friday about a meeting with Putin came as the Kremlin's army slowly advances deeper into Ukraine—in defiance of demands from Trump and other Western leaders to cease attacks on civilian locales, according to the Associated Press (AP). Russia and Ukraine are also far apart on their terms for peace. Zelensky has refused to agree to a ceasefire deal that doesn't include security guarantees for his country, while Putin demands Ukraine be shut out from NATO and cede to Russia four territories Moscow claims it annexed. Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield have also expressed little hope for a diplomatic solution to the war. What People Are Saying Zelensky wrote on Telegram: Putin "is definitely not preparing for a ceasefire or an end to the war. Putin is determined only to present a meeting with America as his personal victory and then continue acting exactly as before, applying the same pressure on Ukraine as before. "So far, there is no indication whatsoever that the Russians have received signals to prepare for a post-war situation. On the contrary, they are redeploying their troops and forces in ways that suggest preparations for new offensive operations. If someone is preparing for peace, this is not what he does." A Ukrainian Spartan Brigade drone unit commander with the call sign Buda told the AP he doesn't think Russia is interested in peace, adding: "It is impossible to negotiate with them. The only option is to defeat them. I would like them to agree and for all this to stop, but Russia will not agree to that. It does not want to negotiate. So the only option is to defeat them." A howitzer commander with the call sign Warsaw in Ukraine's southern Zaporizhzhia region, told the AP: "We are on our land, we have no way out. So we stand our ground, we have no choice." What Happens Next Trump and Zelensky will speak on the phone Wednesday, with European leaders joining the call. Putin has also briefed North Korean leader Kim Jong-un about his meeting with Trump in Anchorage, according to Russian state media. Moscow and Pyongyang have strengthened their strategic partnership since Russia invaded Ukraine and North Korea has sent troops to fight alongside Russian soldiers on the front lines. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also left open the possibility that Trump could travel to Russia at some point, telling reporters on Tuesday that "perhaps" the American president will visit Putin in his home country down the road. The Associated Press contributed reporting to this article.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store