Political appointees in President Donald Trump’s administration secretly sought to have a federal cybersecurity agency acquire and hack a voting machine, with the findings to be forwarded to the White House, according to an investigation published Monday by ProPublica.
The unusual request, made several months into Trump’s second term, reportedly alarmed career officials at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), who feared that the proposed operation could be used for political purposes rather than legitimate election-security research.
According to two former administration officials familiar with the matter, political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security directed CISA to obtain a voting machine, examine its security vulnerabilities and report the results to senior administration officials.
The request included a particularly controversial instruction: CISA personnel were reportedly told not to inform the voting-machine manufacturer if they discovered security flaws, a departure from the agency’s established procedures for identifying and addressing vulnerabilities.
One former official expressed concern that the administration could use the findings to challenge election results.
“My thought was they could keep it in their back pocket to invalidate any [election] results they don’t like,” the former official told ProPublica. “This goes against everything CISA represents.”
The operation was never carried out. According to the investigation, career agency personnel repeatedly informed the political appointees that they could not fulfill the request, and the officials eventually abandoned the effort.
One reason cited by CISA employees was that specialists with the technical expertise necessary to perform such an operation had recently lost their jobs during the federal workforce reductions carried out under Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.
The report did not establish that President Trump personally ordered the operation or that the officials involved intended to manipulate election results. The concerns about possible political misuse were expressed by agency personnel familiar with the request.
Nevertheless, the disclosure has raised questions about the administration’s approach to federal election security, particularly as the country prepares for the November 3 midterm elections.
CISA was established in 2018, during Trump’s first administration, to strengthen the nation’s defenses against cyberattacks and other threats to critical infrastructure.
Among its responsibilities is assisting state and local election officials in protecting voting systems, identifying cybersecurity weaknesses and responding to potential foreign or domestic interference.
The agency traditionally works with voting-equipment manufacturers to identify vulnerabilities and ensure that security problems are addressed before they can be exploited.
Secretly acquiring a machine for testing would not necessarily be improper if conducted through authorized security procedures. However, the reported instruction to conceal any discovered vulnerabilities from the manufacturer troubled agency personnel because it departed from their usual approach to coordinated security disclosures.
The controversy comes amid sweeping changes to CISA’s staffing, funding and responsibilities during Trump’s second term.
According to ProPublica, more than 1,000 agency employees have been dismissed or have departed since the administration took office, reducing the workforce by approximately one-third.
The administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2027 would cut another $700 million from CISA, potentially resulting in approximately 900 additional job losses.
Those reductions have prompted concerns among election officials and cybersecurity specialists about whether the federal government retains sufficient personnel and resources to assist states in protecting their election systems.
Several state election authorities told ProPublica that they received little or no assistance from CISA during critical preparations for the midterms, leaving them to address potential cybersecurity threats largely on their own.
Ryan Macias, an election technology and cybersecurity specialist who previously consulted for CISA, said the agency’s reduced involvement was particularly noticeable during 2025 and the first nine months of 2026.
“There is a difference between deprioritizing and being nonexistent,” Macias said.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes was similarly critical of the changes, saying his office had lost access to federal support that had previously helped states identify and respond to cybersecurity threats.
“I don’t pay attention to what the president says. I pay attention to what his administration does,” Fontes said. “And what they’ve done is basically cut us off and left us on our own.”
Some states have responded by purchasing their own cybersecurity monitoring equipment, including systems designed to detect suspicious activity on election-related networks.
However, election officials say that certain federal capabilities, particularly intelligence concerning foreign cyber threats, cannot easily be replaced by individual states.
The investigation also revealed that officials in one large voting jurisdiction had privately discussed contingency plans with voting-machine manufacturers in case federal authorities attempted to seize election equipment or declare existing machines unsuitable for use.
Those discussions were precautionary, and the report did not establish that the federal government had ordered such seizures in connection with the upcoming midterms.
The controversy has also revived longstanding tensions between President Trump and CISA, an agency he established during his first term.
In 2020, CISA publicly defended the integrity of that year’s presidential election and rejected allegations of widespread voting-system manipulation. Trump subsequently dismissed the agency’s director, Christopher Krebs, after Krebs challenged claims about election irregularities.
Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has continued questioning aspects of the 2020 election while his administration has substantially reduced CISA’s operations.
The agency’s previous election-security activities included conducting simulated cyberattacks against voting systems, helping states identify technical vulnerabilities, coordinating security exercises and sharing classified intelligence about potential threats.
Those programs depended heavily on cooperation between federal officials, state election administrators and private voting-equipment manufacturers.
According to the investigation, that relationship has deteriorated as some state officials have become reluctant to share sensitive information with federal authorities.
One source of tension involved the administration’s publication of previously restricted records related to the 2020 election, including information that state authorities had supplied to CISA with an expectation of confidentiality.
White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis disputed criticism of the administration’s election-security policies.
“President Trump has done more than any other President to ensure we have free and fair elections,” Bis said in a statement to ProPublica.
She also defended the release of election-related records, describing it as a transparency measure rather than a breach of the government’s obligations to state election officials.
The Department of Homeland Security and CISA did not respond to the publication’s requests for interviews or its detailed questions concerning the reported voting-machine operation.
CISA did issue a new election-security plan on September 24, outlining its intended cooperation with state and local authorities ahead of the midterms.
The document emphasized the agency’s continued responsibility to protect critical election infrastructure and strengthen partnerships with state officials.
However, several election administrators questioned whether the initiative had arrived early enough to provide meaningful assistance before November 3.
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said the announcement came after states had already completed much of their election preparation.
“For CISA to promise election officials now, at this point in time, that they are going to be a resource for the 2026 election is too little, too late,” Bellows said.
Democratic lawmakers have called for an examination of CISA’s diminished capabilities and questioned why funding approved by Congress for election-security activities has not been fully deployed.
The latest disclosures have intensified the debate over the federal government’s role in election security, with critics warning that staffing reductions and deteriorating relations with state officials could weaken defenses against cyberattacks.