Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

FBI and DHS warn of foreign misinformation on election results

Election security

Two federal agencies have issued a warning that Russians and others may attempt to undermine our election by spreading misinformation.

Yuichiro Chino/Getty Images

Remember election security? The Russians? What happened in 2016?

With much of the focus on mail-in ballots, drop boxes and other mechanics of voting during a public health crisis, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security want to make sure Americans know: Foreign actors are again trying again to disrupt our presidential election — including with a disinformation campaign about the results.

"The increased use of mail-in ballots due to Covid-19 protocols could leave officials with incomplete results" the night of Nov. 3, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (a part of DHS) and the FBI emphasized in a joint statement on Tuesday, and "foreign actors and cybercriminals" are expected to spread misinformation and disinformation to "exploit the time required to certify and announce elections' results."

The warning was issued as the Brennan Center for Justice,a progressive think tank that has done significant research on a broad range of election threats, issued a new study concluding that great improvement has been made in securing election systems from hacking, especially in the swing states that will decide the presidency.


The government agencies acted as the Washington Post reported on a classified CIA assessment that President Vladimir Putin and his top aides "are aware of and probably directing Russia's influence operations" aimed at interfering in the election to the benefit of President Trump. He and several top congressional Republicans have recently sought to cast China as the bigger threat, a view FBI Director Christopher Wray explicitly contradicted in testimony to Congress last week

While better prepared for outright hacking of election systems — the main thrust of Russian operatives in the last presidential election — the FBI and CISA said foreign meddlers could create phony websites and change existing websites to spread false information "in an attempt to discredit the electoral process and undermine confidence in U.S. democratic institutions."

In particular, the public should realize that the final results from the election may not be available for days or weeks in some states. In that time, foreign agents could try to spread false reports of voter suppression, cyberattacks, voter fraud and other problems to make people believe the results are not legitimate.

People are urged to "critically evaluate the sources of the information they consume" and double-check and verify information before sharing it.

Suspicious or possibly criminal activity should be reported to a local field office of the FBI.

The report by the Brennan Center follows up on several earlier in the year, when much of the nation was focused on whether Russian or other foreign agents would again try to hack into election systems around the country as they did in 2016.

The good news, according to the report, is "that there has been substantial progress in the last few years, and indeed the last few months, to implement the kind of backup and security features that should allow all voters to cast ballots that will count, even in the event of a successful cyberattack or other unforeseen system failure."

Still, more needs to be done in certain areas, the report states. The report focused on Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — all states that could be carried by either Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden.

One key element of election security — making sure a paper record is created when someone votes so the results can be audited — has seen great improvement. Four years ago, the report said, one in five voters cast a ballot on paperless voting machines, but this fall less than 4 percent of voters will use such machines.

Nearly all of the 12 states have in place the other key element of security: the ability to conduct audits of the results to ensure their accuracy. "Although the widespread use of audts is reassuring," the report states, "it should be noted that their quality varies widely."

Also, according to the report, states have done a good job of

  • Securing polling places and early voting sites.
  • Offering drop sites for absentee ballots.
  • Creating backups for electronic poll books so voters' registration can be verified.
  • Recruiting poll workers to replace elderly workers who may opt out because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The focus now for election officials, the report concludes, is on educating the public about the voting process this year.

The report notes that a half-million mail-in ballots were rejected during the primaries because of minor mistakes, such as forgetting to sign the ballot.

"No election is perfect," the report concludes. "We should expect that there will be some problems."

"Ultimately, the most important question is not whether Election Day problems will occur. Rather, it is whether the system is resilient enough to overcome those difficulties so voters can cast ballots that will count."

Read More

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less