States Lose Confidence in Federal Election Threat Sharing: Exclusive
States don t expect feds to reliably – In the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections, state election authorities have grown increasingly wary of the federal government’s ability to reliably share critical threat intelligence, according to newly released internal documents from the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS). These findings, obtained exclusively by USA TODAY, reveal a deepening skepticism among state officials about the consistency and effectiveness of federal agencies in safeguarding the electoral process.
Federal Agencies Seen as Unreliable
A March 27 memo from the bipartisan NASS outlines concerns that federal entities are no longer viewed as dependable sources for election security information. The document states, “Federal agencies are not seen by states as reliable or sufficient options for being the national hub for election threat information sharing.” This sentiment is echoed in the assertion that states “do not expect these entities to reliably share the information they receive.”
The loss of trust follows a series of challenges to the federal infrastructure, including staffing reductions, budget cuts, and internal restructuring. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which has been a central player in election security since 2018, is now facing criticism for its diminished role. State officials argue that the agency’s support has significantly declined, leaving them to fend for themselves in the face of potential cyber threats.
Building Alternative Networks
To mitigate the reliance on federal systems, election officials have turned to nonprofit organizations and technology firms to establish independent channels for intelligence exchange and cybersecurity assistance. This collaborative effort has involved teams from Microsoft and Google, as highlighted in a March 27 memo summarizing meetings between NASS and the National Association of State Election Directors.
Despite these initiatives, many officials believe the alternative networks are not yet as robust as the federal system they are replacing. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, expressed this sentiment, stating, “I think we will make it through 2026. I think it’s sufficient, but it’s certainly not equal.” He emphasized the vulnerability of the current setup, noting, “You’re talking about the real potential that something might be able to slip through the cracks. There’s a lot more cracks than there used to be.”
Both Republican and Democratic leaders of NASS endorsed the memo, underscoring a shared concern about federal support. Republican Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, who serves as the association’s president, remarked on March 27, “A brief review but looks fine to me,” in response to the document. Similarly, staff for Democratic Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, the association’s president-elect, confirmed that the federal government has scaled back pre-election coordination with states.
CISA’s Role and Recent Challenges
CISA, established in 2018 under the Trump administration, has traditionally acted as a key liaison between federal agencies and state election officials. It has provided threat-awareness training, secret briefings on foreign interference efforts, and real-time monitoring of election websites to detect cyberattacks. However, its role has been questioned in recent months due to changes within the Department of Homeland Security.
In 2025, the DHS laid off a third of CISA’s workforce through buyouts and early retirements. This reduction has raised alarms among state officials, who feel the agency’s capacity to support elections has weakened. Adrian Fontes pointed out, “We’re not getting any information, we’re not getting any support, we’re not getting any help. CISA basically has been eviscerated as far as their support of election administration is concerned.”
CISA responded to the criticisms by reaffirming its commitment to election security. In a statement, the agency noted, “We are committed to supporting state and local elections officials to protect election infrastructure and safeguard our democracy.” However, it did not provide specific examples of its activities in 2026, leaving some officials to question the extent of its involvement.
Industry Collaboration and Political Divisions
The memo highlights ongoing discussions between state officials and private sector experts, including threat intelligence teams from Microsoft and Google. These collaborations aim to fill the gap left by federal agencies, though they are not without their own limitations. While the partnerships have helped maintain a level of preparedness, state representatives admit the new system is less comprehensive than the one it replaced.
Ryan Shapiro, executive director of the national security transparency nonprofit Property of the People, which obtained the documents, noted the shift in strategy. “The documents reveal that even Republican leaders are being driven into the arms of industry to defend the American vote from the Trump administration’s ongoing sabotage of our electoral infrastructure,” he stated. This observation underscores the urgency of the situation, as states navigate a landscape where federal reliability is no longer guaranteed.
The concerns were further amplified when NASS urged the White House to maintain its support for state election officials. Michael Watson, in a statement provided by his staff, highlighted the uncertainty surrounding federal services: “There is ongoing uncertainty about federal service availability for the 2026 election year, particularly when it comes to election threat information sharing. I’ve been in touch with the DOJ and the acting director of CISA over the last couple of days and am hopeful those conversations will continue.”
Broader Implications for Electoral Security
The erosion of federal support has sparked debates about the long-term implications for election security. With reduced coordination from the top, states are now responsible for identifying and addressing threats on their own. This decentralized approach, while necessary, has created a more fragmented system where information may not flow as seamlessly as before.
Property of the People, the organization that secured the exclusive access to the documents, has played a pivotal role in amplifying these concerns. Its ability to obtain and share the memos has provided a critical perspective on the current state of electoral preparedness. The nonprofit’s efforts have drawn attention to the political divide in how federal support is perceived, with both parties acknowledging the need for alternative solutions.
As the 2026 elections approach, the question remains: can the decentralized network of nonprofits and tech companies adequately replace the federal framework? While state officials remain optimistic about navigating the challenges, the warning signs are clear. The memo and subsequent statements indicate a growing reliance on industry partnerships, with some fearing that the cracks in the federal system may allow vulnerabilities to persist.
USA TODAY reached out to nearly a dozen Democratic and Republican secretaries of state for this report. Although no Republicans were available for interviews, staff from two confirmed the federal government’s reduced coordination. This highlights a pattern of collaboration that has become more industry-driven, with state officials taking the lead in securing their own defenses.
The situation reflects a broader trend in election security, where federal agencies are no longer seen as the sole or most reliable resource. As states continue to adapt to this new reality, the focus shifts toward building resilient, alternative systems. While the process is underway, the challenges of maintaining a unified defense against emerging threats remain significant.
In the end, the memo serves as a stark reminder of the evolving dynamics in electoral security. With federal support uncertain and industry collaboration stepping in, the 2026 midterms may test the adaptability of state election systems. As Adrian Fontes noted, the cracks in the current system are more pronounced, but the effort to patch them continues—a testament to the resilience of election officials in the face of adversity.
