For many people, modern technology makes voting online a no-brainer. But implementing such a system nationwide presents many risks and challenges.
To assess the opportunities and pitfalls of remote digital voting, the Center for Security in Politics at the University of California, Berkeley announced Wednesday the formation of a working group that will rigorously study the issue. The goal is to develop best practices for election officials who want to offer safe and secure digital voting options.
While not yet widely used, digital voting is already an option for overseas military and civilian voters in 31 states and disabled voters in eight states. Proponents see it as an opportunity to make voting more accessible, especially during natural disasters or other emergencies.
The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the need to further study the feasibility of online voting. A recent report by the Election Assistance Commission found online balloting rose in popularity during the 2020 election, when voters were taking advantage of new opportunities. In last year's general election, more than 330 jurisdictions across eight states used mobile voting.
"How people think about — and participate — in voting is changing," said Janet Napolitano, founder and faculty director for the Center for Security in Politics. "We cannot turn a blind eye to the lessons of the 2020 election or overlook the voters who face inherent barriers to voting. We need academically rigorous, evidence-based standards that will guide the development of safe and secure remote balloting technology."
There are no national standards regulating the use of remote digital voting, which presents security and privacy concerns. The working group will dive into the potential challenges of casting a ballot online, such as voter and device authentication and vote verification.
"As technology changes, we must continually reassess opportunities to keep voting not only safe, secure and resilient, but also accessible for all Americans," said Mike Garcia, a cybersecurity expert and member of the working group.
Many election security experts strongly oppose remote digital voting because they say it is highly susceptible to hacking and does not provide the paper backup one gets when voting by mail or in person. And for election officials in jurisdictions where it is allowed for certain voters, there is little guidance on best practices.
"Having a report from a balanced group of experts can help inform the discussion, and importantly give guidance to election officials who are frequently caught in the middle, unsure of what is the 'least dangerous' path forward," said Jeremy Epstein, a voting security expert and member of the working group.
In addition to Epstein, the working group will consist of academic researchers, election administrators, cryptographers, and cybersecurity and election security experts, including:
- Ben Adida, executive director of VotingWorks.
- Michelle Bishop, voter access and engagement manager at the National Disability Rights Network.
- Allie Bones, assistant secretary of state for Arizona.
- Josh Benaloh, senior cryptographer at Microsoft Research.
- Henry Brady, professor in the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC, Berkeley.
- Anthony Fowler, professor in the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago.
- Michael Frias, CEO of Catalist.
- Mike Garcia, a cybersecurity expert who previously worked at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
- Matt Masterson, former senior cybersecurity advisor at the Department of Homeland Security.
- Amber McReynolds, founding CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute.
- Maurice Turner, cybersecurity fellow at the Alliance for Securing Democracy.
- Mark Weatherford, chief information security officer at AlertEnterprise and chief strategy officer at the National Cybersecurity Center.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a“ Steel Across America” event ahead of the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11th attacks on the Ellipse near the White House on Sept. 8, 2026 in Washington, D.C. President Trump welcomed 9/ 11 first responders to the Tunnel to Towers Foundation’ s“ Steel Across America” event featuring a 16,900- pound, 21- foot steel beam recovered.
For Trump, even 9/11 is an opportunity
There was a reason organizers of the 9/11 ceremony in Manhattan told President Trump he could not speak at this year’s memorial service.
A good one, it turns out.
Because in a speech he gave on Tuesday in Washington, he did exactly what they were presumably worried about — he made it about himself.
According to The New York Times, Trump had wanted a speaking role at the service, but the National Sept. 11 Memorial and Museum, which oversees the site, said no, as they’ve maintained for the past decade-plus that the venue and event should be nonpartisan.
Trump has long used awful tragedies to either puff himself up, trash political opponents, or sell lies to the American people.
He blamed a deadly plane crash at Washington National Airport last year on diversity, equity and inclusion policies. He blamed Puerto Ricans for the devastation they endured after Hurricane Maria in 2017. He reportedly considered withholding disaster relief after the California wildfires based on the way affected regions voted. In an interview on Fox News meant to commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy, he used the occasion to slam former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi…with graves of the dead behind him.
And now, as we approach the 25th anniversary of what many New Yorkers consider the darkest day in modern history, Trump has done it again.
He told a rambling, nonsensical story — one he’s told before — about going to Ground Zero just after terrorists flew two commercial jets into the twin towers. In the story, which no one has been able to verify, despite multiple attempts, he says firefighters had to carry him out of One Liberty Plaza, also known as the U.S. Steel Building, because they thought it was about to collapse.
As CNN fact checker Daniel Dale notes, there’s no evidence Trump went into this building, especially at a time when NYPD and NYFD had locked down the area. There’s no evidence that building was collapsing — in fact, it was deemed structurally sound and reopened within two months of the attacks. There’s no evidence he was carried out of it by firefighters.
But the lie isn’t even the worst part. Pretend it was all true — why would the leader of our country, and a New Yorker, decide to make that tragic day about himself?
Because that’s who Donald Trump is. He’s a malignant narcissist.
He’s also, incidentally, a terrible and ineffectual president, who’s made ill-fated decisions that he has to keep defending, and there’s nothing he won’t do to make himself look and feel better.
Within the first two minutes of his speech, he was cravenly using 9/11 to justify and promote his dumb war in Iran — two events separated by 25 years and 6,000 miles.
“And I will tell you, we’re right now fighting because we have a certain nation that wanted a nuclear weapon, they were very close to getting it, and now they have no chance at getting it. They will never have a nuclear weapon. Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. And they’ve been punished greatly. As you know, we’ve really taken it to them.”
As a New Yorker who lived through 9/11, still one of the worst days of my life, I’m utterly sickened by Trump’s crass, political, and self-promotional framing of that awful day.
And I’m relieved he won’t be given a platform to do it again on Friday’s anniversary in lower Manhattan.
Because for Trump, everything is his for the taking, and absolutely nothing is sacred.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.