Election officials blast Trump’s ‘retreat’ from protecting voting against foreign threats

by Matt Vasilogambros, Alabama Reflector
February 22, 2025

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.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post Election officials blast Trump’s ‘retreat’ from protecting voting against foreign threats appeared first on alabamareflector.com

SUMMARY: Residents of Chickasaw feel safer following recent changes in the Chickasaw Police Department. Since Police Chief Eugene Park took office in September, the department has increased patrols and enhanced community engagement. Local Pastor Victor Herman, whose home and business were burglarized last year, expressed relief, noting the increased police presence and visibility. Chief Park emphasized improvements in personnel, equipment, and training to boost patrol efforts and strengthen community ties. These changes are helping to rebuild trust and security, with many residents, including Herman, feeling more secure in their community.

Chickasaw residents told WKRG they feel a little safer after some recent adjustments in the Chickasaw Police Department.
FULL STORY: https://trib.al/obUSQti

Source

Witness challenges Black Belt, Mobile ‘community of interest’ in Alabama redistricting case

by Alander Rocha, Alabama Reflector
February 21, 2025

BIRMINGHAM — A witness for the Alabama attorney general’s office said historic racism might play a role but isn’t the only factor in achievement gaps between demographics in a trial over the state’s congressional map on Friday.

Kentucky State University political science professor Wilfred Reilly, who authored three books criticizing progressive politics, suggested historical racism does not mean Mobile and the Black Belt can be considered the same community of interest today. 

“There’s some relationship [between Mobile and a Black Belt county] … The relationship is lesser than the relationship between Mobile County and Baldwin County,” Reilly said.

His testimony was met with skepticism from attorneys for plaintiffs seeking to preserve a 2023 congressional map that created one majority-Black Alabama congressional district and one near-majority one in the interest of ensuring adequate representation for Black Alabamians. 

“None of your papers focus specifically on the political environment below the Mason-Dixon Line. Correct?” Brittany Carter, an attorney for the plaintiffs, asked.

He said “not as a primary focus.”

“You’re not a professional expert on Southern politics, correct?” Carter asked. He said “no.”

She then asked if any of his academic research focused on Alabama politics, to which he also said “is correct.”

The attorneys questioned his expertise in redistricting and community identity. Under cross-examination, Reilly said he had not conducted extensive research on Alabama’s redistricting history or specific state policies.

“I don’t hold myself out as an expert on redistricting,” he said.

The plaintiffs’ counsel also pressed him on his methodology, pointing out that his report did not incorporate widely accepted academic definitions of communities of interest. When asked whether he had reviewed Alabama’s redistricting guidelines before his deposition, he said, “that is correct.”

Reilly’s testimony came near the end of a two-week trial over the state’s congressional maps. The maps were put in place by a three-judge federal panel after an almost two-year battle that went to the U.S. Supreme Court twice. 

The courts ruled that racially polarized voting patterns in Alabama — where white Alabamians tend to vote for Republicans and Black Alabamians tend to vote for Democrats — meant that a 2021 congressional map approved by the Legislature prevented Black Alabamians, who make up about 27% of the population in the state, from meaningfully participating in the election process.

The court ordered the creation of a second majority-Black district “or something quite close to it,” and rejected a map from the Alabama Legislature, which they said failed to address Voting Rights Act violations.

Reilly’s testimony also addressed the concept of communities of interest, a key issue in the case. The plaintiffs argue that Mobile and the Black Belt, both home to significant Black populations, share common social and economic interests and should be linked in a congressional district. Reilly contended, however, that shared historical racial discrimination does not necessarily mean these regions constitute a single political community today.

Using labor and commuting data, Reilly said that Mobile County has closer economic and social ties to Baldwin County, a majority-white area, than to Black Belt counties.

“Well, 71% of the people who work in Mobile County live in Mobile County, prominently including the city of Mobile itself. About 13% live in neighboring Baldwin County,” Reilly said, adding that Black Belt counties each account for about 1% of people who work in Mobile.

But Baldwin County’s population is significantly higher than any county in the Black Belt. With about 253,500 residents, Baldwin County is about 17 times more populous than Washington County, which borders northern Mobile County and has a population of about 15,000.

They also questioned his data, including his reliance on non-peer-reviewed literature and publicly available real estate metrics, like the real estate website Zillow.

“You didn’t rely on any peer-reviewed studies concerning the identification of communities of interest, correct?” Carter asked.

The trial is expected to conclude next week.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post Witness challenges Black Belt, Mobile ‘community of interest’ in Alabama redistricting case appeared first on alabamareflector.com