Illumio CTO urges election safeguards beyond AI deepfake detection

Election officials face a problem bigger than spotting a convincing fake video: protecting the systems that collect and move results. In an interview published October 30, 2026, Illumio public sector chief technology officer Gary Barlet urged stronger technical safeguards and federal assistance, while arguing that AI can help defenders as well as attackers.

Speaking with MeriTalk’s Lisbeth Perez, Barlet described two distinct security challenges. Widely available AI tools make realistic election falsehoods easier to produce, he said. Separately, the connections between systems that handle election results deserve closer scrutiny, particularly where information from multiple locations comes together for final tabulation.

False content needs a fast response

Barlet’s concern about synthetic audio and video centers on accessibility. People do not need expert skills to use the tools, he said, making it easier to create realistic material that spreads false information about elections. He wants the response to involve the companies building those tools, the platforms distributing content and officials answering election-related claims.

• AI developers should watermark synthetic content so generated material can be identified.
• Social media platforms should label manipulated material.
• Election officials should respond quickly when false claims circulate.

He also sees a defensive role for AI in checking information. Tools could help voters trace a claim to its original source and compare it across independent outlets, he said. His condition is usability: those checks need to be easy for voters to carry out, not merely technically possible.

That leaves Barlet more optimistic about AI overall than his warnings alone might suggest. He told MeriTalk he does not expect the technology to end democracy or fair elections, and believes its total benefit will outweigh its harm. That is his assessment, rather than a measured outcome presented in the interview.

Protecting the points where results meet

His prescription starts with understanding the infrastructure: identify critical systems and establish which other systems they communicate with. Officials should then limit unnecessary access, including direct internet connections. He recommended containment boundaries around critical assets, meaning restrictions that allow those systems to communicate only with the systems they actually need.

Local defenses, federal resources

Barlet recommended AI-powered defensive tools alongside basic cybersecurity measures, rather than as a replacement for them. But he also described a resource constraint: many local jurisdictions lack the staffing and budgets to put sophisticated protections in place independently. His proposed response includes federal capabilities and funding to help officials implement security guardrails locally.

His call for federal support extends beyond purchasing tools. Barlet said agencies should improve how they share intelligence about potential election-related cyber threats with state and local officials. He also called for coordination among government, technology companies and election stakeholders, placing responsibility for election security across those groups rather than with local offices alone.