Cybersecurity Policy Report, Homeland Security Democrats Question DHS Chief About Plans for Midterm Election Cybersecurity, (Jun 2, 2026)
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has an obligation to provide cybersecurity assistance to state and local election officials despite its “full withdrawal” from that role, according to House Homeland Security Committee Democrats, who yesterday asked Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin how the department intended to spend the $39.61 million in its election security budget.
Election systems were designated as critical infrastructure in 2017, and CISA was designated as the sector risk management agency (SRMA) for elections, the committee’s 15 Democrats reminded Mr. Mullin in a letter.
“CISA developed valuable partnerships with State and local election officials to support both the cybersecurity and physical security of elections facilities, technologies, and personnel,” the lawmakers said. “This work, in coordination with Federal funding for election security improvements and the tireless work of election officials throughout the country, has significantly strengthened the security of our Nation’s elections.”
“Unfortunately, under the Trump administration, CISA has halted its election security efforts and ceased fulfilling its SRMA obligations,” they added. As part of its “full withdrawal” from election security work under the second Trump administration, CISA got rid of its election security advisers and ended funding for the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), they said.
Although CISA didn’t ask Congress for election security funds for fiscal year 2026, lawmakers gave it $39.61 million to place at least 10 election security advisers throughout the U.S. and support the EI-ISAC, the lawmakers noted, citing “bipartisan concern about CISA’s decision to abandon its election security responsibilities.”
CISA’s withdrawal from election security work “damaged many of the trusted relationships CISA spent nearly a decade building with State and local election officials,” they said. “These trusted relationships served as the foundation of operational collaboration between CISA and election officials and helped better secure the entire election ecosystem, but they no longer exist.”
“Considering the current lack of trust between CISA and State and local election officials, it is essential that election security funding be implemented in a way that supports State and local election officials’ security needs and does not impose the President’s political agenda on State and local election officials,” they cautioned.
“The midterm elections are rapidly approaching, and the primary elections are already underway. By all accounts, the Department is not well positioned to execute its election security obligations, and there is a concerning trust deficit between the Department and its State and local partners. The Department must act quickly and deliberately to provide security support to State and local election officials in a manner that prioritizes trust and transparency,” they told Mr. Mullin.
They asked Mr. Mullin to respond by June 18 with information about how CISA intended to spend its election security funding and how it would repair its relations with state and local election officials, among other things.
News: FederalLegislation DataSecurity