Trump Forces Out 3 EAC Members as CISA Loses a Third of Staff
Updated
Updated · The New York Times · Jul 17
Trump Forces Out 3 EAC Members as CISA Loses a Third of Staff
3 articles · Updated · The New York Times · Jul 17
Summary
Three remaining Election Assistance Commission members were forced out this month, stripping the bipartisan agency that helps states run elections and provides cybersecurity support.
That move caps broader cuts to federal election defenses under Trump’s second term: CISA has lost about a third of its 3,400-person workforce since January 2025, and more than a dozen election-security staff were put on leave.
The retrenchment has spread beyond CISA, with the FBI reducing election-security work and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence gutting the Foreign Malign Influence Center that tracked foreign election threats.
Trump publicly says he wants voter data better protected, but his hostility to federal election-security efforts dates to 2020, when CISA director Christopher Krebs affirmed the election’s integrity and was fired.
With federal agencies cutting election security, who is now protecting the midterms from foreign cyber threats?
How are states preparing for election threats without federal intelligence and cybersecurity support?
Unprecedented Federal Overhaul: Trump’s Removal of EAC Commissioners and CISA Cuts Threaten 2026 Election Integrity
Overview
In July 2026, President Donald Trump removed all remaining members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), leaving the agency without leadership just as the country prepared for midterm elections. This action followed the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which dramatically expanded the President’s authority to remove appointed federal officials. The ruling signaled major changes for independent federal agencies, allowing the President greater control and raising concerns about the EAC’s ability to support election administration. These developments highlight a shift toward centralized executive power and create uncertainty for the future of U.S. election oversight.