State officials say federal election briefings have thinned as AI eases foreign influence

State election officials are heading toward the U.S. midterms with fewer election-specific federal briefings, while researchers describe fraying channels for sharing evidence of foreign influence. Those accounts, published October 14 by Nextgov/FCW, expose a coordination gap as security specialists warn that AI is making deceptive campaigns cheaper and easier to run.

The pullback follows decisions to shut down CISA’s election-disinformation work, disband the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force and close the State Department’s office for countering foreign information threats. The Trump administration largely justified those moves on censorship grounds. But cooperation had already cooled during the Biden administration, as Republican litigation over government contacts with social media companies made participants more cautious.

The missing connections

Nextgov/FCW’s David DiMolfetta interviewed current and former federal officials, state election officials and security specialists. Several spoke anonymously, citing fear of retribution or a desire to speak candidly. Their concern was not simply whether Washington still collects intelligence, but whether useful findings reach the people outside government who can act on them.

One state official said regular CISA calls still cover software vulnerabilities and flaws hackers are exploiting, but offer little election-specific information. Monthly meetings through the state’s fusion center also continue to connect law enforcement agencies on threats to election workers. A second official said federal election-threat briefings happen less often than in 2024, while describing their office as better prepared, with multiple backup plans.

Bret Schafer, an information-operations researcher at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, described a wider breakdown. Speaking at an American Bar Association conference, he said he had gone at least two years without an information-sharing conversation with a relevant technology company, and a couple of years without one involving government. He said those exchanges helped participants connect activity that each could see only in part.

Cheaper campaigns, uncertain persuasion

AI’s role extends beyond producing a fake photograph or recording. Snehal Antani, CEO and co-founder of cybersecurity company Horizon3.ai, said operators can use it to write and distribute posts, study audience responses and adjust their messages. AI agents can automate much of that cycle, reducing both the expertise and time required.

AI has dramatically reduced the skills required and dramatically accelerated the speed at which this cycle can be executed

Snehal Antani, CEO and co-founder of Horizon3.ai, speaking to Nextgov/FCW

A former U.S. official said downloadable open-source models also let smaller actors attempt work that once demanded substantial investment and specialized engineering. Generated text can blend into ordinary online conversations, the official said, without the visible flaws that sometimes expose manipulated images or video.

That does not establish electoral impact. A current official cautioned that convincing content and large viewing figures do not necessarily mean people believe a message or change their votes. Some campaigns may reach people who are not eligible to vote at all.

CISA promises support within a narrower remit

CISA says it will activate an Incident Coordination Group before and during Election Day to share critical information and coordinate response. But it referred questions about foreign influence to the Justice Department, saying influence operations fall outside its mission. DOJ did not immediately respond to Nextgov/FCW’s request for comment.

Federal support has not disappeared. The Washington Post reported October 4 that CISA’s midterm security plan included training exercises, risk assessments and threat briefings for states. It designated regional directors as election security advisers to liaise with state authorities.

For state officials, responding to misleading messages also involves a judgment about attention. One official said their office prioritizes false information about when, where and how to vote, alongside threats to election workers. Staff weigh whether a correction would help voters or amplify a claim that might otherwise fade away.