Strained federal-state relationship on elections raises anxiety as midterms approach
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
Aside from whom to vote for, a source of consternation for some voters this year is the administration of the elections themselves: Will they be secure and will there be any interference?
The questions are relevant given a retreat in federal security support to states and suggestions by President Donald Trump that federal authorities be more assertive in watching over voting activities usually left to state and local authorities.
The Trump administration’s rollback of election security could cost Minnesota up to an estimated $250,000 to make up the difference, according to Secretary of State Steve Simon.
For the last decade, the federal government has provided extensive support to states, including security briefings and cybersecurity testing. Since Trump resumed office, key agencies have been slashed, the administration sued dozens of states for sensitive voter data and officials have been reluctant to tamp down concerns about federal agents showing up at polling places.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
Elections experts warn all of it could have a long-term negative impact and inflict damage on what has been a collaborative effort historically.
States have constitutional authority over elections and have successfully run elections without significant federal support in the past. However, Simon said the 2016 presidential election was a “watershed” moment that required the federal government to step up election support.
“You could divide modern day election administration into two halves, the world before 2016 and the world after 2016,” Simon said. Russia “tried to literally hack and get into elections-related databases.”
“Fortunately, in the case of Minnesota, all the defenses held, everything worked, no one got in, but it really was a wake-up call for the whole country and the elections community,” Simon said.
On his way out of office in January 2017, President Barack Obama designated elections as critical infrastructure. That meant the federal government would prioritize protecting and supporting elections just as it would hospitals, water systems and the power grid.
The first Trump administration ramped up election cybersecurity support for states and the Biden administration continued that trend.
“I give credit not just to the tail end of the Obama administration, I give credit to the first Trump administration,” Simon said. “They were really active and effective partners for states in administering elections.”
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA — housed within the Department of Homeland Security — began to function as a hub of election security information. States could report suspicious or malicious activity and CISA would warn other states to be alert.
Ryan Macias is an election technology and cybersecurity expert who teaches at the University of Minnesota and previously consulted for CISA.
Macias said the information sharing allowed CISA to “take a holistic approach of: What are the real threats going on across the entire election infrastructure? And then be able to disseminate that back out to be proactive in advance of something spreading.”
Macias said CISA would also provide states with guidance on how to prevent, identify and respond to both physical and cyber threats to polling places or elections websites.
No more briefings
Since Trump returned in 2025, nearly a third of CISA’s workforce has left or been pushed out and the agency has pulled back support for programs that provided cybersecurity support to states. Another key elections agency lost its bipartisan commissioners.
Elections officials say states are increasingly being left to fend for themselves.
“There was never a memo saying ‘henceforth we're not going to be doing intelligence briefings,’ we just haven't gotten any intelligence briefings,” Simon said.
Simon said the prior CISA briefings provided important information about both the absence of threats and the existence of possible threats. While limited in what he can divulge, Simon said he received “actionable intelligence” and advice.
Simon said CISA also hasn’t provided cybersecurity testing or tabletop exercises to game out security scenarios like it used to.
CISA did not respond to a request for comment on what services the agency is or isn’t currently providing to states.
Simon and Macias said states can do some of their own cybersecurity testing. But it puts an added strain on state budgets.
“It's definitely not dire that the federal government isn't providing these resources because elections officials are still doing all of the security measures that they should be doing to protect the midterms,” Macias said.
“It just means that they are having to scrape from their own budgets or redirect assets and resources that should be going elsewhere,” Macias added.
More concerning to him is the lack of a birds-eye-view of the country’s entire election system that could proactively identify vulnerabilities in the system.
Jennifer Morrell, an elections audits expert who ran local elections in Utah and Colorado who also previously worked with CISA, also worries about the lost community network built up over the past 10 years.
“I understand completely states now wanting to own their own penetration testing or network monitoring,” Morrell said. “But I do think losing that human connectedness and that sort of learning and sharing of best practices. I think that's hard for an individual state to replace on their own.”
Last month, Trump fired the remaining commissioners of the Election Assistance Commission — another key federal agency that provides election support and that has distributed election and voting system funds to states for decades.
Fired Commissioner Thomas Hicks said the agency can run without commissioners in the short term, but will be hobbled in the long term.
“If we had seen this done in another country, of the president removing folks from an election body, would we be quiet and we’d say, ‘Oh, that’s OK. They don't really do anything.’ I would say no. I would say that this is something that should cause alarm to people,” Hicks said. “Especially three months before a major election.”
“[Trump] has advocated for new processes, but not put additional funding in his budgets for those things. And I think that that's something to truly look at,” Hicks added.
Morrell said it all makes for a dramatic shift from a collaborative relationship to an oppositional one.
“Whether it's been the call for immigration agents to be at the polls, raids that we've seen of local election offices, threats of criminal prosecution for election officials not turning over voter files. Even if these don't materialize, it's creating this just unneeded stress and anxiety for election officials,” Morrell said.
ICE at the polls?
For months, Democrats have pressed the Trump administration to say whether armed federal agents would be deployed to polling places. Federal law prohibits federal officers from interfering in elections and bans agents from being deployed “anywhere an election is held.” Minnesota law also restricts law enforcement access to polling places.
The Department of Homeland Security has said it has no plans to target voting locations, but some Republicans argue agents are needed to prevent noncitizens from voting, despite instances of that happening being extremely rare.
Adding to the confusion, federal officials have made conflicting statements. Some, including Trump, have failed to definitively answer whether federal agents would be sent to polling locations this year.
“I think there's real reason to believe that it could intimidate voters or have a chilling effect on voting if people do expect this federal presence to materialize,” Morrell said.
Simon said he’s often asked: Will ICE be at the polls? So far in Minnesota, the answer is no.
Simon said his office has been coordinating with local elections officials and law enforcement to make sure everyone is on the same page about what is legal and what is not.
Simon also pointed to Minnesota’s robust mail-in voting system as an option for any voter who doesn’t want to go to a polling place for any reason. “You can vote from your kitchen table,” Simon said.
Minnesotans have already been voting early for months in the Aug. 11 primary election and turnout has been high.
Minneapolis Director of Elections Katie Smith said at an early voting location in July that things have gone smoothly so far for people casting ballots in person and by mail.
“We haven't heard of any, you know, threats or anything specific around this election. The polling places are safe,” she said.
Smith has encouraged people to get involved in the process if they have concerns about the security or conduct of elections.
“We're hearing a lot about how do I get involved? How do I do my part? How do I protect the process this year?” Smith said.
Smith said she tells voters they can contribute to the democratic process by voting, volunteering as poll workers, translating for friends, or giving rides to the polls.
Election administration expert Morrell said though elections offices across the country are stretched thin, she continues to be impressed by their work.
“We're actually seeing all these great things where they know they're under scrutiny, they know they're under this microscope,” Morrell said.
“So offices all across the country, but especially in Minnesota, are really digging in on physical security and chain of custody, and thinking about how they're limiting access to sensitive areas.”
