WASHINGTON: In mid-December 2020, a group of federal officials gathered in a secure, windowless room at the Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. They had been called by then-Attorney General William Barr to address mounting claims by then-President Donald Trump that the presidential election had been stolen, ProPublica reports.
Trump had become fixated on a conspiracy theory involving voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan, which he claimed had switched votes in favor of Joe Biden. As pressure mounted, Barr convened cybersecurity experts from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) alongside FBI officials to determine whether the election could have been hacked. The experts concluded there was no fraud. Instead, a local clerical error in updating ballot styles had caused a temporary misreporting of votes, which was later corrected through a hand recount. Despite the clarity of these findings, Barr understood that delivering this truth to Trump could cost him his position.
After the meeting, Barr reportedly remarked that he would “kamikaze” into the White House. During a subsequent Oval Office meeting on December 14, Trump insisted the Antrim County issue proved widespread fraud. Barr countered with the experts’ findings and soon after submitted his resignation, which Trump accepted. Barr later wrote that Trump appeared detached from reality.
Barr’s resistance was one of several instances where officials refused to support attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Despite the January 6 Capitol riot temporarily delaying certification, institutional safeguards ultimately held. However, a ProPublica investigation suggests that many of those safeguards—and the individuals behind them—are no longer in place.
1. Key officials who resisted in 2020 are gone
Following Trump’s return to power, many of the officials who helped safeguard the 2020 election have either resigned, been dismissed, or reassigned. ProPublica identified at least 75 such individuals across agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
These departures include cybersecurity experts who debunked election fraud claims. Their replacements include roughly two dozen Trump-aligned appointees, many of whom supported efforts to overturn the 2020 election or are closely associated with election denial movements.
Experts warn this shift reflects a deeper integration of election denial ideology within the federal government.
2. Trump is seeking greater federal control over elections
Trump has intensified efforts to “nationalize” elections ahead of the 2026 midterms, urging Republicans to “take over” the process. This comes amid declining approval ratings and concerns over economic conditions, immigration policies, and foreign conflicts.
A March 2025 executive order attempted to expand federal control over voting systems, including mail-in ballots and voter eligibility. Although parts of the order have been blocked in court, the administration continues pursuing similar measures, raising concerns among Democrats and election watchdogs.
3. Federal election security infrastructure has been dismantled
CISA, once central to election security, has been significantly weakened. Established during Trump’s first term to counter cyber threats, the agency played a crucial role in securing the 2020 election and debunking misinformation.
After Trump’s return, key CISA programs focused on election security and disinformation were halted. Staff specializing in election protection were placed on leave or reassigned, and eventually removed from their roles. Critics argue this dismantling has left a significant gap in the nation’s election security framework, though DHS maintains the changes were necessary to refocus the agency’s mission.
4. Coordination against foreign interference has been reduced
Other federal initiatives aimed at preventing foreign election interference have also been scaled back. The National Security Council’s election security group was disbanded, and the Foreign Malign Influence Center was dissolved.
While officials claim these functions were integrated elsewhere, former national security experts argue that the overall capacity to monitor and respond to threats has been diminished, leaving states more vulnerable.
5. Law enforcement oversight has been weakened
Major changes have also occurred within federal law enforcement. The FBI dismantled its public corruption team and Foreign Influence Task Force, both of which had roles in monitoring election-related misconduct.
At the DOJ, the Public Integrity Section—traditionally responsible for ensuring investigations remain free from political influence—has been significantly reduced. Once a 36-person team, it now reportedly consists of just two individuals.
Similarly, the Civil Rights Division’s voting section has been reshaped. Previously focused on protecting voting rights, it now emphasizes enforcing the administration’s election policies. Many experienced lawyers have resigned or been reassigned, replaced by individuals aligned with Trump’s agenda.
6. New appointees have ties to election denial movements
The administration has installed officials with connections to groups that promote claims of election fraud. Some have previously advanced debunked theories about the 2020 election.
A group of political appointees within DHS, informally known as “Team America,” has been working to implement Trump’s election-related directives. Their efforts include developing tools to identify noncitizens on voter rolls, although such initiatives have faced criticism over accuracy and reliability.
At least 11 appointees have ties to the Election Integrity Network, an organization dedicated to reshaping election systems. Experts warn that these connections blur the line between activism and governance.
7. Federal resources are being used in unprecedented ways
ProPublica reports that federal agencies are increasingly being used to pursue election-related investigations aligned with Trump’s claims.
One example involves an FBI raid in Fulton County, Georgia, where agents seized 2020 election materials. The investigation was reportedly pushed forward after initial resistance from local FBI leadership, raising concerns about political influence.
The case was ultimately handled by a prosecutor outside the relevant jurisdiction, further fueling criticism about irregular procedures.
Former DOJ officials argue that such actions would likely have been blocked under previous oversight structures, highlighting the impact of recent institutional changes.
8. State-federal trust has broken down
Relations between federal agencies and state election officials have deteriorated significantly. State leaders report confusion over federal policies and reduced cooperation on election security.
In some cases, federal lawsuits have sought access to confidential voter data, prompting legal challenges from states. Several courts have dismissed these cases, though appeals are ongoing. Election officials also note the absence of traditional coordination mechanisms, such as Election Day command centers and intelligence-sharing systems. This has raised concerns about the ability to respond to threats in real time.
Experts warn that the 2026 midterm elections will test the resilience of American democratic institutions. Unlike in 2020, when officials across agencies resisted pressure, the current landscape features fewer institutional safeguards and more politically aligned personnel in key roles.
Some fear that false claims about election fraud could gain greater traction if endorsed by federal authorities, potentially undermining public confidence in the electoral process. Others argue that the administration’s actions are aimed at strengthening election integrity and preventing unlawful voting.
The events following the 2020 election demonstrated both the vulnerabilities and resilience of the U.S. electoral system. While institutional checks ultimately held, they did so under significant strain.
Today, many of those checks have been weakened or removed. With new personnel, altered policies, and reduced oversight, the upcoming midterms are shaping up to be a critical test.
Whether the system can withstand renewed challenges remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the structure and operation of federal election oversight have undergone profound changes—changes that will play a decisive role in the future of American democracy.
