Political appointees serving Donald Trump’s administration asked the US agency responsible for protecting election infrastructure to secretly acquire and hack a voting machine, according to an investigation published on 19 October 2026. Officials allegedly wanted the findings sent to the White House without informing the machine’s manufacturer of any security vulnerabilities. The request was never carried out, but the revelations raise serious questions about the federal government’s handling of election security ahead of the 3 November midterms.
What did Trump administration officials allegedly request?
The investigation, published by independent US newsroom ProPublica, was conducted by journalists Andy Mannix and Doug Bock Clark.
According to two former administration officials familiar with the matter, political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approached the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) during the early months of Trump’s second presidential term in 2025.
They wanted CISA to obtain a voting machine, attempt to identify security vulnerabilities and report its findings through DHS political appointees to the White House.
What reportedly alarmed experienced cybersecurity staff was an additional instruction: the manufacturer was not to be informed about any weaknesses discovered.
That would have departed from the agency’s established approach to identifying security problems so that they could be addressed.
The officials did not identify which voting machine was to be obtained or establish that President Trump personally ordered the request.
Why would keeping vulnerabilities secret be so concerning?
Cybersecurity agencies regularly test computer systems to identify weaknesses before criminals or foreign adversaries can exploit them.
Known as penetration testing, the process can involve deliberately attempting to break into a system under controlled, authorised conditions.
There is nothing inherently suspicious about testing a voting machine for vulnerabilities. Indeed, identifying weaknesses is an essential part of protecting elections.
The concern in this case was the alleged secrecy surrounding the proposed operation and the intended destination of its findings.
Rather than following established procedures for working with voting equipment manufacturers, the political appointees reportedly wanted any discovered weaknesses sent to the White House without notifying the companies capable of addressing them.
One former official told ProPublica they feared the information could be held back and subsequently used to challenge election results the administration disliked.
That concern does not establish that political interference was the intention. However, it raises an important question: why would vulnerabilities be withheld from those responsible for fixing them?
Did the hacking actually happen?
No. ProPublica reports that the proposed operation was not carried out.
Career CISA staff repeatedly explained that the request could not be fulfilled, partly because personnel with the required expertise had already been removed during workforce reductions associated with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative.
According to the investigation, political appointees eventually stopped pursuing the proposal.
There is no evidence in the report that CISA secretly hacked a voting machine as requested, altered votes or manipulated an election result.
That distinction matters. The allegation concerns an attempted use of a federal cybersecurity agency, not a completed election-hacking operation.
More than 1,000 cybersecurity employees removed
The revelations form part of a wider ProPublica investigation into changes at CISA since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025.
The agency was established in 2018 under legislation signed by Trump during his first term.
Its responsibilities include helping state and local election authorities identify cybersecurity threats, protect election infrastructure and respond to attempted attacks.
ProPublica reports that more than 1,000 employees have been laid off or pushed out during Trump’s second term, reducing CISA’s workforce by approximately one-third.
It also reports that the administration’s proposed 2027 budget would reduce the agency’s funding by a further $700 million, potentially resulting in hundreds of additional job losses.
Several state election authorities told investigators they received little or no assistance from CISA during important stages of their preparations for the 2026 midterms.
The agency published a new 2026 election security plan on 24 September, setting out its commitment to protecting election infrastructure.
However, some state officials questioned whether the renewed commitment had come too late to restore earlier working relationships.
A separate investigation examined voting machines in Puerto Rico
The ProPublica findings also follow a separate investigation by Reuters, published on 2 October 2026.
Reuters examined how Trump administration officials pursued claims about voting machines and alleged manipulation of the 2020 presidential election.
That investigation documented a 2025 operation in Puerto Rico involving voting equipment used in the territory’s 2024 elections.
The operation involved federal officials, cybersecurity specialists and Kurt Olsen, a Trump ally who had promoted claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
Investigators examined equipment and pursued theories concerning potential foreign interference.
Although the examination identified some vulnerabilities that could be addressed, it found no evidence that votes had been manipulated or that foreign actors had altered the 2020 election result.
Reuters reported that Olsen’s efforts subsequently expanded, drawing on multiple federal agencies and prompting concerns among election officials about increasing federal involvement in voting systems.
This was a separate investigation from the unfulfilled request reported by ProPublica. There is no established evidence that the two operations were the same initiative.
What has the White House said?
The White House defended Trump’s election-security record in response to ProPublica’s investigation.
Spokesperson Lauren Bis maintained that the president had taken extensive steps to protect free and fair elections.
She directed questions about CISA’s election-related activities to the Department of Homeland Security.
According to ProPublica, neither DHS nor CISA responded to interview requests or detailed questions about the investigation.
The White House’s general defence of its record does not independently resolve the allegations concerning the proposed secret hacking operation.
Why does this matter before the November midterms?
Americans will vote on 3 November 2026 in elections that will determine control of Congress and affect the remaining two years of Trump’s presidency.
Election security has become an increasingly contentious political issue following Trump’s repeated claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
Those claims have not been substantiated by the extensive investigations, recounts, audits and legal proceedings conducted since that election.
The latest revelations create a difficult situation for the federal agency tasked with helping protect future votes.
CISA needs state election officials and equipment manufacturers to share sensitive information about potential vulnerabilities. That cooperation depends on confidence that the information will be handled responsibly.
If those organisations believe security findings might instead be withheld or used for political purposes, they may become less willing to cooperate.
That could make genuine cybersecurity threats harder to detect and address.
It does not, however, mean that the November elections have been compromised or that voting machines have been manipulated.
The unanswered questions
The ProPublica investigation leaves several important questions unresolved.
Who originally authorised the request to secretly obtain a voting machine? Which manufacturer or equipment was being considered? Why were officials allegedly instructed not to disclose vulnerabilities? And who, if anyone, within the White House knew about the proposal?
Equally important is whether the remaining cybersecurity infrastructure is sufficiently equipped to support state election authorities during the coming vote.
The reported request was abandoned, and no completed hacking operation has been established.
But with an election approaching and public confidence in the electoral system already under pressure, the circumstances surrounding that request warrant scrutiny.
The central issue is not simply whether voting machines can be hacked. It is whether the government institutions entrusted with protecting elections are being permitted to operate independently, transparently and in the interests of voters.
