Connect with us

The Conversation

Texas is already policing the Mexican border − and will play an outsize role in any Trump plan to crack down on immigration

Published

on

theconversation.com – Dan DeBree, Associate Professor of the Practice, Texas A&M University – 2025-01-17 15:29:00

Maverick County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Sgt. Aaron Horta, EMT operators and Border Patrol officers carry a body out of a canal on June 28, 2023, in Eagle Pass, Texas.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Dan DeBree, Texas A&M University

Over the past half-decade, the state of Texas has been pushing an evolution in the administration and enforcement of immigration law. Stepping into a traditional federal role, state lawmakers in 2023 passed Senate Bill 4, allowing Texas police to arrest those illegally crossing the border from Mexico.

But that law, which survived court challenges, is not the only place where the state has taken on traditional federal responsibilities. The Conversation’s senior politics editor, Naomi Schalit, spoke with Texas A&M professor Dan DeBree, a former Homeland Security official and Air Force veteran, about the other moves Texas has made that likely put it in a position to be a key player in carrying out immigration enforcement actions by the Trump administration.

What role has Texas taken in immigration enforcement at what levels of government?

Texas is the epicenter of the struggle between federal and state entities.

Traditionally, immigration and border security has been the role of federal law enforcement agencies, first and foremost Customs and Border Protection, which includes the Border Patrol.

Another essential federal agency is Immigration and Customs Enforcement, more commonly known as ICE. One portion of ICE – enforcement and removal operations – is responsible for conducting deportations and taking people back to their country of origin.

Customs and Border Protection is concentrated along the southern border. They cooperate closely with Texas and its Department of Public Safety.

By the nature of law enforcement, they’re generally cooperating very closely with them at all times. As an example, in a search and rescue mission, whichever agency is closest – the local sheriff’s department or state Department of Public Safety or federal Border Patrol – cooperates on a very granular level with the nearest available assets to find the missing person.

A woman in a uniform searches a man dressed in black who is leaning against a van outside.
A Maverick County sheriff searches a migrant as a group of migrants of different nationalities arrive at the Mexico-U.S. border in Maverick County, Texas, on Feb. 4, 2024.
Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images

Traditionally, the Texas Department of Public Safety would not be primarily responsible for apprehending border crossers. On the border, that is purely the purview of Customs and Border Patrol. And for a long time now, the National Guard, whether it be the Texas National Guard or from other states, has had a role in border security too. The Texas National Guard is deployed within Texas.

But there’s also National Guard from around the country who, in small batches, usually are deployed to either take some of the pressure off of a state, whether it be Arizona or Texas, to help them with that mission. Those are not federal troops. They’re state troops, serving under and deployed by the governor. There are also some federal troops in a joint task force used primarily for support purposes and not deployed in the field to do apprehensions.

It’s not every border state that has its police function getting involved in border enforcement. How did that develop over the past five years?

That developed mainly because this is an unprecedented migration. So at times – both geographically and temporally – Border Patrol would be overwhelmed. They’ve got a thin green line out there – they wear green uniforms – that just can’t hold it all back. And obviously there was tension between the administration in Texas, with the Biden administration in particular.

Some of these cities on the border were quite overwhelmed. You know, I remember seeing at a conference a representative from El Paso speaking to a representative from New York City, and the person from New York City was complaining about being overwhelmed by migrants. The detective from El Paso, from the Department of Public Safety, calmly responded with his corresponding numbers, and they were just staggering for a city of that size.

And you know, in El Paso, you can say, “Hey, this is a federal responsibility to take care of this all you want.” But if, in reality, it’s not happening because the federal assets are being overwhelmed through no fault of their own, then something needs to be done, right?

So that’s basically a political conflict between the state government and the federal government over what’s not being done. And I do have sympathy for all border states, but Texas in particular, and these border areas. There is a humanitarian crisis. That’s what I call it. It’s a humanitarian crisis going on on the border – caused by an unprecedented worldwide migration – and it does need to be addressed.

A large crowd of people in military uniforms standing outside.
Texas Tactical Border Force guardsmen arrive at the Million Air El Paso, Texas, airport on March 26, 2024, to provide extra security along El Paso’s southern border.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Besides the federal presence, this state involvement includes everything from the National Guard down to local police. It’s pretty much every level of government in Texas that’s involved in this?

I have a capstone research project with the Brooks County Sheriff’s Department. The immigration or humanitarian crisis on the border is overwhelming them. They have many, many, many unrecovered remains out in the desert over 942 square miles.

With few deputies patrolling that wide area, it will take generations to address that. And then, every day, particularly in the summer, they must conduct search and rescues for migrants who are in distress. There’s a steady flow of migrants through Brooks County. When they realize that they’re not going to make it they call 911, and every level of law enforcement is involved at some point or can be involved.

How do you see what Texas is doing meshing with a new federal immigration and border policy from the Trump administration?

The Texas state government will probably be lined up more closely with the new administration in their contention that there’s an invasion at the border. While I personally don’t like that term, I think there are sympathetic ears in the Trump administration to that argument, so I think that there will be cooperation or more support or funding from federal agencies.

I think, though, at the tactical level, such as the Brooks County sheriff dealing with the state Department of Public Safety and dealing with Customs and Border Patrol, I don’t think there’ll be much change.

When I was at the Department of Homeland Security, I worked for the Obama administration. Then I worked for the Trump administration, and then at the end I worked for the Biden administration. And you know, you would have thought that there would be drastic changes and big rudder movements, but there really weren’t.

The behemoth of a federal bureaucracy is pretty tough to move. Every administration comes in promising big, big changes, and in the end it usually falls short of the drastic promises.

There will be executive orders on immigration at the federal level, and we have seen the same tool used at the state level. And I understand this is part of politics. As an example, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared Mexican drug cartels or criminal organizations as terrorist organizations via executive order. I’m not necessarily on board with that – again, definitions are important – but sometimes words are used for emphasis or to even be inflammatory. I think we’ll see less of that from the state, because I think that the two administrations will be more aligned, so there won’t be a need for it.

My border security classes tends to result in more emotion than almost any other class I teach. When I talk to the students, I like to back up a second and go, “Whatever we think about this, it is a humanitarian crisis.”

I don’t know that it can be solved, but we have got to figure out a way to mitigate it, and what we’re doing when we mitigate a humanitarian crisis is we’re reducing human suffering. And I don’t think there’s anybody on any side of the aisle who can’t get on board with that, and that’s the way I frame it.The Conversation

Dan DeBree, Associate Professor of the Practice, Texas A&M University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Texas is already policing the Mexican border − and will play an outsize role in any Trump plan to crack down on immigration appeared first on theconversation.com

The Conversation

Rural hospitals will be hit hard by Trump’s signature spending package

Published

on

theconversation.com – Lauren S. Hughes, State Policy Director, Farley Health Policy Center; Associate Professor of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus – 2025-07-06 13:38:00


The 2025 federal spending package signed by President Trump cuts Medicaid funding by over $1 trillion across a decade, risking 11.8 million Americans losing health coverage. Rural Americans—nearly 20% of the population—are especially vulnerable, as they rely heavily on Medicaid and face increased work requirements and red tape that will reduce coverage. These cuts will force rural hospitals to reduce services, lay off staff, delay equipment purchases, or close entirely. Despite a $50 billion Rural Health Transformation fund, the amount is insufficient to offset $155 billion in lost federal spending. Hospital closures threaten not only health access but also rural economies and the national economy.

Health policy experts predict that cuts to Medicaid will push more rural hospitals to close.
sneakpeekpic via iStock / Getty Images Plus

Lauren S. Hughes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Kevin J. Bennett, University of South Carolina

The public health provisions in the massive spending package that President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025, will reduce Medicaid spending by more than US$1 trillion over a decade and result in an estimated 11.8 million people losing health insurance coverage.

As researchers studying rural health and health policy, we anticipate that these reductions in Medicaid spending, along with changes to the Affordable Care Act, will disproportionately affect the 66 million people living in rural America – nearly 1 in 5 Americans.

People who live in rural areas are more likely to have health insurance through Medicaid and are at greater risk of losing that coverage. We expect that the changes brought about by this new law will lead to a rise in unpaid care that hospitals will have to provide. As a result, small, local hospitals will have to make tough decisions that include changing or eliminating services, laying off staff and delaying the purchase of new equipment. Many rural hospitals will have to reduce their services or possibly close their doors altogether.

Hits to rural health

The budget legislation’s biggest effect on rural America comes from changes to the Medicaid program, which represent the largest federal rollback of health insurance coverage in the U.S. to date.

First, the legislation changes how states can finance their share of the Medicaid program by restricting where funds states use to support their Medicaid programs can come from. This bill limits how states can tax and charge fees to hospitals, managed care organizations and other health care providers, and how they can use such taxes and fees in the future to pay higher rates to providers under Medicaid. These limitations will reduce payments to rural hospitals that depend upon Medicaid to keep their doors open.

Rural hospitals play a crucial role in health care access.

Second, by 2027, states must institute work requirements that demand most Medicaid enrollees work 80 hours per month or be in school at least half time. Arkansas’ brief experiment with work requirements in 2018 demonstrates that rather than boost employment, the policy increases bureaucracy, hindering access to health care benefits for eligible people. States will also now be required to verify Medicaid eligibility every six months versus annually. That change also increases the risk people will lose coverage due to extra red tape.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that work requirements instituted through this legislative package will result in nearly 5 million people losing Medicaid coverage. This will decrease the number of paying patients at rural hospitals and increase the unpaid care hospitals must provide, further damaging their ability to stay open.

Additionally, the bill changes how people qualify for the premium tax credits within the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this change, along with other changes to the ACA such as fewer and shorter enrollment periods and additional requirements for documenting income, will reduce the number of people insured through the ACA Marketplace by about 3 million by 2034. Premium tax credits were expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, helping millions of Americans obtain coverage who previously struggled to do so. This bill lets these expanded tax credits expire, which with may result in an additional 4.2 million people becoming uninsured.

An insufficient stop-gap

Senators from both sides of the aisle have voiced concerns about the legislative package’s potential effects on the financial stability of rural hospitals and frontier hospitals, which are facilities located in remote areas with fewer than six people per square mile. As a result, the Senate voted to set aside $50 billion over the next five years for a newly created Rural Health Transformation Program.

These funds are to be allocated in two ways. Half will be directly distributed equally to states that submit an application that includes a rural health transformation plan detailing how rural hospitals will improve the delivery and quality of health care. The remainder will be distributed to states in varying amounts through a process that is currently unknown.

While additional funding to support rural health facilities is welcome, how it is distributed and how much is available will be critical. Estimates suggest that rural areas will see a reduction of $155 billion in federal spending over 10 years, with much of that concentrated in 12 states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and have large proportions of rural residents.

That means $50 billion is not enough to offset cuts to Medicaid and other programs that will reduce funds flowing to rural health facilities.

An older bearded white man in a yellow shirt sits on a hospital bed in an exam room
Americans living in rural areas are more likely to be insured through Medicaid than their urban counterparts.
Halfpoint Images/Moment via Getty Images

Accelerating hospital closures

Rural and frontier hospitals have long faced hardship because of their aging infrastructure, older and sicker patient populations, geographic isolation and greater financial and regulatory burdens. Since 2010, 153 rural hospitals have closed their doors permanently or ceased providing inpatient services. This trend is particularly acute in states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid via the Affordable Care Act, many of which have larger percentages of their residents living in rural areas.

According to an analysis by University of North Carolina researchers, as of June 2025 338 hospitals are at risk of reducing vital services, such as skilled nursing facilities; converting to an alternative type of health care facility, such as a rural emergency hospital; or closing altogether.

Maternity care is especially at risk.

Currently more than half of rural hospitals no longer deliver babies. Rural facilities serve fewer patients than those in more densely populated areas. They also have high fixed costs, and because they serve a high percentage of Medicaid patients, they rely on payments from Medicaid, which tends to pay lower rates than commercial insurance. Because of these pressures, these units will continue to close, forcing women to travel farther to give birth, to deliver before going full term and to deliver outside of traditional hospital settings.

And because hospitals in rural areas serve relatively small populations, they lack negotiating power to obtain fair and adequate payment from private health insurers and affordable equipment and supplies from medical companies. Recruiting and retaining needed physicians and other health care workers is expensive, and acquiring capital to renovate, expand or build new facilities is increasingly out of reach.

Finally, given that rural residents are more likely to have Medicaid than their urban counterparts, the legislation’s cuts to Medicaid will disproportionately reduce the rate at which rural providers and health facilities are paid by Medicaid for services they offer. With many rural hospitals already teetering on closure, this will place already financially fragile hospitals on an accelerated path toward demise.

Far-reaching effects

Rural hospitals are not just sources of local health care. They are also vital economic engines.

Hospital closures result in the loss of local access to health care, causing residents to choose between traveling longer distances to see a doctor or forgoing the services they need.

But hospitals in these regions are also major employers that often pay some of the highest wages in their communities. Their closure can drive a decline in the local tax base, limiting funding available for services such as roads and public schools and making it more difficult to attract and retain businesses that small towns depend on. Declines in rural health care undermine local economies.

Furthermore, the country as a whole relies on rural America for the production of food, fuel and other natural resources. In our view, further weakening rural hospitals may affect not just local economies but the health of the whole U.S. economy.The Conversation

Lauren S. Hughes, State Policy Director, Farley Health Policy Center; Associate Professor of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Kevin J. Bennett, Professor of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of South Carolina

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Rural hospitals will be hit hard by Trump’s signature spending package appeared first on theconversation.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This content critically assesses a Republican-backed spending package signed by former President Donald Trump, highlighting its negative impacts on Medicaid and rural healthcare. The detailed discussion of the potential harm to vulnerable populations, emphasis on Medicaid cuts, and skepticism about work requirements align with a Center-Left perspective concerned with social welfare and public health. While it acknowledges bipartisan concern about rural hospital funding, the overall tone and focus on the consequences of policy changes reflect a moderate progressive lean rather than a purely neutral or conservative viewpoint.

Continue Reading

The Conversation

I’m a physician who has looked at hundreds of studies of vaccine safety, and here’s some of what RFK Jr. gets wrong

Published

on

theconversation.com – Jake Scott, Clinical Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University – 2025-06-26 07:31:00


Robert F. Kennedy Jr., since becoming Health and Human Services secretary, has made many false claims about vaccines, including exaggerating mandatory shots for children and alleging conflicts of interest among vaccine advisers. In reality, children receive about 30-32 required vaccine doses protecting against 10-12 diseases, far fewer than his claimed 92. Modern vaccines contain far fewer antigens and improved adjuvants, reducing immune burden. Controlled trials, including placebo comparisons, have tested all routine vaccines extensively. U.S. monitoring systems track vaccine safety continuously. Allegations of widespread conflicts of interest among advisers are unfounded, and vaccines have significantly reduced childhood illnesses and deaths.

Public health experts worry that factually inaccurate statements by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. threaten the public’s confidence in vaccines.
Andrew HarnikGetty Images

Jake Scott, Stanford University

In the four months since he began serving as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made many public statements about vaccines that have cast doubt on their safety and on the objectivity of long-standing processes established to evaluate them.

Many of these statements are factually incorrect. For example, in a newscast aired on June 12, 2025, Kennedy told Fox News viewers that 97% of federal vaccine advisers are on the take. In the same interview, he also claimed that children receive 92 mandatory shots. He has also widely claimed that only COVID-19 vaccines, not other vaccines in use by both children and adults, were ever tested against placebos and that “nobody has any idea” how safe routine immunizations are.

As an infectious disease physician who curates an open database of hundreds of controlled vaccine trials involving over 6 million participants, I am intimately familiar with the decades of research on vaccine safety. I believe it is important to correct the record – especially because these statements come from the official who now oversees the agencies charged with protecting Americans’ health.

Do children really receive 92 mandatory shots?

In 1986, the childhood vaccine schedule contained about 11 doses protecting against seven diseases. Today, it includes roughly 50 injections covering 16 diseases. State school entry laws typically require 30 to 32 shots across 10 to 12 diseases. No state mandates COVID-19 vaccination. Where Kennedy’s “92 mandatory shots” figure comes from is unclear, but the actual number is significantly lower.

From a safety standpoint, the more important question is whether today’s schedule with additional vaccines might be too taxing for children’s immune systems. It isn’t, because as vaccine technology improved over the past several decades, the number of antigens in each vaccine dose is much lower than before.

Antigens are the molecules in vaccines that trigger a response from the immune system, training it to identify the specific pathogen. Some vaccines contain a minute amount of aluminum salt that serves as an adjuvant – a helper ingredient that improves the quality and staying power of the immune response, so each dose can protect with less antigen.

Those 11 doses in 1986 delivered more than 3,000 antigens and 1.5 milligrams of aluminum over 18 years. Today’s complete schedule delivers roughly 165 antigens – which is a 95% reduction – and 5-6 milligrams of aluminum in the same time frame. A single smallpox inoculation in 1900 exposed a child to more antigens than today’s complete series.

A black-and-white photo of a doctor in a white coat giving an injection to a boy who is held by a female nurse.
Jonas Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine, administers a dose to a boy in 1954.
Underwood Archives via Getty Images

Since 1986, the United States has introduced vaccines against Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis A and B, chickenpox, pneumococcal disease, rotavirus and human papillomavirus. Each addition represents a life-saving advance.

The incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type b, a bacterial infection that can cause pneumonia, meningitis and other severe diseases, has dropped by 99% in infants. Pediatric hepatitis infections are down more than 90%, and chickenpox hospitalizations are down about 90%. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that vaccinating children born from 1994 to 2023 will avert 508 million illnesses and 1,129,000 premature deaths.

Placebo testing for vaccines

Kennedy has asserted that only COVID-19 vaccines have undergone rigorous safety trials in which they were tested against placebos. This is categorically wrong.

Of the 378 controlled trials in our database, 195 compared volunteers’ response to a vaccine with their response to a placebo. Of those, 159 gave volunteers only a salt water solution or another inert substance. Another 36 gave them just the adjuvant without any viral or bacterial material, as a way to see whether there were side effects from the antigen itself or the injection. Every routine childhood vaccine antigen appears in at least one such study.

The 1954 Salk polio trial, one of the largest clinical trials in medical history, enrolled more than 600,000 children and tested the vaccine by comparing it with a salt water control. Similar trials, which used a substance that has no biological effect as a control, were used to test Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal, rotavirus, influenza and HPV vaccines.

Once an effective vaccine exists, ethics boards require new versions be compared against that licensed standard because withholding proven protection from children would be unethical.

How unknown is the safety of widely used vaccines?

Kennedy has insisted on multiple occasions that “nobody has any idea” about vaccine safety profiles. Of the 378 trials in our database, the vast majority published detailed safety outcomes.

Beyond trials, the U.S. operates the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Vaccine Safety Datalink and the PRISM network to monitor hundreds of millions of doses for rare problems. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System works like an open mailbox where anyone – patients, parents, clinicians – can report a post-shot problem; the Vaccine Safety Datalink analyzes anonymized electronic health records from large health care systems to spot patterns; and PRISM scans billions of insurance claims in near-real time to confirm or rule out rare safety signals.

These systems led health officials to pull the first rotavirus vaccine in 1999 after it was linked to bowel obstruction, and to restrict the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in 2021 after rare clotting events. Few drug classes undergo such continuous surveillance and are subject to such swift corrective action when genuine risks emerge.

The conflicts of interest claim

On June 9, Kennedy took the unprecedented step of dissolving vetted members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the expert body that advises the CDC on national vaccine policy. He has claimed repeatedly that the vast majority of serving members of the committee – 97% – had extensive conflicts of interest because of their entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry. Kennedy bases that number on a 2009 federal audit of conflict-of-interest paperwork, but that report looked at 17 CDC advisory committees, not specifically this vaccine committee. And it found no pervasive wrongdoing – 97% of disclosure forms only contained routine paperwork mistakes, such as information in the wrong box or a missing initial, and not hidden financial ties.

Reuters examined data from Open Payments, a government website that discloses health care providers’ relationships with industry, for all 17 voting members of the committee who were dismissed. Six received no more than US$80 from drugmakers over seven years, and four had no payments at all.

The remaining seven members accepted between $4,000 and $55,000 over seven years, mostly for modest consulting or travel. In other words, just 41% of the committee received anything more than pocket change from drugmakers. Committee members must divest vaccine company stock and recuse themselves from votes involving conflicts.

A term without a meaning

Kennedy has warned that vaccines cause “immune deregulation,” a term that has no basis in immunology. Vaccines train the immune system, and the diseases they prevent are the real threats to immune function.

Measles can wipe immune memory, leaving children vulnerable to other infections for years. COVID-19 can trigger multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. Chronic hepatitis B can cause immune-mediated organ damage. Preventing these conditions protects people from immune system damage.

Today’s vaccine panel doesn’t just prevent infections; it deters doctor visits and thereby reduces unnecessary prescriptions for “just-in-case” antibiotics. It’s one of the rare places in medicine where physicians like me now do more good with less biological burden than we did 40 years ago.

The evidence is clear and publicly available: Vaccines have dramatically reduced childhood illness, disability and death on a historic scale.The Conversation

Jake Scott, Clinical Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post I’m a physician who has looked at hundreds of studies of vaccine safety, and here’s some of what RFK Jr. gets wrong appeared first on theconversation.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This content presents a science-based and fact-checked critique of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s statements on vaccines, emphasizing the importance of established public health measures and vaccine safety. It supports mainstream medical consensus and public health institutions like the CDC, while challenging anti-vaccine rhetoric associated with certain political or ideological positions. The tone is objective but leans toward defending regulatory agencies and vaccine advocacy, which aligns more closely with Center-Left perspectives favoring public health expertise and government intervention in health policy.

Continue Reading

The Conversation

Cyberattacks shake voters’ trust in elections, regardless of party

Published

on

theconversation.com – Ryan Shandler, Professor of Cybersecurity and International Relations, Georgia Institute of Technology – 2025-06-27 07:29:00


American democracy faces a crisis of trust, with nearly half of Americans doubting election fairness. This mistrust stems not only from polarization and misinformation but also from unease about the digital infrastructure behind voting. While over 95% of ballots are now counted electronically, this complexity fuels skepticism, especially amid foreign disinformation campaigns that amplify doubts about election security. A study during the 2024 election showed that exposure to cyberattack reports, even unrelated to elections, significantly undermines voter confidence, particularly among those using digital voting machines. To protect democracy, it’s vital to pair secure technology with public education and treat trust as a national asset.

An election worker installs a touchscreen voting machine.
Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Ryan Shandler, Georgia Institute of Technology; Anthony J. DeMattee, Emory University, and Bruce Schneier, Harvard Kennedy School

American democracy runs on trust, and that trust is cracking.

Nearly half of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, question whether elections are conducted fairly. Some voters accept election results only when their side wins. The problem isn’t just political polarization – it’s a creeping erosion of trust in the machinery of democracy itself.

Commentators blame ideological tribalism, misinformation campaigns and partisan echo chambers for this crisis of trust. But these explanations miss a critical piece of the puzzle: a growing unease with the digital infrastructure that now underpins nearly every aspect of how Americans vote.

The digital transformation of American elections has been swift and sweeping. Just two decades ago, most people voted using mechanical levers or punch cards. Today, over 95% of ballots are counted electronically. Digital systems have replaced poll books, taken over voter identity verification processes and are integrated into registration, counting, auditing and voting systems.

This technological leap has made voting more accessible and efficient, and sometimes more secure. But these new systems are also more complex. And that complexity plays into the hands of those looking to undermine democracy.

In recent years, authoritarian regimes have refined a chillingly effective strategy to chip away at Americans’ faith in democracy by relentlessly sowing doubt about the tools U.S. states use to conduct elections. It’s a sustained campaign to fracture civic faith and make Americans believe that democracy is rigged, especially when their side loses.

This is not cyberwar in the traditional sense. There’s no evidence that anyone has managed to break into voting machines and alter votes. But cyberattacks on election systems don’t need to succeed to have an effect. Even a single failed intrusion, magnified by sensational headlines and political echo chambers, is enough to shake public trust. By feeding into existing anxiety about the complexity and opacity of digital systems, adversaries create fertile ground for disinformation and conspiracy theories.

Just before the 2024 presidential election, Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Jen Easterly explains how foreign influence campaigns erode trust in U.S. elections.

Testing cyber fears

To test this dynamic, we launched a study to uncover precisely how cyberattacks corroded trust in the vote during the 2024 U.S. presidential race. We surveyed more than 3,000 voters before and after election day, testing them using a series of fictional but highly realistic breaking news reports depicting cyberattacks against critical infrastructure. We randomly assigned participants to watch different types of news reports: some depicting cyberattacks on election systems, others on unrelated infrastructure such as the power grid, and a third, neutral control group.

The results, which are under peer review, were both striking and sobering. Mere exposure to reports of cyberattacks undermined trust in the electoral process – regardless of partisanship. Voters who supported the losing candidate experienced the greatest drop in trust, with two-thirds of Democratic voters showing heightened skepticism toward the election results.

But winners too showed diminished confidence. Even though most Republican voters, buoyed by their victory, accepted the overall security of the election, the majority of those who viewed news reports about cyberattacks remained suspicious.

The attacks didn’t even have to be related to the election. Even cyberattacks against critical infrastructure such as utilities had spillover effects. Voters seemed to extrapolate: “If the power grid can be hacked, why should I believe that voting machines are secure?”

Strikingly, voters who used digital machines to cast their ballots were the most rattled. For this group of people, belief in the accuracy of the vote count fell by nearly twice as much as that of voters who cast their ballots by mail and who didn’t use any technology. Their firsthand experience with the sorts of systems being portrayed as vulnerable personalized the threat.

It’s not hard to see why. When you’ve just used a touchscreen to vote, and then you see a news report about a digital system being breached, the leap in logic isn’t far.

Our data suggests that in a digital society, perceptions of trust – and distrust – are fluid, contagious and easily activated. The cyber domain isn’t just about networks and code. It’s also about emotions: fear, vulnerability and uncertainty.

Firewall of trust

Does this mean we should scrap electronic voting machines? Not necessarily.

Every election system, digital or analog, has flaws. And in many respects, today’s high-tech systems have solved the problems of the past with voter-verifiable paper ballots. Modern voting machines reduce human error, increase accessibility and speed up the vote count. No one misses the hanging chads of 2000.

But technology, no matter how advanced, cannot instill legitimacy on its own. It must be paired with something harder to code: public trust. In an environment where foreign adversaries amplify every flaw, cyberattacks can trigger spirals of suspicion. It is no longer enough for elections to be secure − voters must also perceive them to be secure.

That’s why public education surrounding elections is now as vital to election security as firewalls and encrypted networks. It’s vital that voters understand how elections are run, how they’re protected and how failures are caught and corrected. Election officials, civil society groups and researchers can teach how audits work, host open-source verification demonstrations and ensure that high-tech electoral processes are comprehensible to voters.

We believe this is an essential investment in democratic resilience. But it needs to be proactive, not reactive. By the time the doubt takes hold, it’s already too late.

Just as crucially, we are convinced that it’s time to rethink the very nature of cyber threats. People often imagine them in military terms. But that framework misses the true power of these threats. The danger of cyberattacks is not only that they can destroy infrastructure or steal classified secrets, but that they chip away at societal cohesion, sow anxiety and fray citizens’ confidence in democratic institutions. These attacks erode the very idea of truth itself by making people doubt that anything can be trusted.

If trust is the target, then we believe that elected officials should start to treat trust as a national asset: something to be built, renewed and defended. Because in the end, elections aren’t just about votes being counted – they’re about people believing that those votes count.

And in that belief lies the true firewall of democracy.The Conversation

Ryan Shandler, Professor of Cybersecurity and International Relations, Georgia Institute of Technology; Anthony J. DeMattee, Data Scientist and Adjunct Instructor, Emory University, and Bruce Schneier, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Cyberattacks shake voters’ trust in elections, regardless of party appeared first on theconversation.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

This article presents a balanced and fact-focused analysis of trust issues surrounding American elections, emphasizing concerns shared across the political spectrum. It highlights the complexity of digital voting infrastructure and the external threats posed by misinformation and foreign influence without promoting partisan viewpoints. The tone is neutral, grounded in data and research, avoiding ideological framing or advocacy. The piece calls for bipartisan solutions like public education and institutional trust-building, reflecting a centrist perspective that prioritizes democratic resilience over partisan blame.

Continue Reading

Trending