Adair is Communications and Operations Associate at Stand Up America, a pro-democracy organization.
A county election worker in Oregon recently found himself in an unsettling situation during his rounds collecting ballots from dropboxes. A disgruntled woman, driving erratically, had been following him for hours. As the situation escalated, the woman began shouting that she had a gun and would continue filming him doing his job. Unfortunately, this election worker is not alone.
One in six local elections officials in America have experienced threats while on the job. The dedicated citizens who keep our elections running smoothly face an increasingly hostile political environment. While they’ve repeatedly sounded the alarm about the need for increased security funding, their calls for help have mostly fallen on deaf ears.
Election workers serve on the front lines of our democracy, helping to ensure every American can exercise their freedom to vote. They do the often thankless work while acting as facilitators of our elections—from collecting ballots from dropboxes to opening polling locations in the early hours of morning. Before 2020, election workers carried out their duties largely unnoticed, but this drastically changed after Donald Trump falsely accused them of rigging the presidential election for Joe Biden.
Trump’s lies exposed election workers to escalating threats despite the non-partisan nature of their work. As a communications professional at a national democracy organization, I monitor election news trends and have witnessed a dramatic spike in threats to election workers over the last year. Many election workers feel unprotected: in fact, only 27% say the federal government is doing a good job supporting their needs. It’s not surprising they feel this way when their calls for much-needed election security funding have been ignored by Congress.
Because of these threats, election workers are leaving the profession at a disturbing rate. A recent survey found that one in five local elections officials is unlikely to continue serving through 2024. Election administration will suffer if institutional knowledge is lost en masse before the next presidential election.
The federal government’s lack of urgency is astounding. The U.S. Department of Justice established the Election Threats Task Force in 2021, but a year later, out of more than the 1,000 cases it reviewed, there was only one individual tried and sentenced. President Joe Biden’s 2024 budget called for just $5 billion in election infrastructure funding over the next ten years, even as a bipartisan coalition of state and local officials estimates they’ll need $53 billion to safely and effectively administer elections over the next decade.
Our leaders on Capitol Hill have fallen even shorter. Congress appropriated just $75 million for election administration in fiscal year 2023. While this year’s appropriations process is ongoing, House Republicans have advanced legislation zeroing out election security funding altogether, leaving state and local elections officials to fend for themselves. The Senate did not follow their lead and included $75 million. However, this is still significantly less than the $400 million election administrators hoped for to make important improvements and repairs before the 2024 election.
In 2022, with conspiracy theories swirling, election officials understood that voters had more questions about their work. Rather than shy away, most administrators seized the opportunity to communicate with the public frequently and transparently. This dedication resulted in a dramatic increase in Americans’ trust in election administration compared with 2020. As election workers repair our democracy, the least Congress could do is invest in them and in our elections.
Some states have taken steps to shield their election workers from intimidation and harm. Oregon, Colorado, and Maine enacted or increased penalties for threats against election workers. But a nationwide threat requires a nationwide response.
It is alarming that a job once conducted in obscurity has now become a target for harassment, threats, and conspiracy theorists. Election workers serve on the front lines of American democracy, and Congress must do all it can to ensure they have the critical resources they need to stay safe while administering our elections safely and peacefully. Safeguarding Americans’ freedom to vote also means protecting democracy’s vital entry point for every American: their local election office.




















U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."