It seems like the world of elections, especially in the US, is a bit like a re-run of a suspense movie, but with new twists. Security experts at Check Point are raising the alarm bells again, not about some groundbreaking, futuristic attacks, but about the same old tricks that just keep working. We’re talking about phishing – those dodgy emails trying to trick you into giving away your details – and impersonation, where someone pretends to be someone they’re not. Then there’s the whole influence game, trying to sway public opinion, and the scarier, more modern threat of AI-generated fake content. And let’s not forget good old-fashioned disruption, just causing chaos when it matters most. It’s like these bad actors have figured out the ultimate cheat code: these methods are cheap, they can be spread far and wide, and they hit people right where it hurts, politically and psychologically. Danielle Hess, an expert on this kind of thing, hits the nail on the head when she says that the current threat landscape favors these “inexpensive, scalable, and capable of producing outsized political or psychological impact” operations. It’s a frustrating reality for those trying to protect our democratic processes, as it feels like they’re constantly playing whack-a-mole with issues that should, by now, be old news.
These threats, when you break them down, really fall into two main buckets: those that target individuals and those that aim for the bigger picture, affecting entire populations. For us regular folks, it’s mostly about those phishing emails, often armed with information attackers snagged from past data breaches. Honestly, stopping these shouldn’t be rocket science. Things like multi-factor authentication, where you need more than just a password to log in, make it a lot tougher for phishers. And the newer passkey authentication? That should, in theory, make them nearly impossible. These aren’t newfangled technologies, yet here we are, still reading headlines about things like FBI Director Kash Patel’s personal Gmail getting hacked just a few weeks ago. It’s a bit like having a sturdy lock on your door but still leaving a spare key under the doormat. Aaron Rose, a security architect manager at Check Point, puts it succinctly, saying they’re “giving very similar advice, but it’s always due to a new event.” He emphasized this during a conference in Washington, making it clear that election security is a prime concern right now. He pointed out that if bad guys get their hands on login details from partisan websites, they can launch incredibly precise attacks, known as spear-phishing, against specific people they want to target. Imagine someone crafting an email to you, saying something like, “Hey Aaron, we thank you for all of these contributions. Unfortunately, your most recent payment was declined,” as Rose playfully imagined. This kind of targeted message, especially when mixed with a bit of urgency and familiarity, can easily trick someone. The report even highlights some pretty significant breaches, like 9,500 accounts compromised at the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue and 6,500 at the Republican platform WinRed. If people are foolish enough to reuse their passwords across different sites – a common, but dangerous, habit – these seemingly minor credential thefts could lead to much more important accounts getting compromised, turning a small crack into a gaping hole in their digital security.
Looking at the bigger picture, beyond individual accounts, the report from Check Point really zeroes in on the significant risks facing the very backbone of our election system in 2026. This isn’t just about personal logins; it’s about the trusted accounts, platforms, services, and information channels that election organizations rely on to actually operate and, crucially, to maintain public trust. The report warns that “election-adjacent systems” – essentially everything that supports the election process but isn’t directly counting votes – are the most immediate source of operational exposure. Think about it: if the systems that manage voter registration, or communicate important election information, go down, it can cause widespread confusion and undermine faith in the entire process. Beyond targeted attacks, more blunt instruments like ransomware, which locks up computer systems until a payment is made, and DDoS (distributed denial of service) attacks, which overwhelm websites until they crash, could also play a role. These could effectively take crucial resources offline at critical moments, like on Election Day itself. However, it’s worth noting that the report doesn’t foresee “widespread destructive activity against vote counting or election result processing.” And there’s a good, albeit surprisingly low-tech, reason for that: voting in the US generally involves an auditable paper trail. Most votes are cast on hand-marked ballots that get counted by machines that aren’t connected to the internet. As a poll worker since 2020, I can personally attest to the inefficiency of this system. It’s often slow and clunky. But that very inefficiency, ironically, makes it incredibly difficult to subvert on a large, impactful scale. It’s a kind of built-in resilience, where the human element and physical record act as a slow, but steady, guardian against digital manipulation.
Despite these inherent safeguards, the government’s efforts to protect elections have faced their own challenges. The Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) poured significant resources into election security for the 2020, 2022, and 2024 elections, demonstrating a clear commitment to safeguarding our democratic process. However, this dedication faced a significant setback when the Trump administration quickly disbanded CISA’s vote-integrity efforts, dramatically slashing its budget and workforce. It’s a stark reminder of how political winds can impact critical national security functions. Aaron Rose from Check Point acknowledged CISA’s valuable work, and expressed a hope that “Perhaps we’ll see a little more federal involvement in election security” in the future. This suggests a desire for more consistent and robust federal backing for these crucial defenses. The fluctuations in support for CISA highlight a broader challenge: election security isn’t just a technical problem; it’s also a political one, susceptible to changing administrations and priorities. The importance of a consistent, well-funded, and empowered agency like CISA cannot be overstated, as it acts as a central hub for coordinating defenses against increasingly sophisticated threats. Without a strong federal commitment, the responsibility, and the burden, to protect our elections can become fragmented and vulnerable.
Beyond the technical attacks, the Check Point report dedicates a significant portion to the less tangible, but equally damaging, threat of influence operations. This is where hostile countries – specifically Russia, China, and Iran – step onto the stage, not with malware, but with narratives designed to sow discord and exploit existing fault lines within society. The report paints a nuanced picture of these efforts. Check Point observes that China seems to be dialing back its direct interference slightly, instead focusing on understanding, amplifying, and exploiting existing social and political divisions. It’s a more subtle approach, like pouring gasoline on an already smoldering fire. Russian operatives, on the other hand, are accused of a more aggressive strategy: working “to amplify distrust, deepen polarization, and increase narrative confusion during politically sensitive periods.” This sounds like an attempt to create a perfect storm of uncertainty and anger, making it harder for people to trust anything or anyone. And Iranian actors, according to the report, are employing multiple tactics to “create confusion and amplify distrust surrounding election activity,” suggesting a broad, multi-pronged approach to destabilize public confidence. What makes all of this even more concerning is the advent of AI. As Rose rightly points out, “Anybody can create fake content” now, making these influence operations cheaper, more convincing, and far more scalable. The ability to churn out realistic-looking fake news, fake videos, and fake audio at an unprecedented rate is a game-changer for those seeking to manipulate public opinion.
However, in its focus on foreign adversaries, the report notably omits two of the most prominent voices undermining trust in American elections from within: Elon Musk and former President Trump. It’s a curious omission, given that Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter), frequently posts unsubstantiated accusations of widespread illegal voting, effectively fanning the flames of doubt among his vast audience. Similarly, the report doesn’t directly address former President Trump’s persistent false claims that he won the 2020 election, despite multiple audits confirming his loss. When pressed on this, Aaron Rose offered a poignant observation about the power of information campaigns: “It’s eroding the trust that people have in the system. If you want to attack a country, go after its foundations.” He eloquently articulates that the damage from eroding trust can be even more severe than physical infrastructure attacks, as it strikes at the very heart of a democratic society. However, he respectfully declined to comment directly on Trump’s statements, perhaps highlighting the sensitive political nature of such assessments even for security experts. This reluctance underscores the delicate balance security firms must strike: identifying threats without being perceived as politically biased. Ultimately, while the technological threats are real and require constant vigilance, the most insidious danger might just be the quiet erosion of faith in the system, no matter the source, leaving us all more vulnerable to manipulation and doubt, and the foundations of our democracy feeling just a little bit shakier.