Election infrastructure has ‘never been more secure,’ CISA chief says
ABC News
(Washington, D.C.) — With less than a week before the 2024 presidential election, the infrastructure has “never been more secure,” according to the head of the federal agency tasked with America’s cyber defense.
Jen Easterly, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), told ABC News’ Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas that she has “incredible confidence” in the security of the election.
“I understand why some Americans have questions, because they’ve been subjected for years to a fire hose of disinformation, and it has undermined confidence in the election systems and in our democratic institutions, but I have spent so much time on the ground over the past three plus years with state and local election officials who are on the front lines of running and managing and defending election infrastructure, and I can tell you, I have incredible confidence that our election infrastructure has never been more secure,” Easterly said during an interview at CISA headquarters.
“Election officials have never been better prepared to deliver safe and secure and free and fair elections for the people,” she said.
For example, she said that 97% of registered voters will cast a ballot in jurisdictions where they’ll get a paper record that they themselves can verify, which is “incredibly important,” she said.
Voting machines are not connected to the internet and that is a “great source of protection.”
That disinformation is being amplified by foreign adversaries, according to Easterly, who pointed to various examples of disinformation already being debunked — such as a fake video of ballots being destroyed in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
She said foreign adversaries have two goals: to undermine American confidence in the election and sow discord in the country.
“Within a day, the federal government used our tools, our forensic analysis, to affirm that it was a fake video, that it was a Russian manufactured video,” she said. “So at the end of the day, we are going to lean very far forward when we see inaccurate information that could undermine Americans trust in elections.”
CISA is also responsible for advising election officials on the physical security of their election.
“As a retired Army officer, as a combat veteran who has been in very dangerous places where we’ve had flak jackets and, you know, we’ve been behind layers of security, it is disconcerting to me, as an American, to see election offices with bulletproof glass and panic buttons and barbed wire fences,” Easterly said. “That’s not the way it should be in America, and we know that these threats, harassment, bullying, swatting, threats of violence to election officials and their families, election officials of both parties largely stemming from unfounded claims that the 2020 election was rigged.”
She said election workers are not “faceless bureaucrats,” but rather friends and neighbors.
“They’re not doing it for pay or for glory. They’re doing it because they believe in our democracy, and they deserve respect, they deserve gratitude, and they deserve to be safe,” she said,
The director said recent incidents such as the ballot boxes being set on fire in Oregon and Washington and the denial of service attack against the Georgia Secretary of State’s office are expected to happen but voters should be assured there is no impact on their elections.
“What Americans should understand is these incidents will not impact the security or integrity of votes being cast or those votes being counted as cast. And election officials have trained for this, they’ve exercised for it, they’ve prepared for this – all manner of scenarios, whether it’s ballots that need to be replaced or cyber security threats that need to be dealt with, or for criminal activity like fraudulent registrations that need to be investigated And the perpetrators held criminally accountable. Election officials are prepared for this. They’re ready for this to meet this moment.”
(WASHINGTON) — The FBI and Defense Department are investigating what could be a significant intelligence breach, disclosing what appears to be classified information about Israel’s plans to strike Iran, U.S. officials said Monday.
Here’s what we know so far:
Two leaked documents seem to divulge US analysis on Israel’s plans against Iran
Earlier this month, Israel vowed to retaliate against Iran for its Oct. 1 missile attack, when Iran launched 200 missiles at various targets inside Israel. It wasn’t clear, however, how or when Israel would respond.
Amid speculation on Israel’s next move, two documents marked “top secret” surfaced on social media last week that purported to show analysis by the U.S. military on Israeli operations.
One document purports to be from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), a military agency that collects, analyzes and distributes intelligence gleaned from satellite and aerial imagery. The second claims to contain intelligence generated by the National Security Agency. (NSA).
ABC News is not quoting directly from or showing the documents, which appear to detail movement of Israeli military equipment and munitions that could be used in a potential strike.
One of the documents claimed Israel could strike Iran without the U.S. seeing any further visual clues from above.
According to one person familiar with the investigation, the FBI was investigating the leak as part of a criminal probe. The White House said Monday the Defense Department was also investigating the disclosure and that officials have discussed the suspected breach with Israel.
“We’re deeply concerned, and the president remains deeply concerned about any leakage of classified information into the public domain. That is not supposed to happen, and it’s unacceptable when it does, so he’s deeply concerned about that,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby told reporters on Monday.
Kirby said there is no indication more documents could be released, but “we’re certainly going to keep our antenna up and our eyes open for any potential future disclosures.”
When asked Monday about the leak, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin declined to talk specifics other than to say “we take these types of things very seriously. Very, very seriously.”
It’s not clear yet if the documents were leaked by an insider or stolen by a hacker
Both documents have markings indicating that, if authentic, they would have been shared with the so-called Five Eyes, the intelligence-sharing alliance made up of the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
The documents surfaced on a Telegram channel called Middle East Spectator, an anonymous blog that frequently publishes pro-Iran content. The channel’s administrator told ABC News they obtained the documents through an acquaintance who received them from an unknown source. The administrator denied being affiliated with any government.
The documents have markings indicating that, if authentic, they would have been shared with the so-called Five Eyes, the intelligence-sharing alliance made up of the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
It’s possible that a foreign entity such as the government of Iran stole the documents by hacking the systems of nations with access to the intelligence. But at least one official familiar with the investigation said the probe will focus aggressively on anyone who works for or with the U.S. government and had access to the material.
When asked about the possibility that the leak was done by an insider, Kirby declined to speculate.
“We’ll let the investigation pursue its logical course there,” Kirby said.
Earlier this year, Massachusetts Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira pleaded guilty to six counts of willful retention and transmission of national defense information. According to prosecutors, Teixeira leaked information in a Discord chat room on the type of equipment the U.S. was sending Ukraine, troop movements in Ukraine and a plot by a foreign adversary to attack U.S. forces abroad.
What’s next?
Lawmakers are likely to have serious questions about how another major public disclosure of classified information could happen again after the Teixeira case.
House Speaker Mike Johnson told CNN on Sunday that lawmakers were receiving a classified briefing.
Another question is whether the leak has forced Israel to adjust its military plans.
“If it is true that Israel’s tactical plans to respond to Iran’s attack on Oct. 1 have been leaked, it is a serious breach,” said Mick Mulroy, an ABC News national security and defense contributor who served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East.
“Everyone that has access to this information has an obligation to keep it secure,” Mulroy said. “The men and women of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] that would carry out this mission could be compromised because of this, the future coordination between the U.S. and Israel could be challenged as well.”
ABC News’ Christopher Looft and Luke Barr contributed to this report.
Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Voters across the country tuned in to the ABC News presidential debate on Tuesday night to see Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump discuss issues and share their visions for the country.
Many were looking to see how Harris defined herself on the debate stage, especially given that she entered the race relatively late as a presidential candidate.
Some undecided or formerly undecided voters spoke with ABC News both before and after the debate.
Before the debate, they shared what they were hoping to see — and after, if they thought Harris made the case for herself as a presidential candidate as well as their thoughts a potential second debate between Trump and Harris. These voters also previously spoke with ABC News earlier in the election cycle, including before President Joe Biden dropped out of the race.
Patrick O’Rourke, a retired scientist and independent voter from Georgia, said ahead of the debate that he did not trust Harris to be a “unifier” for the country.
“If I can force myself to vote for VP Harris, it will be with the hope of [split-party control between the presidency and Congress] … I hope for a president who can respect the constitution and earn the respect of our country,” he told ABC News by text.
At 10:09 p.m. ET, as the debate was still on air, he texted ABC News that he had turned off the debate.
“Former President Trump has forced me into voting for VP Harris,” he said. The reasons: because of how Trump discussed Ashli Babbit — a Trump supporter who was fatally shot during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol — whom the former president said “was shot by an out-of-control police officer;” and after Trump promoted being endorsed by Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, who is considered an authoritarian leader.
That doesn’t mean he thinks Harris made a strong positive case or defined herself enough, though.
Asked how he felt about her performance, O’Rourke said, “Still don’t know who she is other than not Donald Trump. Right now, that’s enough.”
Many voters feel they could benefit from more information about Harris and her platforms. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that 28% of likely voters said they feel they need to still learn more about Harris, while only 9% of likely voters felt that way about Trump.
O’Rourke said on Wednesday morning that he’s also not interested in another debate.
“One is enough for this cycle. I do not need to see another debate … I don’t need the candidates telling me what the other one’s policies are,” O’Rourke said.
But he said he’d like to see interviews with the candidates where they talk about economic policy, foreign affairs and civil justice priorities.
Rebecca Bakker, a registered nursing professor who lives near Grand Rapids, Michigan, told ABC News by text ahead of the debate that she was still undecided — although she had said beforehand she was not supporting Trump.
She was hoping to hear Harris “drill down on a clear economic message,” as well as clarity from her on how she would solve foreign policy and border issues.
Bakker told ABC News after the debate that the showing solidified her decision to not vote for Trump, who did not come across to her as “presidential” or as outlining clear policies.
“I think Harris did a great job to bait him so he [would] unravel during the debate and this worked to her advantage,” she said by text, but she felt Harris was still a bit “murky” on how her positions on some issues have changed.
“I remain undecided- she didn’t sway me enough (yet) to vote for her but for sure [Trump] swayed me enough NOT to vote for him,” Bakker wrote.
Bakker said she would like another debate to see if either candidate “reframes their narrative to address specifics on policies without ‘one of them’ losing focus and returning to childish behavior,” she wrote, adding she wants to see Harris discuss the economy and border issues more directly.
“So far, I don’t have a clear idea of her plan to address these areas.”
Karen Hughes, an independent voter and retired parole and probation specialist from Nevada, had previously been undecided but had decided to begrudgingly vote for Biden before he left the race in July. Ahead of the debate, Hughes told ABC News by text she was “hoping to see some policy discussions tonight. I’m interested in hearing Trump’s (final) position on abortion, and Harris’s explanation for why she won’t ban fracking.”
The debate affirmed her choice to vote for Harris, Hughes said on Wednesday, as she felt Harris “presents as competent, positive, and very sure of herself. I felt she knew exactly to get into Trump’s head and he fell for it every time,” Hughes said — although she said she felt Harris was still unclear about the shift in her position on fracking. Hughes also criticized Trump’s invocation of “wild conspiracy theories.”
But she’s not looking for another debate: “I think this one was good enough.”
Ian Mackintosh, a voter from Pennsylvania who lives in the Pittsburgh area, also said he hoped ahead of the debate to hear about policy. On Wednesday, he told ABC News by text, “Honestly, I thought it was a complete waste of 90 minutes. If anything, it moved me away from both candidates.”
While he said he understands the challenges of going in depth on complex policy stances in two minutes, it “could have been more substantial” with “less baiting and intentionally riling up the other candidate.”
Mackintosh said he is also disillusioned by Harris’ stance on Israel and Gaza, which he feels is the same as Biden’s.
He said he would not be interested in watching a second debate, and added, “After last night’s debacle I will probably only vote down-ballot.”
Brendan Fitzsimmons, a physician from Wyoming who is a Republican but does not support Trump, told ABC News by text before the debate that he did not expect much from the candidates, “although I would enjoy it if there is a lot of entertainment to it,” he said.
Fitzsimmons admitted that going into the debate, he didn’t feel sold on Harris: “I think she’ll be a terrible president, but I hope she wins,” calling her the “lesser of two evils.”
The morning after the debate, Fitzsimmons said the night changed how he was feeling about Harris.
“I enjoyed the debate and I thought they were both fairly strong, but all in all, Harris was stronger and won the debate and I think showed to a lot of people that she can be president … I am very concerned about foreign affairs, and I think she may be OK in that way,” he told ABC News by text.
Matthew Labkovski, a Republican voter from Florida who supported former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley during the Republican presidential primaries, told ABC News by text before the debate that he hoped to see the candidates discuss policy, and not engage in personal attacks. He said Tuesday evening that he was currently not planning on voting for president.
After the debate, Labkovski said on Wednesday, “I think it actually convinced me not to vote for Donald Trump. All I saw was fear mongering from him and what seemed to be a stretching of the truth,” he said, particularly when it came to Trump’s false claims about abortion and about a false conspiracy theory over immigrants eating pets.
“I am still not convinced though with Harris, as I didn’t get enough policy with her in this debate. To be honest, I would love another debate to see if I was actually comfortable in voting for her,” he said.
Labkovski also criticized Harris’ laughter during the debate, saying that he wished she had remained more even-keeled.
He added that he would have liked her to discuss how she would implement the policies she was talking about.
“How is she going to fight inflation? How is she going to bring peace? That’s what I was hoping the debate would bring … I needed more from her to actually sway from not voting in the presidential slot.”
(MOUNT AIRY, N.C.) — Mark Robinson, North Carolina’s Republican candidate for governor, was hospitalized after suffering burns at a campaign event Friday evening in Mount Airy, his campaign said.
Robinson’s campaign said he suffered second-degree burns at a truck show.
“This evening following an incident at a campaign appearance at the Mayberry Truck Show in Mt. Airy, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson was treated at Northern Regional Hospital for second-degree burns. He is in good spirits, appreciates the outpouring of well wishes, and is excited to return to the campaign trail as scheduled first thing tomorrow morning,” Mike Lonergan, the campaign’s communications director, said in a statement.
Robinson, the current lieutenant governor of the state, has been under fire after being accused of posting inflammatory comments on the message board of a pornography website more than a decade ago, according to a report published by CNN earlier this month. Robinson has denied the accusations.
Since the release of the report, several of Robinson’s key staffers have “stepped down” from the campaign, including general consultant and senior advisor Conrad Pogorzelski, III; campaign manager Chris Rodriguez; finance director Heather Whillier; and deputy campaign manager Jason Rizk.
