A Philadelphia poll worker demonstrates security steps for handling ballots before November’s presidential election. States have relied on federal partners to boost election security. (Photo by Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images)

The Trump administration has begun dismantling the nation’s defenses against foreign interference in voting, a sweeping retreat that has alarmed state and local election officials.

The administration is shuttering the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force and last week cut more than 100 positions at the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. President Donald Trump signed the law creating the agency in 2018. Among its goals is helping state and local officials protect voting systems.

Secretaries of state and municipal clerks fear those moves could expose voter registration databases and other critical election systems to hacking — and put the lives of election officials at risk.

In Pennsylvania, Republican Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt said states need federal help to safeguard elections from foreign and domestic bad actors.

“It is foolish and inefficient to think that states should each pursue this on their own,” he told Stateline. “The adversaries that we might encounter in Pennsylvania are very likely the same ones they’ll encounter in Michigan and Georgia and Arizona.”

Officials from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, known as CISA, and other federal agencies were notably absent from the National Association of Secretaries of State winter meeting in Washington, D.C., earlier this month. Those same federal partners have for the past seven years provided hacking testing of election systems, evaluated the physical security of election offices, and conducted exercises to prepare local officials for Election Day crises, among other services for states that wanted them.

But the Trump administration thinks those services have gone too far.

In a Feb. 5 memo, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration is dismantling the FBI’s task force “to free resources to address more pressing priorities, and end risks of further weaponization and abuses of prosecutorial discretion.” The task force was launched in 2017 by then-FBI Director Christopher Wray, a Trump nominee.

In her confirmation hearing last month, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said CISA has “gotten far off-mission.” She added, “They’re using their resources in ways that was never intended.” While the agency should protect the nation’s critical infrastructure, its work combating disinformation was a step too far, she said.

This echoes the language from the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 document, which has driven much of the Trump administration’s policies. “The Left has weaponized [CISA] to censor speech and affect elections at the expense of securing the cyber domain and critical infrastructure,” it says.

But there is a direct correlation between pervasive election disinformation and political violence, election officials warn.

Federal officials led the investigations into the roughly 20 death threats that Colorado Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold has received over the past 18 months, Griswold said. Federal and Colorado officials also collaborated on social media disinformation and mass phishing scams.

“Trump is making it easier for foreign adversaries to attack our elections and our democracy,” Griswold said in an interview. “He incites all this violence, he has attacked our election system, and now he is using the federal government to weaken us.”

Colorado could turn to private vendors to, for example, probe systems to look for weaknesses, she said. But the state would be hard-pressed to duplicate the training, testing and intelligence of its federal partners.

Some election leaders aren’t worried, however.

“Kentucky has no scheduled elections in 2025, and we have no immediate concerns pending reorganization of this agency,” Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams told Stateline in an email.

Elections under attack

Since the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign, the federal government has recognized that it overlooked security risks in the election system, said Derek Tisler, a counsel in the Elections and Government Program at the Brennan Center, a left-leaning pro-democracy institute.

Further, he said, the feds realized that election officials working in 10,000 local offices could not be frontline national security experts. On their own, local officials are incapable of addressing bigger security risks or spotting a coordinated attack across several states, Tisler said.

Much of the federal expertise and training came through CISA, Tisler said.

“Foreign interferers are not generally looking to interfere in Illinois’ elections or in Texas’ elections; they are looking to interfere in American elections,” he said. “A threat anywhere impacts all states. It’s important that information is not confined to state lines.”

During November’s presidential election, polling places in several states received bomb threats that were traced back to Russia. Ballot drop boxes in Oregon and Washington were lit on fire, and videos falsely depicting election workers destroying ballots circulated widely.

The fact that these attacks have not had a meaningful impact on the outcomes of elections may be due to the amount of preparation and training that came from federal assistance in recent years, said Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat.

Indeed, the right-leaning Foundation for Defense of Democracies praised the collaboration between federal and state and local partners on election security for dampening the impact of foreign interference in the presidential election, finding that adversaries did not “significantly” influence the results.

When Bellows took office in 2021, federal national security officials led state officials in emergency response training. After Bellows completed the training, she insisted that her state’s clerks, local emergency responders and law enforcement officers participate as well.

In addition, Maine coordinated with the FBI to provide de-escalation training to local clerks, to teach them how to prevent situations, such as a disruption from a belligerent voter, from getting out of hand. In 2022, CISA officials traveled to towns and cities across the state to assess the physical security of polling places and clerks’ offices.

Bellows said she’s most grateful for the federal help she got last year when she received a deluge of death threats, members of her family were doxed, and her home was swatted.

“I am deeply concerned that what is happening is actually gutting the election security infrastructure that exists and a tremendous amount of knowledge and expertise in the name of this political fight,” she told Stateline.

In Ingham County, Michigan, Clerk Barb Byrum last year invited two federal officials to come to her courthouse office southeast of Lansing to assess its physical security. Byrum got county funding to make improvements, including adding security cameras and a ballistic film on the windows of her office.

“The federal support is going to be missed,” she said. “It seems as though the Trump administration is doing everything it can to encourage foreign interference in our elections. We must remain vigilant.”

Scott McDonell, clerk for Dane County, Wisconsin, used to talk to Department of Homeland Security officials frequently to identify cybersecurity threats, including vulnerabilities in certain software or alerts about other attacks throughout the country. Losing that support could incentivize more interference, he said.

“I think it’s a terrible idea,” he said. “How can you expect someone like me, here in Dane County, to be able to deal with something like that?”

States fill the gap

Local election officials are nervous and uncertain about the federal election security cuts, said Pamela Smith, president and CEO of Verified Voting, a nonprofit that works with state and local election officials to keep voting systems secure.

The threat landscape for elections is “extreme,” she said. And even though it’s not a major election year, quieter times are when election offices can prepare and perfect their practices, she said.

“It is a retreat and it’s a really ill-advised one,” she said. “It’s a little bit like saying the bank has a slow day on Tuesday, we’re going to let our security guards go home.”

With a federal exodus, there will be a real need for states to offer these sorts of programs and assistance, said Tammy Patrick, chief programs officer at the National Association of Election Officials, which trains and supports local officials.

“There’s going to be a big gap there for the states to try and fill,” she said. “Some of them might be sophisticated enough to be able to do some of it, but I think there’s going to be some real disparate application across the country of who’s going to be able to fill in those gaps.”

Bill Ekblad, Minnesota’s election security navigator, has leaned on the feds to learn the ropes of election security and potential threats, help him assist local election offices with better cyber practices and keep officials throughout the state updated with the latest phishing attempts.

He finds it disheartening to see the federal government stepping back, and worries that he won’t have access to intelligence about foreign threats. But after five years of working with the federal government, he is hopeful that his state has built resiliency.

“We have come a long way,” he said. “We will be able to move forward with or without the partnerships we’ve enjoyed in the past.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

Jack Smith, at the time the special counsel, delivers remarks on a recently unsealed indictment including four felony counts against Donald Trump at the Justice Department on Aug. 1, 2023 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A final report from former Department of Justice prosecutor Jack Smith contends that had President-elect Donald Trump not won in November, he would have been convicted on charges that he conspired to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

The report was released just after midnight Tuesday, following a court battle to keep the document hidden from the public.

The roughly 140-page report is Smith’s final record of the investigation that never made it to trial, as Trump repeatedly delayed the case, ultimately escalating his assertion of presidential criminal immunity to the Supreme Court.

Smith, who resigned Friday, detailed the investigation’s findings that Trump attempted to undermine Joe Biden’s 2020 victory by pressuring state officials and then-Vice President Mike Pence to lie about results, and knowingly spreading false claims that rallied his supporters to violently attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“As set forth in the original and superseding indictments, when it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power,” Smith wrote.

Smith closed his federal cases against Trump following the president-elect’s victory on Nov. 5.

“The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not tum on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind,” Smith wrote.

“Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

A second volume of Smith’s report focusing on his investigation of Trump’s alleged illegal hoarding of classified documents at his Florida estate following his presidency has not been made public. Trump’s two co-defendants in the case have legally challenged the document’s release. 

A federal hearing on that second volume’s release is scheduled for later this week in Florida.

Trump slams report, Smith

Trump, who is set to again occupy the Oval Office in six days, dismissed the report in a post overnight on his platform Truth Social.

In it, he name-called the prosecutor and conflated Congress’ non-criminal investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack with Smith’s wider probe of Trump’s weeks-long conspiracy with others to subvert the 2020 election.

“Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his ‘boss,’ Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another ‘Report’ based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks  and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were. Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!,” Trump wrote.

The long, winding litigation

A federal grand jury handed up its initial indictment of Trump on Aug. 1, 2023, charging him with four counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump’s attempts to dismiss the case based on his argument that former presidents are protected from criminal prosecution.

After a federal appeals court also denied the criminal immunity argument, Trump brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The justices ruled last summer that presidents enjoy criminal immunity for their core official duties and presumptive immunity for actions taken on the outer perimeter of the office. However, the justices ruled that former presidents do not receive a shield from criminal prosecution for personal acts.

Smith adjusted his investigation accordingly, removing allegations of Trump’s pressure on Justice Department officials, and a grand jury handed up a superseding indictment, still charging the same four counts, in late August.

U.S. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith moved Monday to drop the two federal prosecutions of former President Donald Trump following Trump’s victory in this month’s presidential election.  (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The federal election interference case against President-elect Donald Trump is over, at least during his forthcoming presidency.

Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the case’s dismissal late Monday afternoon after U.S. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith requested to dismiss the case without prejudice — meaning it could be tried again in the future once Trump’s term is over.

Trump had faced four felony counts relating to fraud and obstruction for his role in scheming to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, which eventually erupted into political violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Smith also filed a dismissal request Monday in Florida to drop the case pertaining to Trump’s mishandling of classified documents.

Citing the Justice Department’s “careful consideration” of the unprecedented situation, Smith told federal courts in Florida and Washington, D.C., that it would be unconstitutional for his office to continue prosecuting the incoming president, who is set to take the oath of office on Jan. 20.

“(T)he Department and the country have never faced the circumstance here, where a federal indictment against a private citizen has been returned by a grand jury and a criminal prosecution is already underway when the defendant is elected President,” Smith wrote in a filing in federal court in D.C.

A federal grand jury handed up an indictment of Trump in August 2023 and a superseding indictment this past August.

Despite the prohibition on continuing the case against Trump, Smith wrote that the government “stands fully behind” the foundation of it.

“The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed,” Smith wrote. “But the circumstances have…”

A Trump representative hailed Smith’s decision as a “major victory for the rule of law.”

“The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country,” Steven Cheung, Trump’s communications director, said in a statement Monday.

The question of prosecuting a president has come up twice in recent U.S. history, but only while that president was already in office. Both times — in 1973, under President Richard Nixon, and in 2000, during Bill Clinton’s administration — the Justice Department blocked cases, citing constitutional constraints and harm to the president’s ability to perform the role.

Classified documents case

The special counsel also requested to drop the government’s appeal to pursue charges against Trump for his alleged hoarding of classified documents at his Florida Mar-a-Lago estate after he left office.

Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the case in July.

Smith will continue the appeal against Trump’s two co-defendants, Trump’s valet Waltine Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Olivera, who are also accused of mishandling the classified material.

The federal investigations were two of four criminal prosecutions that Trump faced while campaigning to win back the presidency.

Trump made history in May as the first former president to become a convicted felon when he was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York. The case centered on Trump’s cover-up of hush money paid to an adult film actress ahead of his election in 2016. His sentencing, scheduled for Tuesday, has been indefinitely postponed.

Trump’s criminal election interference investigation in Georgia has been in a prolonged holding pattern during a drawn-out dispute over the prosecutor’s ethics. While Trump’s Georgia prosecution will likely be dropped, the state could continue its case against the 14 co-defendants.