Since its establishment in 2018, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has played a crucial role in protecting the security of U.S. election systems. The federal agency, tasked with safeguarding the nation’s critical infrastructure—including power grids, dams, and election systems—has historically worked closely with state and local election officials. Its efforts have included warning about potential foreign threats, advising on how to secure polling places, and conducting simulations to prepare for unexpected events such as bomb threats or disinformation campaigns on Election Day.
However, in the recent elections held this month in several states, CISA’s presence and involvement were notably diminished. This reduction in engagement has raised concerns among election officials about the agency’s capacity and willingness to support the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, which will be particularly significant as control of Congress will be decided. The shifting priorities of the Trump administration, coupled with staffing reductions and budget cuts, have contributed to a growing uncertainty about the future role of CISA in election security.
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat who until recently led the bipartisan National Association of Secretaries of State, expressed his worries candidly. “We do not have a sense of whether we can rely on CISA for these services as we approach a big election year in 2026,” he said. These concerns prompted the association’s leadership to send a letter in February to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who oversees CISA, urging her to preserve the agency’s core election security functions. As of now, the department has not responded to the letter. Simon emphasized the urgency of the issue, noting that “months later, the letter remains very timely and relevant.”
CISA was created during the first Trump administration with the mission to protect critical infrastructure and has been a key federal partner for election security. Yet, since the start of President Trump’s second term in January, the agency has been undergoing significant changes. Public records indicate that over the past several years, about 1,000 CISA employees have lost their jobs. Additionally, in March, the Republican administration cut $10 million from two cybersecurity initiatives, including one focused on assisting state and local election officials.
These changes came shortly after CISA announced a review of its election-related work, during which more than a dozen staffers dedicated to election security were placed on administrative leave. Meanwhile, the FBI disbanded a task force tasked with monitoring foreign influence operations, including those targeting U.S. elections. These developments have further contributed to the uncertainty surrounding the agency’s election-related capabilities.
Compounding the issue, CISA has been without an official director for some time. The nomination of Sean Plankey, a cybersecurity expert from the Trump administration, has been stalled in the Senate, leaving the agency without confirmed leadership. Attempts to get detailed answers from CISA about its involvement in the recent elections, its future plans for 2026, or current staffing levels were unsuccessful. Instead, agency representatives offered only general assurances that CISA remains ready to help protect election infrastructure. Marci McCarthy, CISA’s director of public affairs, stated, “Under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Noem, CISA is laser-focused on securing America’s critical infrastructure and strengthening cyber resilience.” She added that future organizational plans would be announced “at the appropriate time.” Christine Serrano Glassner, the agency’s chief external affairs officer, reiterated that the agency’s experts are prepared to provide election guidance if requested and coordinate swiftly with relevant authorities in the event of disruptions or threats.
Despite these official statements, election officials in several states report a starkly different reality. California’s top election security agencies, for example, acknowledged that CISA has played a “critical role” since its inception but noted the agency provided little to no assistance during the state’s November 4 special election. This election involved voter approval of a redrawn congressional district map. According to the California Secretary of State’s office, “CISA’s capacity to support elections has been significantly diminished” over the past year due to major reductions in staffing, funding, and mission focus. They pointed out that personnel dedicated specifically to election security and foreign influence mitigation have been eliminated. The office lamented that this shift “has left election officials nationwide without the critical federal partnership they have relied on for several election cycles.”
In September, CISA informed California officials that it would no longer participate in a task force that coordinated efforts among federal, state, and local agencies to