Election Security Under Siege

Executive summary

With the 2026 midterms less than seven months away, the Trump administration is dismantling the federal election-security architecture built after 2020 — and most Americans either oppose it or don't yet know enough to have an opinion. A new pulse survey of 86 respondents finds that only 1 in 5 actively supports reducing these safeguards, while nearly 4 in 10 oppose the move and an almost equal share remains genuinely unsure.

That massive undecided bloc is the story. It doesn't signal apathy — it signals an information gap at precisely the moment when concrete, irreversible changes are accelerating. CISA's election security program faces elimination in the FY2027 budget. At least 75 career election-security officials have already been pushed out. And public trust in accurate vote-counting has fallen 17 points nationally since Election Day 2024.

Four takeaways define this moment: opposition to safeguard reductions is a plurality, not a majority, leaving a large persuadable audience; the reductions are already happening at scale, not hypothetical; no single level of government commands majority support for controlling elections; and psychological traits — not just party affiliation — predict who's most skeptical of the federal system.

Context

This pulse survey was fielded in April 2026 — the same week ProPublica published its investigation into what it described as a White House effort to 'take over' the midterm elections. Eighty-six respondents answered four questions on election safeguards, security trust, and governance preferences. It is a directional sample, not a nationally representative poll, but its signals align closely with large-scale benchmarks from UC San Diego, States United Democracy Center, and The Center Square — giving the findings real interpretive weight.

The backdrop matters enormously. Since January 2025, the federal government's election-security infrastructure has been systematically reduced. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) — which since 2018 has helped state and local election officials defend against foreign interference from Iran, Russia, and China — has lost an estimated 1,000 employees. The FY2027 budget proposes eliminating CISA's election security program entirely, cutting roughly $360 million in net funding and shuttering the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), the primary threat-intelligence hub for state and local officials.

At the same time, the Department of Justice has demanded voter registration databases including partial Social Security numbers from nearly 38 states, filed lawsuits against eight states that refused to comply, and refilled its voting-rights enforcement unit with attorneys who participated in challenging the 2020 election outcome. A DHS group calling itself 'Team America' has been implementing Trump's March 2025 elections executive order using federal levers that push against the Constitution's delegation of election administration to states.

This is the environment in which 37.2% of respondents said they simply weren't sure how to feel — not a complacent non-answer, but a meaningful signal that public awareness of these specific, documented changes has not yet caught up to the pace of the changes themselves. The survey captures a public at an inflection point, before the 2026 midterm campaign fully crystallizes the stakes.

Findings

A Plurality Opposes Reductions — But Uncertainty Is Almost as Large

When asked how they feel about reports that President Trump is reducing post-2020 election safeguards, 38.4% of respondents said they oppose it, 37.2% said they're unsure, and only 19.8% said they support it. The remaining 4.7% offered a different response.

The near-tie between opposition and uncertainty is the headline result. In most contested policy questions, the 'not sure' bloc is a passive afterthought. Here, it is nearly as large as the opposition itself — a signal that opinion has not yet formed around documented facts. When respondents learn that CISA's election security unit has already been gutted, that dozens of election-denial movement figures now occupy oversight roles, and that EI-ISAC — the threat-sharing hub that guards against Iranian and Russian cyberattacks — is slated for elimination, the undecided share is the group most likely to move.

The combined 75.6% who either oppose or haven't decided dwarfs the 19.8% who actively support the reductions. That arithmetic matters for the policy debate ahead.

Election Trust Has Collapsed — And Skeptics Are the Most Vocal

Free-response answers on trust in the federal election system skewed toward low values, consistent with a national 17-point confidence drop documented by UC San Diego researchers between the November 2024 election and early 2026. That survey of more than 11,400 eligible voters found confidence in accurate vote-counting fell from 77% to 60% — and the decline crossed party lines.

In this study, low-trust respondents didn't translate their skepticism into indifference. Instead, they were more likely to oppose safeguard reductions — suggesting that distrust of the system fuels a demand for stronger protections, not a shrug. Respondents who scored higher on the Prism Influence personality trait showed the strongest negative relationship with trust, meaning socially connected and persuasive respondents were among the most skeptical of the federal system.

Free responses captured the texture of this anxiety: concerns about foreign meddling, worries about partisan manipulation of results, and direct references to Trump personally undermining the outcome. Foreign interference was mentioned alongside domestic political threats — a reminder that the perceived threat landscape is not purely partisan.

No Level of Government Owns Election Security in the Public Mind

Asked who should have the most control over election security, respondents split almost evenly across three options: federal government (31.8%), state governments (30.6%), and local governments (22.4%). Another 15.3% chose 'Other,' indicating dissatisfaction with all conventional options.

No single level commands a majority. That fragmentation is not confusion — it reflects genuine constitutional ambiguity and tracks closely with independent national polling. A September 2025 States United / YouGov survey of 6,037 U.S. adults found that 60% trust local election officials the most, higher than trust in any other group including the president (43%) and Congress (35%). The constitutional reality is that states and localities hold primary authority; the current push for federal consolidation runs against both the legal baseline and public preference.

Personality data adds texture: respondents higher in Ocean Openness leaned toward state control, while those higher in Prism Meticulousness — detail-oriented, process-driven — were less likely to favor federal control. Anxious or neurotic respondents disproportionately chose 'Other,' suggesting that the 15% dissatisfied bloc is driven partly by temperamental distrust rather than a specific governance philosophy.

Stricter Voting Measures Have a Slight Edge — But the Disenfranchisement Debate Is Live

Free-response analysis found a modest lean toward supporting stricter voting measures — voter ID requirements, restrictions on mail-in ballots — with an average score of −0.13 on a scale from full support to full opposition. That directional lean is consistent with national polling showing 71% support voter ID requirements, though the near-even national split on banning mail-in voting (47% support, 48% oppose) mirrors the ambivalence in this sample.

The more revealing signal is what respondents didn't say with confidence: the dimension measuring concern about disenfranchisement of seniors, low-income, and minority voters scored almost exactly neutral (mean = 0.01). Half the sample sees real risk; half doesn't. That split is now playing out in court: Florida's SAVE Act, signed April 1, 2026, requires proof of citizenship for voter registration and has already triggered federal lawsuits from the NAACP, ACLU, and Florida Alliance for Retired Americans.

Those who scored higher on Ocean Agreeableness were more receptive to the administration's framing of safeguard reductions — suggesting that messaging emphasizing cooperation, consensus, and electoral integrity (rather than partisan conflict) may move this sub-group specifically. Across the board, the data suggest that attitudes toward election reform are less anchored to party identity than to perceived competence and institutional trust.

Conclusion

The 2026 midterms are now the testing ground for the most significant restructuring of U.S. election security since CISA was created. The public hasn't fully absorbed what's already happened — 1,000 CISA employees gone, career officials replaced by election-denial movement figures, EI-ISAC on the chopping block — and that awareness gap is the most consequential variable going into November.

Watch three things between now and Election Day. First, whether the CISA budget cut survives Congressional appropriations — its fate determines whether state and local officials have any federal backstop against Iranian or Russian cyberattacks. Second, how the DOJ voter-database lawsuits resolve in the eight resisting states; the outcome sets the precedent for federal versus state authority over voter rolls. Third, whether the 37% of Americans who reportedly expect ICE officers at polling places in 2026 translates into actual suppressed turnout — particularly among communities of color, where trust is already fragile.

The practical implication for anyone tracking election integrity: the persuadable third of the public is movable, and they respond to competence and transparency arguments more than partisan ones. The window to inform that audience is closing fast.