CISA cuts abandon election workers to political violence
By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta ·
As federal support for election security shrinks and threats against officials rise, the government's abdication of safety transforms public service into a dangerous gamble.
The federal government has decided that the safety of its election workers and elected officials is a discretionary expense. This is a failure of process. When the state abdicates its role as the guarantor of physical security, it invites the very chaos it claims to oppose. By hollowing out the agencies meant to protect the machinery of democracy, the executive branch has signaled that the rule of law stops where political vitriol begins.
The hollowed out center
The record shows a systemic retreat from federal responsibility. According to Legis1, the Department of Homeland Security proposed eliminating funding for the CISA election security program in its budget justifications. This follows a period where P.L. 119-86 designated $39.61 million for that same work.
The erosion is not merely financial; it is operational. CISA discontinued funding for its election information-sharing center in 2025. It also reportedly placed Election Security Advisors on administrative leave. The Election Assistance Commission now sits without commissioners following resignations and removals in April and July.
The result is a vacuum. State and local officials report limited access to services CISA once provided. While 24 states and the District of Columbia have updated worker protections since 2020, these are local patches on a federal leak. Even the legislative response is stalled. Legis1 notes that proposed laws in the 119th Congress to expand criminal prohibitions on intimidation have not advanced beyond committee referral.
The price of a seat
The cost of this abdication is measured in fear and currency. Yonhap reports that violent threats have become routine ahead of the November midterms. At least 70 U.S. Senators and 185 U.S. Representatives experienced violent threats. U.S. Governors faced similar intimidation.
This environment forces a private tax on public service. Security expenditures for federal candidates reached at least $25 million.
The human toll is more stark. Representative Derek Van Orden moved his residence and hired armed guards to protect his family. Senator Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and acting Assistant Secretary of Defense, required protection from Capitol Police. Slotkin also faced a bomb threat and a false police report sent to her father's home.
The ablest advocate for the current state of affairs would argue that these officials invite such hostility through their own rhetoric. They would claim that the "crisis" is a symptom of polarization, not a failure of policy. But the state's duty to protect the process is independent of the person. When we allow the "you deserve it" logic to dictate security, we are no longer governed by laws, but by the whims of the loudest mob.
A return to the border war
This is the mechanism of Bleeding Kansas. In that conflict, political disputes over fundamental governance were settled through localized paramilitary violence and intimidation rather than through the ballot box. We are seeing a modern iteration of that same decay. When the state fails to protect the administrator, the administrator leaves.
We saw the blueprint during the January 6 Capitol attack, where political rhetoric escalated into physical violence against elected officials. Now, that violence has moved from the Capitol steps to the front porches of local officials.
The impact is a narrowing of the democratic pool. Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene resigned after threats targeted her son. AdVantageNews.com reports that 76 percent of surveyed officials say hostility makes them less willing to participate in civic activity.
The federal courts are not providing a sufficient deterrent. Yonhap reports only 53 cases involving threats against public officials were indicted in federal court over the last two years. This is a negligible fraction of the reported threats.
The state cannot claim to value the ballot if it will not protect the person who counts it. By treating election security as a budget line to be cut, the government has traded long-term legitimacy for short-term savings. If the machinery of the state is too dangerous to operate, the machinery will eventually stop.