Like seemingly everything else these days, artificial intelligence will re-shape the way voters gather information on candidates running in the 2026 midterm elections.

In some ways, this is already the reality. Voters are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for information instead of Google.  Political campaigns are deploying deepfakes of their opponents. And AI systems have been developed to carry out increasingly complex  hacks.

Since the last major U.S. election in 2024, major tech companies have  embedded AI into their products while hundreds of millions of people have adopted the tools, either by purchasing subscriptions to commercial models or using open-source models. Yet both research and experts state that while AI systems have gotten better at handling basic facts, they’re nowhere near reliable enough to be a main source of  accurate or complete information. 

While chatbots are becoming a primary way that voters gather information on  local races, candidates, issues, and voting information, they are not substitutes for more authoritative sources, like a voter’s state or local election office. 

“I think this is one of the first elections we’re seeing…where AI is just everywhere,” said Thania Sanchez, senior vice president of research and analytics at the nonprofit States United Democracy Center. “Even if you just Google it, [now] the first thing that comes up is the AI overview.”

While AI companies have worked to cut down on errors in their model’s responses for questions around basic election information, they continue to fall short in important ways.

In new research shared exclusively with CyberScoop ahead of its release, States United Democracy Center tested two of the most popular tools — OpenAI’s ChatGPT’s free tier and the AI interface used alongside Google Search — for their performance on a series of basic questions around elections, such as how to register to vote, or a list of candidates in a race.

The models were chosen because they are free and easy to access. For Google AI, the nonprofit tested two types of accounts: ones running in Incognito Mode and ones that had a history of browsing election-skeptical websites.

The nonprofit ran two rounds of testing in 2025 and 2026, collecting nearly one thousand responses from the models submitted by users across six swing states (Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).

In 2025 tests, 6.9% of responses from Google AI and 8.2% responses from ChatGPT“contained verifiable factual errors,” like not listing the correct candidates in a race or false guidance around polling site locations.

However, follow up tests in 2026 across Arizona, Pennsylvania and Michigan found that the error rates in both models had dropped to zero. The study notes that “this is real progress and should be acknowledged.”

But underneath those topline numbers, a more murky picture emerges around the tools’  reliability.

An AI response can sound accurate without actually being complete.  To wit: ChatGPT provided incomplete lists of current gubernatorial primary race candidates 88.9% of the time when queried.

Linking to a state election website – an output the study considers the single most important measure of voter utility  — happened less than 40% of the time. Whether due to formatting issues or the model ingesting outdated information, it’s a problem if voters use them as their primary information source for elections.

“It will be like ‘this person is the Republican candidate and this person is the Democratic candidate’ but it is not telling you there’s also these other third-party candidates,” said Sanchez. “It’s not giving you complete information, so the voter thinks these are the [only] two people running.”

A June survey from the Pew Research Center found that about half of U.S. adults reported having used chatbots at least once, up from a third in 2024, while a quarter reported using them daily. The top use case listed for engaging with the chatbot was searching for information.

Isabel Linzer, an elections policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told CyberScoop that voters, campaigns and governments alike are using AI more freely and with fewer restrictions.

Bad actors in the information space have followed suit, and “we are in a phase now of generative engine optimization” where information operations are structured to rank higher in AI model responses.

“We’ve moved beyond [SEO] to [Generative Engine Optimization], and that’s where we’re seeing campaigns thinking about how to structure their materials to make sure that they are in a format that AI models want to use when they’re searching the web…to develop their responses to user queries,” she said.

There is also the underlying problem of frontier AI companies constantly tinkering with their models, their algorithms and the technologies they are intertwined with. . Election officials, by contrast, have decades of experience educating voters about their options.

A prime example of this churn occurred this past February, in between the first and second round of the study, when Google AI suddenly shifted to providing only links for election related queries in incognito mode, replacing the written summaries that showed up in the first round.

Like the study’s authors, Linzer said most people are still best served by going directly to local sources for accurate information on elections. With issues like ideological bias, the potential for bespoke or sycophantic answers for each user based on their prior chat histories and lack of predictability, voters should still be very careful about using AI chatbots as political truth machines.

The best thing that tech companies can do to educate voters is “making sure that for high-stakes situations like elections, that chats are connecting directly to the most important sources, like the website where you can actually register to vote,” said Linzer.

The post AI is getting better at election facts, but voters shouldn’t rely on it appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to let it enforce an executive order that would restrict mail-in voting, after a federal appeals court kept the order blocked in nearly half the states just months before the November midterm elections.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that a Massachusetts federal judge acted too soon when she struck down key parts of the order, which blocked federal agencies from carrying it out in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Sauer said the order only directs agencies to study changes and has not yet produced a final rule, so no state has suffered harm. 

“The district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful,” he wrote. He asked the court to pause the injunction while the case moves through the appeals court, and to grant an immediate stay in the meantime.

President Donald Trump signed an order in March that directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed U.S. citizens in each state and send them to election officials, along with directing the U.S. Postal Service to draft rules on mail-in and absentee ballots. California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued three days after Trump signed the order, arguing the Constitution gives states and Congress, not the president, power over elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled in June that the administration lacked power to build its own citizen-voter database and that the Postal Service could not impose new rules on states’ mail ballots by itself. She also found the order’s enforcement language amounted to an improper threat against local election officials. 

In Monday’s filing, the administration leaned on a 2020 case, Trump v. New York, in which the justices threw out a challenge to a separate Trump order on census counts because it was too soon to know how agencies would carry it out. Sauer argued the same logic applies here. The order tells agencies to act only “to the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law.” That wording, he said, means the Postal Service and Homeland Security could still drop or narrow the changes once they finish reviewing public comments and checking what the law allows.

The filing follows a string of fights over how the 2026 midterms will run. Earlier this month, Trump gave a prime-time address reviving his claim that the 2020 election was rigged, this time pointing to China, without providing any new evidence.

The filing also follows a Supreme Court ruling in late June that let states keep counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day if postmarked on time. 

You can read the full filing below. 

The post Trump asks Supreme Court to let him curtail mail-in voting ahead of midterms appeared first on CyberScoop.

An annual spy policy bill would authorize a cyberthreat intelligence sharing pilot program for state and local governments, and order an outside assessment of how intelligence agencies are currently sharing that information with those jurisdictions.

The House Intelligence Committee approved fiscal 2027 intelligence authorization legislation Monday that also includes provisions on election security and that are meant to boost intelligence community (IC) usage of artificial intelligence for cyber and other purposes.

The measure’s language on state and local information sharing come amid widespread frustration with Trump administration cutbacks on such aid from the federal government, with the president taking explicit action to shift more responsibility for cyber defenses to the local level.

Under the pilot program, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) would pick one state to receive monthly briefings from the ODNI, Department of Homeland Security, FBI and others to receive monthly briefings on “timely, specific, and actionable information regarding cyber threats” in unclassified form. After a year, the ODNI would then provide a report on the viability of a wider briefing program for state and local governments.

The bill requires the ODNI to produce a strategy on information sharing with states and local areas, and would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct an assessment of the state of such sharing now, including a summary of relevant agencies’ current efforts, how the agencies deconflict those efforts and what kind of obstacles security clearances pose to improving information sharing.

Trump’s pick to serve as DNI, Jay Clayton, emphasized his desire to focus on cyber threat information sharing as part of his Senate vetting last week, but some in the GOP are also pushing to significantly reduce the size of his office.

National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross has also talked about creating pilot programs for cyber threat information sharing with state and local governments, but there’s been little movement on that initiative.

During committee deliberation, panel Democrats won adoption of a trio of election security amendments.

An amendment from the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, would require the intelligence community to publish an unclassified assessment of foreign intelligence threats to the 2026 midterms. Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado’s amendment would partially withhold funding for the ODNI until Congress gets overdue reports it had required on the 2024 and 2026 elections. And  Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania’s amendment would “protect analysts from retribution by IC leadership for working on intelligence products related to foreign influence in US elections,” according to a news release.

The Democrats’ push arrives shortly after President Donald Trump delivered a primetime address seeking to bolster his long-debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

According to a Republican summary of the bill, it includes provisions for “significantly increasing funding for expanded access and use of frontier AI models for intelligence and cyber missions,” to codify and expand the role of the Artificial Intelligence Security Center at the National Security Agency and strengthen information sharing on AI threats.

“This year’s [bill] balances strong transparency and accountability measures while equipping the IC with the resources needed to combat the ever-evolving threats from our adversaries around the world, with a particularly strong focus on the global AI race,” said House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark.

Another assessment that the bill orders would come from the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy on foreign cyberthreats to critical energy infrastructure, including their intent and risks.

The trend in Congress is for lawmakers to incorporate the annual intelligence authorization bill, or some of its provisions, into the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which often reaches the president’s desk at the end of each calendar year.

The post House intel bill includes provisions on state and local threat intelligence, election security, AI appeared first on CyberScoop.

State and local officials and election security experts largely panned a Thursday night primetime speech by President Donald Trump, saying it was reflective of White House “desperation” to find any credible evidence to support their claims that U.S. elections have been rigged against the two-term president.

While the White House teased explosive new claims about the potential compromise of U.S. elections by China, Trump’s speech was a rehash of claims that both have no supporting evidence and have been repeatedly debunked when investigated. 

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research and a former voting and civil rights attorney at the Department of Justice, said none of Trump’s claims or allegations were new or substantively different from previous theories he’s been espousing over the past six years.

“The White House promised a bombshell and they delivered a dud,” Becker said on a call with reporters Friday. “There was nothing that even calls into question past elections — certainly not the 2020 election.”

The administration declassified a huge tranche of documents from the intelligence agencies, and news outlets continue to sift through them, but thus far nothing has been found that remotely validates the administration’s claims about foreign interference from China costing Trump the 2020 election.

In fact, some of the most relevant documents found at this point have supported the opposite conclusion, with agencies assessing that while China engaged in influence campaigns around the election, it was not attempting to outright interfere with U.S. election infrastructure, hack voting machines or manipulate ballots.

John Solomon, a former journalist and opinion writer at The Hill brought in by the White House to lead the investigation, also told reporters Thursday that his search hasn’t turned up evidence that the 2020, 2022 or 2024 elections were affected by fraud.

The one new major claim by Trump — that the Department of Homeland Security determined hundreds of thousands of noncitizens were registered to vote across four states — is almost certainly false or overinflated, given that it contradicts post-election state audits that have routinely found single or double-digit numbers of noncitizens registered to vote within a single state across multiple elections.

Over the past six years, similar claims by GOP secretaries of state and political activists purporting to find mass numbers of noncitizens registered to vote have turned out to be grossly inflated due to shoddy data analysis, and the vast majority of cases involving “suspected noncitizens” turn out to be U.S. citizens who are legally registered to vote.

The White House has provided little to no information on the methodology used to flag and identify supposed noncitizen voters, other than alluding to the use of “commercial data” and federal databases. A federal court recently ordered DHS to dismantle the SAVE database, its primary database for verifying the citizenship status of U.S. voters, because it was unreliable and violated longstanding privacy laws. 

 Apart from DHS admitting its own data on citizenship is incomplete, Becker said using a list that relies on matching voter files with commercial data is not a reliable way of determining citizenship.

“It is impossible to take a public voter file with very little information that is uniquely identified, like a driver’s license number, and compare it to a commercial database and say for sure the Maria Rodriguez or the John Lee or the Shawn O’Hara you have on that is the same person,” he said.

Election officials also responded forcefully. Nevada Democratic Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar said that Trump has spent a decade attempting to manufacture a crisis around voter fraud and the president’s speech Thursday night was an extension of that effort. 

“As Nevada’s chief elections officer, it’s my job to call balls and strikes — so when the President lies, I am obligated to call him out,” Aguilar said in a statement. “The facts have not changed: Nevada’s elections are among the safest, most secure and accessible in the nation.”

It’s not just Democrats that have objected to the administration’s efforts. GOP states have gone to court to block the Department of Justice from obtaining their voter data, and Idaho’s Republican secretary of state responded to a DOJ letter threatening prosecution of election officials as “not well met” and potentially illegal under state ethics laws. 

Trump’s speech potentially casts additional light on recent White House decisions, such as firing all three commissioners on the Election Assistance Commission. The agency helps certify voting machines for security, and all three commissioners have served across administrations and maintain close relationships with state and local election officials.  

Pamela Smith, CEO of the nonprofit Verified Voting, said that while the EAC can’t take certain actions that need commissioner approval, “critical functions like voting system testing and certification can continue under the existing framework and should not be affected.”

In 2020, Trump’s initial claims of widespread election fraud were undercut by leaders at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which said there was no evidence the election was compromised. The removal of EAC commissioners could represent an attempt to preempt any efforts to rebut or criticize White House claims that elections and voting machines have been compromised.

Some have worried that Trump could use the speech as a pretext to declare a national emergency or cancel elections.

Tom Lopach, CEO of the Voter Participation Center, said “you don’t dismantle election security infrastructure if you’re serious about protecting elections.”

“You dismantle it if you’re planning to claim, without evidence, that the system failed you,” he said. 

While Becker takes Trump’s broadsides against state election authority seriously, he also said it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that, in his view, the administration is losing the argument across the board.

More than a dozen federal courts have unanimously rejected the federal government’s attempts to forcibly obtain state voter data, while other courts have rejected core pieces of his election-related executive orders. State officials have publicly — and at times, angrily — pushed back on the administration’s demands as blatant federal overreach. 

Becker predicted that such an act would be quickly shot down by courts as well, noting that the U.S. has never canceled or postponed an election in its 250-year history, including when British troops were marauding on American soil during the War of 1812 or even at the height of the Civil War.

It’s important not to conflate the White House’s bluster and intentions with its actual authorities or capability to seize control of U.S. elections.

“This is what panic and desperation look like,” Becker said. “They’ve had 18 months in total control of the federal government and they have found nothing that would support President Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, and so they’re just trying to grab as much garbage as they can and throw it up against the wall, and it’s not sticking.”

The post State officials, election experts pan Trump speech: ‘This is what desperation looks like’ appeared first on CyberScoop.

Democratic senators pressed President Donald Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence on questions of election security and integrity Wednesday, but they didn’t leave his nomination hearing satisfied with the answers.

As is typical for Trump administration nominees, Jay Clayton wouldn’t answer definitively at his Senate Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing whether Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, saying only that he was “certified,” while maintaining that he wasn’t an “election denier.”

He said that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s responsibilities were “principally” outside the United States. But he claimed varying degrees of ignorance about his predecessor, Tulsi Gabbard, being physically present at an FBI raid of a Georgia election office in January, and wouldn’t comment on its appropriateness.

Democratic senators were also frustrated while trying to pin down Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York who served as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Trump’s first term, on remarks about mail-in ballots and the California primary election results last month.

Multiple senators, including Mark Warner, D-Va., Angus King, I-Maine and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., tried to get Clayton to say whether Biden won the 2020 election. The final exchange came with Jon Ossoff, D-Ga.

Clayton protested that he had already answered. “I think I’ve answered the question,” he said. “We can keep doing this.”

Ossoff didn’t agree, telling him, “Well we’re going to keep doing it because you’re not being honest or forthright with the committee.”

“Isn’t it humiliating to be unable to answer this question?” he asked. “To have to indulge the president’s delusions? We know, you know, everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it?”

Earlier Clayton had said, “I’m not an election denier,” but repeatedly wouldn’t answer “yes” or “no” on whether Biden won in 2020.

That matters because of the DNI’s role, Kelly said, and it was worrying that Clayton was seeking to avoid upsetting Trump, who has maintained despite all evidence that he lost the 2020 election.

“It’s not about softening the edges when the truth is unpleasant,” Kelly said. “It’s about delivering information.”

Clayton discussed the DNI’s role on election security at greater length in pre-hearing written answers.

“I understand that the DNI, as head of the Intelligence Community, has substantial statutory authority to address national intelligence threats to U.S. elections,” he said. “In particular, the Director is responsible for the integration of national intelligence, which may include foreign intelligence threats to U.S. election activity. I also understand that Intelligence Community elements are authorized to cooperate with and provide appropriate intelligence and technical support to law enforcement agencies and that as head of the Intelligence Community, the DNI has oversight of those activities.”

A CNBC interview last month inspired some of the Democrats’ questions. Clayton said in response to questions about the California primaries that “On the integrity side, we’re doing an absolutely terrible job. And the American people are right to question it.” 

He said mail-in ballots present an “opportunity for fraud,” despite studies showing exceptionally low rates of fraud using that method, and said “mail-in ballots being used by one group and not another… honestly and dishonestly” was a “question that everyone is now asking.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked him about what group Clayton was referring to.

“”I would like to see where you’re pulling those quotes from. I’ve been very careful about my remarks on this,” Clayton answered. “I’d like to see the whole passage.”

In his questionnaire, when asked if “it would be inappropriate for a DNI to comment publicly about unsubstantiated claims regarding mail-in-ballots and election fraud,” Clayton answered that “If confirmed as DNI, any representations I make to the public, including about elections, will be informed by timely, objective national intelligence.”

Ossoff also had a tense exchange with Clayton when asking him about Gabbard’s appearance at the Fulton County office raid. Gabbard has said she was there because Trump asked her to be, in what subsequently became a highly publicized appearance because of questions about what the DNI would be doing at a law enforcement raid.

“I was made aware of it by you yesterday,” Clayton said.

Ossoff responded skeptically: “The first time you learned that Director Gabbard was present at that raid was in my office yesterday?”

Said Clayton: “It was the first time that in my recollection I’ve thought about it recently.”

“What?” Ossoff replied.

Warner, the top Democrat on the committee, told Clayton “I trust you” but it “strains credulity” that he wasn’t aware of Gabbard being at the raid.

“To be clear, the ODNI’s role is principally outside of the United States,” Clayton said.

On other topics, in his opening remarks, Clayton touted his SEC work on cybersecurity. In his questionnaire he said he would work to facilitate cyberthreat information sharing from his office.

He told Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., that he would evaluate whether the DNI should devote more resources to cybersecurity with federal government cyber experts being pushed out since Trump came back to office. Many Republicans are pushing to further reduce the size of Clayton’s office, contending it has become bloated beyond Congress’ original intentions as a coordinating body.

He said he supported renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gives the executive branch controversial spying powers that Congress recently allowed to expire.

Trump has threatened to block renewal unless lawmakers advance his priority election bill. He said he will study how to “minimize the detrimental impact to our national security caused by the lapse in 702 authorities.” Some Democrats, meanwhile, have resisted action on the law until Trump’s pick for acting DNI Bill Pulte is gone, citing his prior efforts to investigate officials as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and lack of intelligence experience.

Because the GOP controls the Senate, Clayton is likely to get confirmed as DNI as long as no Republicans emerge in opposition. Wednesday’s hearing revealed no significant Republican objections.

Intelligence Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., touted Clayton’s experience prosecuting terrorism cases and more.

“Jay Clayton has worked hand in glove with our intelligence agencies and counterterrorism personnel to lock up criminals who threaten our national security,” Clayton said. “I encourage my colleagues to join me and get Mr. Clayton’s nomination over the finish line.”

The post Dems press DNI nominee Jay Clayton on election security questions, but leave dismayed appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration’s abrupt firing of Election Assistance Commission commissioners last week and a Department of Justice warning threatening states with criminal prosecution have created new legal peril for officials who run, administer and secure elections.

The EAC is an obscure but important agency that oversees testing and standards for voting machines, including around security. While federal certification is voluntary, states have until now relied upon their stamp of approval when purchasing voting machines. 

On July 10, Democratic Commissioners Ben Hovland and Thomas Hicks were fired by the White House, while reports indicate that a third Commissioner, Republican Christy McCormick, resigned. While Congress mandated the commission be bipartisan, the Supreme Court has recently given the President broad authority to fire executive branch officials at will.

In an interview with NPR, Hovland said he worried the firings would further erode trust that the commission was working in a bipartisan manner.

“And as you eliminate things – or if you get rid of commissioners, for example – or as you eliminate some of these other sort of safeguards or norms, it certainly strains the system,” said Hovland. “And it certainly also likely causes people to lose faith in our democracy and in the process and their confidence in our elections. And that’s very concerning.”

A letter also sent last week to all 50 states by the DOJ said the department will investigate and prosecute any election official “who knowingly retains non-citizens on the state’s voter registration list or facilitates noncitizens in receiving and casting ballots.”

CyberScoop spoke with several Secretaries of State who said that the number one threat facing elections in their state is not from a foreign country or AI but their own federal government. 

Tobias Read, the Democratic Secretary of State for Oregon, told CyberScoop that his office is focused on providing the state’s 36 county clerks with the resources and support they need to carry out a smooth election. But he acknowledged that his office is “playing defense in a lot of ways [from] the intrusion from the federal government” that continues to assert its authority over local elections.

“If the president were actually serious about election security, he would be sending more resources to local election officials and bolstering the system rather than cutting it,” said Read.

This year, several counties in Oregon will offer voters access to a new ballot tracking system that provides text or email updates when a voter’s ballot is moving through mail and has been certified.  Reed estimated at “pennies per voter per election” and called it a good option for cash-strapped counties to assure voters their ballots are secure and properly tracked.

At the same time, Read said federal agencies like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency – which once regularly deployed cybersecurity and technical expertise to help states fix vulnerabilities and share threat intelligence – have largely gone quiet.

Oregon ranks in the top ten states for voter participation and relies heavily on mail-in voting.  However, state officials like Read lack confidence in the US Postal Service. Though a recent Supreme Court decision blocked an executive order giving the service control over mail-in ballot distribution, officials like Read are urging voters to take other measures to use drop boxes instead as a  safer alternative to ensure their vote is counted.

Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s Secretary of State and a Democrat running for reelection, said his office is focused on primary elections and processing the mail ballots that have been arriving “for a while.”

After Iranian hackers defaced Arizona’s candidate bio portal last year, Fontes moved to fill a widening gap: the Trump administration’s withdrawal of federal foreign interference training and support. His office is now directly supporting local jurisdictions on election security while coordinating more closely with state law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and other states.

But it’s being done with a fraction of the resources and coordination that the federal government brought to bear under both the Biden and first Trump administrations. While Fontes said he maintains positive personal relationships within the Department of Homeland Security, his office does not have a formal relationship with CISA.

“We’ve hobbled together a loose and often informal network of information sharing – that doesn’t violate any rules, it doesn’t break any laws – but it is certainly not anywhere near as robust as it would be if we had a responsible federal agency that was interested in the security of American elections,” said Fontes.

He said even if CISA offered such services today, he wouldn’t accept it, citing the lack of trust between states and the Trump administration.

“They have proven through their actions that they don’t want to be effective partners in protecting the American electorate and protecting American voters,” said Fontes. “Because of that, the clear answer, the only sensible answer for someone like me, would be to say ‘No, I don’t want the help of people I cannot trust.’ People who have demonstrably and explicitly threatened me and local election administrators of all political stripes with criminal prosecution.”

After this story’s initial publication, CISA acting director Nick Andersen said the agency remains committed working with “with critical infrastructure owners and operators to assist them in securing both the physical security and cybersecurity of the systems and assets that support the nation’s election process.”

“We provide state and local election officials, upon request, no-cost voluntary services such as the sharing of threat information, technical expertise, vulnerability scanning, and resilience-building support,” said Andersen in a statement sent to CyberScoop. “Our regional teams assist partners across the country by assessing risks, helping entities bolster defenses and improve resilience, and responding promptly to threats. We are committed to supporting state and local elections officials to protect election infrastructure and safeguard our democracy.”

Secretaries of State in Colorado, Nevada, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and others have also called the DOJ letters an attempt at federal intimidation of election officials. 

Others, like West Virginia Republican Secretary of State Kris Warner, have reiterated their refusal to hand over state voter data. On Monday, a federal judge upheld his right to do so. 

Warner wrote to the DOJ in response to say the state was “available to discuss our existing voter registration list maintenance” but “West Virginia law prohibits the disclosure of sensitive personally identifiable information contained in voter registration records.”

It’s leading some states to take new precautions. 

Read said he was working with Oregon county officials to make sure “county clerks have the number of their county counsel on speed dial” and know how to distinguish between a legitimate and illegitimate federal warrant or subpoena.

Additionally, FBI raids of election offices around the country to seize ballots records related to the 2020 and 2024 elections have been a cause for Read’s concern. By state law, Oregon and other states must keep copies of the ballot records and other election data they receive from counties for a certain time according to state law, after which they must eventually archive or destroy them according to ballot retention schedules.

Read emphasized that “it’s important to destroy those ballots at the appropriate time,”  The Trump administration has used the raids to further the impression of electoral fraud, despite the absence of credible evidence. 

“We can see when people are not on top of that, then you expose yourself to other vulnerabilities like the federal government seizing those ballots in Maricopa County [Arizona] and Fulton County [Georgia] as well,” said Read.

A former CISA official estimated that on Election Day in 2024, more than 1,000 representatives from federal, state and local governments, election technology vendors and other election stakeholders sat together in a room to communicate and coordinate.

Less than two years later, Read called his office’s interactions with CISA “minimal.” He recalled that upon taking office as Secretary of State in Jan 2025, one of his first conversations was with one of CISA’s regional advisors. A week later, those advisors were summarily fired by the Trump administration.

UPDATE: 7/14/2026, 11:15 a.m.: Updated with comments from CISA acting director Nick Andersen.

The post States are building their own election defense networks as federal support evaporates  appeared first on CyberScoop.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right of states to accept mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day, but can arrive up to five days later through the mail system.

The case stems from a lawsuit brought by the Republican National Committee against Mississippi and its Secretary of State, arguing they could not legally count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they are postmarked on or before that same day. The RNC argued that federal law defines “elections” and “Election Day” as the casting and receiving of ballots by that day.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected that argument, stating that “nothing in the federal Election-Day statutes require ballots to be received by election day.”

“The federal Election-Day statutes do not preempt Mississippi’s law because the defining element of an ‘election’ has always been the electorate’s choice of candidate,” wrote Barrett.

Barrett, joined by Justices John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Jackson Brown, noted that other federal voting statutes like the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act explicitly say that state law governs when ballots must be received, not the federal government. 

Further, while Congress inserted the phrase “Election Day” and specifies it as a Tuesday in its most recent update, it also allows states to modify that period of voting in response to certain force majeure events, like the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the Constitution requires voting to take place by a certain time, the review of those legally cast votes does not need to conclude at the same time.

“The Constitution requires the ‘Day on which [the electors] shall give their Votes’ to be ‘the same throughout the United States,’ but says nothing about the day for receipt,” wrote Barrett. “The Constitution thus envisions a system in which receipt of votes is necessarily divorced from voting. And it sets the crucial, uniform day as the day of voting while leaving receipt to happen later. The federal Election-Day statutes follow the same pattern.”

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the ruling upholds the principle that “the election is completed for the voter at the moment they complete their ballot, not the moment that some administrative election official receives that ballot or reviews that ballot.”

It also validates more than a hundred years of state autonomy in setting their own rules regarding the receipt of election ballots.

“This case was about who gets to make that determination,” said Becker. “And as the founders intended, as is clearly laid out in the elections clause of the Constitution, the states get to make that determination about when those ballots should be delivered by the postal service and be counted.”

Still, Becker bemoaned the slow, steady politicization of the issue, and said in conversations many election officials were anxious about the case and relieved to see a victory, albeit a narrow one.

“I’ll be honest with you, in any other era this case should have been a 9-0 [decision],” said Becker. “This is a slam dunk, the states clearly have the authority to do this, they’ve been doing this for decades and decades.”

The ruling likely forecloses major changes to the way states receive or accept mail-in ballots before the midterm elections, but Becker does expect some states to seek legislative changes to align their state laws with the five-day post-election timeline blessed by the court.

14 states and Washington D.C. have state laws that allow any ballot to be received up to five days after Election Day or longer, while more than 30 allow military and overseas ballots to arrive after Election Day. Election experts have said ruling that such ballots were invalid could have upended decades of voting precedent and procedures for American voters at home and abroad.

Michael McNulty, director of Issue One Policy, a nonprofit focused on money in politics and elections, said had the court ruled the other way, it would have created chaos for election administration in more than a dozen states that accept such ballots, forcing them to move ballot receipt deadlines, redesign procedures and conduct large scale voter education campaigns without any additional funding.

The Supreme Court “rightly rejected an attempt to reinterpret federal law to force sweeping last-minute changes to election systems across the country and discard legally cast ballots.”

Pamela Smith, CEO of Verified Voting, a nonprofit focused on promoting secure election technologies, said the ruling should give relief to voters who rely on mail or absentee voting.

“This ruling ensures that a postal delay outside of any voter’s control does not erase a lawfully cast ballot and supports election officials’ ability to capture the will of voters,” said Smith.

Post-election audits and investigations have consistently shown voter fraud in the U.S. is exceedingly rare, and that mail-in ballots are not any more susceptible to fraud than other forms of voting.

Nevertheless, states accepting mail-in ballots past Election Day has been a politically charged subject since the 2020 election, when then-incumbent President Donald Trump was defeated by Joe Biden in part on the strength of late-arriving mail ballots that heavily swung in Biden’s favor.

In the years since, both Trump and the GOP more broadly have cast late arriving mail ballots as inherently suspicious, untrustworthy and opaque.

Those beliefs have persisted.

In their dissent, Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the decision “leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections.”

“Mail voting also presents a greater opportunity for voter manipulation, a more vulnerable chain of ballot custody, and a diminished ability to detect improprieties in real time,” Alito wrote on behalf of the minority. “Today’s decision compounds these vulnerabilities. Allowing absentee ballots to pour in over the days and weeks after election day, by which point preliminary election returns are being publicly reported, creates greater opportunity for fraud and risks further undermining the public’s confidence in election integrity.”

The post Supreme Court approves mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day  appeared first on CyberScoop.

A federal judge in Massachusetts struck down major sections of a Trump administration executive order  that would have restricted mail-in ballots through the U.S. Postal Service and required states to adopt federally approved voter lists.

The ruling Thursday from Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts found those parts of the order were unconstitutional, while declaring another section that directs federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute noncompliant state and local officials legally nonbinding.

Talwani wrote that the U.S. Constitution empowers States and Congress in different roles but “does not grant the President any specific power over elections.”

While the White House has cited the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and Civil Rights-era voting laws as justification, Talwani found those laws do not authorize the government to regulate state voter registration practices.

“Notably, nowhere in HAVA does Congress prescribe who should be included on State voter lists,” Talwani wrote. “Further, neither in HAVA nor any other federal statute does Congress authorize the federal government to create their own voting database. Instead, Congress, consistent with the Constitution, has left that authority to the States alone.”

Talwani also declined to remove President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as named defendants in the suit, rejecting the administration’s argument that the court could not regulate or intrude upon the president’s’ constitutional authority “in the performance of his official duties.”

“Contrary to Defendants assertion, Presidential action is not inherently unreviewable,” Talwani wrote.

The order, issued in March, instructs the Homeland Security secretary, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to compile lists of American voters for each state, including their supposed citizenship status.

To build the lists, the agencies would rely on the controversial Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database that DHS has been building under the Trump administration, as well as Social Security and federal citizenship and naturalization records.

Those lists would then be sent to states, most of which have already refused similar Trump administration efforts to control voter registration.. The order instructs the Department of Justice to investigate  and prosecute  state and local election officials who issue  ballots to ineligible voters. 

The order also requires mail-in ballots to be sent in special barcoded envelopes for tracking. Crucially, it demands states provide lists of voters eligible for mail-in voting, and threatens to deny ballots to states that refuse. It also claims the attorney general is entitled to withhold federal funding from noncompliant states.

Talwani found that states have shown they already have a rigorous voter registration and verification process to ensure non-citizens and other ineligible voters aren’t able to vote in U.S. elections, and have laws in place to investigate and prosecute those who do.

Executive branch lawyers argued the order was merely an internal federal directive that does not impedestate authorities. But Talwani noted that states like Connecticut were already pulling staff from critical activities, such as translating election materials required under the Voting Rights Act, to develop compliance plans for the order.

Nearly half of the states in the lawsuit have already purchased mail-in ballots for this election cycle that are out of compliance with the Postal Service’s envelope and design standards.

Despite a string of losses in the courts and Congress, the White House has continued to assert broad authority over the way states and localities administer elections.

The Department of Justice has sued dozens of states to force them to hand over sensitive voter data. In the 10 cases decided so far, states have won every one.

In their opinions, judges cited the executive branch’s lack of inherent authority to create state voter lists. Others accused the DOJ of misusing Civil Rights-era laws designed to protect Black and minority voters,  creating an “unreliable” database that would disenfranchise  legitimate voters.

The Massachusetts ruling comes to the same conclusion, with Talwani writing “it is clear that the federal agencies charged with compiling Confirmed Citizen Lists lack the ability to create complete and accurate lists of the U.S. citizens residing in every State.”

On Wednesday, Trump canceled a signing ceremony for a bipartisan housing bill in an attempt to pressure  congressional Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act, which would implement many of the same changes to U.S. elections. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he considered passage of the bill to be a “National Emergency.”

The post Federal court rules Trump election-focused executive order illegal appeared first on CyberScoop.

A federal court ruled Monday that the Trump administration’s national voter database violates federal privacy laws, interferes with Americans’ right to vote, and must be dismantled.

In the ruling, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the District Court of Washington D.C. wrote that records reviewed by the court show federal agencies knew that the SAVE voter database violated federal laws like the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, but were “scrambling” to comply with President Trump’s executive order to create a system for mass voter verification.

That pressure resulted in agencies “haphazardly” combining and repurposing the personal information of millions of Americans from different government databases, including citizenship data they knew was unreliable.

“The Court therefore sets aside and vacates the 2025 SAVE modified system and the related notices because they were contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and without observance of procedure required by law,” Sooknanan wrote.

The League of Women Voters, its local affiliate groups and the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed the lawsuit last year. They argued the administration violated privacy laws that restrict the government’s ability to collect or combine private data without congressional authorization.

Sooknanan wrote that the SAVE database violates a prohibition in the Social Security Act against the disclosure of Social Security numbers and other related SSA records as well as substantive and procedural protections in the Privacy Act, which prevent the non-consensual disclosure of certain information both by federal agencies and between federal agencies and require notice and comment.

The court also ruled that SAVE violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs how the federal government develops regulations and makes official decisions to ensure they’re fair and impartial.

Sooknanan had earlier declined to rule the database illegal under the Administrative Procedures Act, saying the plaintiffs had failed to prove the data would cause  irreparable harm. In her final ruling, she changed course, writing that the states have since run their voter rolls through the federal government’s modified SAVE system, and some voters have been wrongfully identified as non-citizens and had their voter registrations canceled.

“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan wrote. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”

The ruling reinforces longstanding objections from former government officials and privacy experts over the past year, who have said Congress has repeatedly passed privacy laws explicitly to prevent the executive branch from using Americans’ data in ways not proscribed through law. That is what DHS did last year when it took SAVE, a database meant to process government benefits for legal immigrants, and combined it with data from the Social Security Administration and other agencies to create a new massive database of American voters and their citizenship status.

John Davisson, deputy director of enforcement at EPIC, celebrated the decision in a statement, saying the ruling “underscores that government agencies must follow the law, defend privacy and remain accountable to the public they serve.”

 “Today’s decision is a victory for us all. By halting the illegal consolidation of sensitive personal data across federal agencies, the court has safeguarded not only our privacy rights but also the bedrock of our democracy: the right to vote,” said Davisson. 

The post Court rules SAVE database illegal, orders it dismantled appeared first on CyberScoop.

Former Mesa County, Colorado election clerk Tina Peters remained unapologetic in her first public interview since her prison sentence was commuted, reiterating many of the same conspiratorial beliefs about elections while vowing to recover her health and fight on in court to have her criminal record expunged.

In an interview with former Trump campaign manager and White House official Steve Bannon, Peters called it a “miracle” that Democratic Governor Polis commuted her sentence and defended him from “the horrible media and haters” who were critical of the move.

Peters said those critics “don’t go after murderers and people like that [Polis] chose to pardon but they go after me, so there is a concern there for my well-being and my safety.”

Although Polis has said that Peters expressed contrition for her crimes prior to the commutation, she complained in her interview with Bannon that the Colorado governor had refused to issue her a full pardon that would remove the conviction from her criminal record, vowing to continue to “fight” the matter in court using leftover legal funds.

“Even though Governor Polis reduced my sentence from nine years to four and a half years, I still have a fight to clear my name and bring the truth of why they came after me the way they did,” Peters said.

Peters was convicted of seven felonies and sentenced to nine years in prison for stealing another person’s identity and using it to break into Mesa County election facilities, turn off the cameras and take voting system data.

Polis’ commutation of Peters sentence, which came after two years of relentless pressure from Trump, was met with cheers from conservative allies and bitter criticism from members of his own party.

The Colorado Democratic Party censured Polis and banned him from participating in future state party events. Incumbent Senator Michael Bennet, D-Colo., is running to succeed Polis as the Democratic candidate for governor this year, potentially putting him in position to appoint his own successor in the Senate. 

In an interview with CNN, Bennet called the commutation a “terrible decision” and that after announcing it Polis called him to say he would not be interested in the job.

Bennet wasn’t surprised.

“I viewed the decision that he made with respect to Tina Peters as disqualifying, and I think he knows that,” Bennet said.

Following the commutation, Polis has defended his decision, claiming Peters was being punished holding incorrect but constitutionally protected beliefs about election fraud that were unrelated to her actual crimes. He recently showed up to a virtual gathering of Colorado Democrats wearing a piece of tape over his mouth and has predicted the commutation will be looked upon “fondly” in the future.

Reached for comment, Polis’ press office referred CyberScoop to a previous May 15 Facebook post by the governor announcing Peters’ commutation and a follow up Substack blog he posted on Sunday defending the decision.

In his Substack, Polis said he believes Peters committed “real crimes” and deserved her conviction, but also argued that her sentence had become disconnected from her crimes. He pointed to a Colorado Court of Appeals hearing last month that upheld her conviction but ordered her to be resentenced in court as evidence that her sentence was lengthened for her First Amendment protected beliefs.

“Tina Peters should be punished for what she did,” Polis wrote. “She should not receive additional punishment for what she believed or said.” Still trying to figure out what that would look

But many election officials have also publicly stated that Peters committed serious felonies, remains unrepentant for her actions, and that her conspiratorial beliefs played a direct role in motivating her crimes.

The post Tina Peters, convicted in election-security breach, emerges defiant and vows legal fight appeared first on CyberScoop.

The U.S. Postal Service is moving forward with mail-in ballot restrictions, following a court’s rejection of a request by voting rights groups to immediately block an executive order from President Donald Trump ordering the changes.

A new regulation proposed last Friday seeks to apply “uniform standards for the mailing of absentee ballots to and from voters,” including new ballot envelope standards with unique barcodes, election mail logos and other changes that would allow the federal government unprecedented abilities to track – and halt – the movement of mail-in ballots across the country.

Trump has long argued that mail-in ballots facilitated election fraud in 2020 that cost him the presidency, though election experts, election officials and even some Trump allies have dismissed those claims as baseless.

According to the proposed rule, these changes would allow USPS to follow ballots at a granular and individual level, something critics have said will make it easier for the Trump administration to meddle with their delivery.

“Uniquely serialized [barcodes] facilitate the tracking of individual pieces of Ballot Mail to and from individual voters as the barcodes are scanned on the Postal Service’s mail processing equipment,” the proposed rule states.

Trump’s executive order, issued in March, would require states to send the federal government a list of all voters eligible to vote by mail prior to USPS mailing them ballots. The federal government has indicated that it plans to cross-check those voters with data from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.

The proposed rule says that after states submit their list of eligible mail-in and absentee voters, USPS will “compile” the information and then provide a “Mail-In and Absentee Participation List” back to them. The Postal Service said it “would not change the information provided by states” when compiling the return list. 

Further, the proposed regulation also includes new “verification” procedures that could potentially place USPS above states in deciding which voters are eligible to receive ballots. This would include having the USPS “confirm that a state submitted a list consistent with the conditions laid out in the proposed rule, and that the outbound ballot mail, and thus the blank ballot that could be returned by mail, is destined to individuals on the list, by checking the barcodes.”

The rule claims that USPS “would not verify whether individuals should be included” on state lists and that states retain “full control over the content of that list.”

However, the White House’s March order also instructed the Department of Justice to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of state and local officials or any others involved in the administration of federal elections who issue federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a federal election.

That order was immediately challenged through lawsuits in multiple federal courts, where many of the White House’s plans to take greater control of elections have fallen short. That includes a lawsuit brought by Democrats and nonprofits in Washington.

While Judge Carl Nichols declined to halt the order, that decision was made on strictly procedural grounds, and he indicated the plaintiffs could be in a better position to prove their case later.

“The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws,” Nichols wrote. “Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.”

A separate federal lawsuit challenging the order in Massachusetts remains ongoing.

Alexandra Chandler, director of Free and Fair Elections at nonprofit Protect Democracy, noted that USPS and the federal government have no constitutional authority to regulate how states administer their elections, including micromanaging voter roll maintenance.

While the proposed regulation claims USPS will not overrule states on a voter’s eligibility to receive mail-in or absentee ballots, it’s also peppered with caveats and exceptions that could allow USPS to do just that if they determine it is part of their obligation to uphold federal laws or assist law enforcement investigations.

The rule states that USPS “assumes no responsibility for any outbound ballot mailing” until its accepted into the mail, and is “not responsible for service delays” whenever preparation or entry standards aren’t met.

Chandler called the proposed rule a clear attempt to disrupt election processes, sow distrust in elections among voters and lay “the groundwork to disrupt ballot delivery in real time, create fodder for false investigations and prosecutions, and to contest the midterms after the fact.”

“The administration is trying to turn postal workers into de facto election auditors with the power to decide whether people’s votes get counted while at the same time building an entire federal voter data and technical infrastructure it has no legal authority to create,” Chandler said.

The post USPS moving forward with mail-in ballot changes as courts weigh Trump’s election order  appeared first on CyberScoop.

Cybersecurity threats to the 2026 midterm elections are targeting the accounts and platforms that campaigns, donors and voters use to communicate, according to a security report released Monday by Check Point Software Technologies.

So far in this election cycle, threats are not aimed at voting machines or ballot-counting systems. Instead, threat actors are going after the email accounts, websites and fundraising platforms that election organizations depend on.

Jeremy Fuchs, a campaign manager for Check Point, told CyberScoop that the report’s core findings reflect a broader trend in cybersecurity: Bad actors are using AI to make their attacks larger and more effective.

“The barrier to entry is lower and the quality is so much higher than it was three years ago, 10 years ago, that everything is going to look more realistic and it’s going to be more effective at accomplishing whatever goals [attackers] have,” he said.

Email remains the easiest way for hackers to perpetuate election-related schemes. Check Point found that 82% of malicious attacks arrive through email, where threat actors covertly trick users into handing over their passwords for major fundraising sites. Approximately 9,500 stolen passwords were tied to ActBlue, which collects donations for Democratic candidates. Approximately 6,500 were linked to WinRed, a Republican fundraising platform.

Fuchs noted that this information may not be directly used for election-related schemes, yet could be leveraged for opportunistic follow-on attempts at accessing other accounts.

“Whenever an exposure like this happens, whether it’s with a political site or not, oftentimes it’s saved for later,” he said. “If I have your email and password, if I have your phone number, I can just start an attack, a simple phishing attack that has nothing to do with the election right now.”

Threat actors are also registering many new websites with election-related names. In January, about 1,300 new websites included the word “election” and about 4,010 included the word “vote.” These websites can be used for phishing scams, where hackers trick people into giving up their passwords by pretending to be legitimate election organizations.

Fuchs noted that not every website may turn out to be malicious, but the speed with which these sites have been established — especially when legitimate campaign sites have been running years before an election — has led researchers to believe that the majority will be used for nefarious purposes. 

“If you’re spinning up these websites very quickly and at scale, there’s a reason for it,” he said. 

Misinformation and manipulated content present another layer of concern, especially as AI-generated political content has become increasingly visible in the 2026 cycle. Earlier this month, OpenAI rolled out a suite of tools and safeguards that’s meant to provide a layer of security for this particular election cycle.

Fuchs said this AI-powered manipulation is only going to grow as we get closer to Election Day, and as the models get better, so too will actors’ ability to deceive people with fake content. 

“It’s really hard to make sense of these things when the AI, and the attacks, have just become so good,” he said. “It was hard when they weren’t good. So now imagine how much harder it’s going to be when it is good, and it’s continuing to get better and better.” 

Fuchs warned that the speed at which AI-powered election threats are evolving presents a challenge that extends beyond technical defenses, saying that the true challenge lies in a threat landscape that’s changing faster than public understanding can keep pace.

“There’s so much more that we as a society can truly fathom,” he told CyberScoop. Generative AI “is moving so fast. It’s getting so good. And if we’re not having those conversations about, ‘hey, this is how things might change,’ all this stuff is just going to continue to get more difficult and more difficult. And it’s going to flare at these inflection points, whether an election is kind of the perfect place for it, because there’s just so much at stake for so many people.”

You read the full report on Check Point’s website. 

Update, 6/2/2026, 4:30 p.m.: This story has been amended to further clarify how threat actors are obtaining passwords for campaign donation sites.

The post Election threats are focused on campaign systems, not voting machines appeared first on CyberScoop.

OpenAI on Wednesday hailed its plans to safeguard information and aid cybersecurity defenders in the 2026 midterm elections, including work to combat deepfakes and other forms of artificial intelligence misuse. 

The announcement builds on commitments from major tech companies in 2024, including OpenAI, to protect elections from AI-infused election interference — efforts that some thought weren’t enough. Government agencies, non-governmental institutes and others have increasingly warned about AI’s ability to have a negative impact on elections even as they advertise its potential for good.

OpenAI’s plan has five planks: spreading reliable information about voting and election results, helping with cybersecurity, watermarking deepfakes, enforcing policies that ban users from deploying its tools for election interference, and weeding out political bias in its models.

OpenAI highlighted that it has made its Codex Security agentic framework and Trusted Access for Cyber framework available to election officials, and was briefing the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors on its tools.

“This is an important moment for cyber defenders across industries, and we believe AI plays a critical role in hardening digital infrastructure — including systems that support elections,” the company said. “OpenAI is committed to building resilience across the infrastructure stack, including in ways that support election execution.”

Some elements of OpenAI’s plans aren’t new so much as it’s taking pieces from other announcements and putting them together in one, such as reiterating last week’s partnership with SynthID to add watermarks to images generated with ChatGPT to assist in evaluating whether something is real or a deepfake.

One new element of Wednesday’s announcement is that OpenAI has struck a partnership with the Associated Press on sharing election data.

One election security expert welcomed the OpenAI announcement.

“Given the prevalence and amplification of disinformation about our elections, sometimes coming from leaders in high office, it’s always a good thing when platforms and services embrace their obligation to deliver accurate information to users,” David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, told CyberScoop. “It appears OpenAI is doing that with this announcement. I hope other platforms embrace this responsibility as well.”

The post OpenAI heralds cybersecurity, election interference safeguard plans for 2026 midterms appeared first on CyberScoop.

Colorado Governor Jared Polis has commuted the prison sentence of Tina Peters, the former Mesa County election clerk who was sentenced last year to serve nine years in state prison for carrying out one of the most serious election-related data breaches in U.S. history.

Peters was arrested in 2021, accused of abusing her position as clerk to break into Mesa County election facilities under false pretenses, steal election and voting machine data and share them with allies of President Donald Trump in a quixotic quest to prove he won the 2020 presidential election.

Peters has served less than a year and a half of a nine-year prison sentence handed down last year by a judge after she was convicted of using another Mesa County resident’s identity to enter county election facilities, where she stole voting data from the 2020 election and shared it with Trump allies online.

Peters hoped the data would show that Trump actually won the state in 2020. It did not. Election and cybersecurity experts have said Peters’ actions were a serious breach of election data, while Mesa County officials say it has cost them millions of dollars to deal with the legal fallout while Peters ran for higher office in 2022.

In handing down her nine-year prison sentence, Judge Matthew Barrett called Peters a “charlatan” and deserved a longer punishment because “I’m convinced you’d do it all over again.”

But for months, Colorado’s Democratic Governor Jared Polis has hinted at pardoning or commuting her sentence,  claiming that it was overly harsh for her crimes.

Trump has attempted to pressure state officials to pardon or commute Peters’ sentence. Because Peters was convicted of state crimes, she could be freed by a federal pardon alone, though Trump tried that as well.

In the past, Polis has claimed that he would only grant clemency to Peters if she showed remorse for her crimes. However, Peters’ own community and neighbors in Mesa County testified at her sentencing hearing last year that she has been largely unrepentant even after she was arrested and charged.

A review of dozens of Polis pardons and commutations as Colorado Governor by Denver news affiliate KUSA shows that Polis has never previously pardoned or commuted the sentence of a prisoner who did not openly express remorse for their crimes. Polis claimed in an interview with the outlet that Peters expressed regret.

Polis’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The post Colorado governor commutes prison sentence for election denier Tina Peters  appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration released a legal opinion outlining the legal rationale behind its nationwide voter data collection efforts, justifying an aggressive federal role in vetting voter eligibility, a position courts have repeatedly rejected in related litigation.

The memo, released Tuesday by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, concedes that while election administration is “primarily the purview of the states,” the administration’s efforts are a lawful exercise of federal oversight. 

The Justice Department grounds that rationale in a provision of the 1960 Civil Rights Act, requiring election officials to keep voter records for 22 months after an election so it can investigate potential civil rights violations. Under the memo’s reading, that retention rule also gives the Attorney General authority to obtain copies of those records “upon demand in writing.” 

The memo also cites several other federal election laws – like the Help America Vote Act, the National Voter Registration Act and the Voting Rights Act – as support for the executive branch’s efforts. It argues that those statutes have long required states to modernize and secure voting systems (including accessibility upgrades) and maintain accurate voter rolls by removing ineligible voters.

The memo further argues that the potential presence of one or more non-citizens on state voter rolls is enough to trigger the federal government’s nationwide data collection and sharing efforts with immigration authorities.

“Because illegal aliens are ineligible to vote, these generally applicable laws are also implicated by an illegal alien’s presence on a state’s voter rolls,” the memo states.

Multiple federal courts have come to the opposite conclusion, dismissing half a dozen lawsuits from DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security that would force states to comply. Further, states have repeatedly confirmed through recounts, audits, investigations and lawsuits that the number of non-citizens registered to vote (and who end up actually casting ballots) in U.S. elections is infinitesimal.

David Becker, executive director of the Center of Election Innovation and Research, noted in a post on BlueSky that “6 courts, including 2 judges appointed by the current president, think this ‘opinion’ isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” Becker, a former DOJ senior trial attorney in the voting section of the Civil Rights Division, has consistently argued that the executive branch and White House have no legal or constitutional role to play in vetting state voter registration. 

Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Secretary of State for Vermont, gave a similar reaction when CyberScoop reached out for comment.

“It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on,” Hanzas said in a statement. “Or the electrons it takes to store and transmit 41 pages of fantasy.”

Election officials have largely resisted the federal government’s demands. Earlier this year, West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner told CyberScoop he had no intentions of handing over more information than is already publicly available.

“If they want it, they can have it: $500 dollars for [anyone to buy] the statewide list, but they’re not getting personal information,” Warner said in a January interview. “State law says we’re not sharing that and my job is to carry out the law laid out by the West Virginia legislature.”

The inability of the federal government to point to serious evidence of mass voter fraud or non-citizen voting has led states to rebuff attempts to collect sensitive data on every voter in their state, including names, social security numbers, home addresses, voter history and other details.

The administration says it intends to cross-check state data against immigration records, share that data with DHS and immigration enforcement agencies and ultimately create its own list of eligible voters. An executive order issued by the White House earlier this year sought to deny federal funding to states that did not accept voter lists from the federal government and directed the Attorney General to investigate state election officials for voter roll discrepancies. Voting groups have challenged the order’s legality, and a previous election-related executive order was largely ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

The administration has sued dozens of states who have refused to hand such data over, though it has yet to convince courts of the merit. One judge called the administration’s efforts “unprecedented and illegal” and accused the administration of twisting the Civil Rights Act and other federal laws that were passed “to protect hard won civil rights victories allowing access to the ballot box” in order to obtain unfettered access to state voter data.

The post DOJ releases legal rationale for nationwide voter data collection appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Senate’s top Democrat called on the Department of Homeland Security Friday to work closely with state and local governments to defend against artificial intelligence-strengthened hacks. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin to make sure state, local, tribal and territorial (SLTT) governments aren’t left behind as AI models advance, posing new hacking threats.

“There is a race between cybersecurity defenders and AI-enabled hacking — and there’s no time to waste,” Schumer wrote.

“While the White House has reportedly begun hosting meetings about its internal security priorities following these frontier AI cyber breakthroughs, it is glaringly obvious that the Department of Homeland Security needs an updated plan for coordinating these efforts with [state, local, tribal and territorial] governments and implementing procedures to reduce the risk of disruptive cyberattacks enabled by frontier AI,” he stated.

Schumer said he was worried about the capabilities of DHS and its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to carry out that coordination, given federal funding cuts to the Multistate Information Sharing and Analysis Center, and the lack of a Senate-confirmed CISA director for the duration of the second Trump administration.

Schumer wants a plan from DHS by July 1 on coordinating with state and local governments on a range of questions, such as how to identify top AI talent, carry out rapid patching and conduct risk assessments.

“AI is changing the cyber battlefield fast — and we cannot let hackers get there first,” Schumer said in comments accompanying the letter. “Hospitals, power grids, water systems, schools, elections, and emergency services cannot be left exposed while criminal gangs and state-backed hackers race to exploit new AI tools. DHS must immediately help states and localities find and fix vulnerabilities before Americans are hit with outages, disruptions, and attacks that could put lives and livelihoods at risk.”

CISA is using AI to help on the defensive side internally, agency officials recently said.

The post Sen. Schumer seeks DHS plan on AI cyber coordination with state, local governments appeared first on CyberScoop.