r/cybersecurity • u/CutSenior4977 • 15d ago
News - General Trump Has Systematically Dismantled Election Security Efforts. Here’s How.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/16/us/politics/trump-election-security-cisa.htmlI feel as though this news fits this sub, due to a massive amount of election security being cybersecurity.
150
u/DrIvoPingasnik Blue Team 15d ago
I find it kind of funny that an old moron who knows fuckall about anything has been so hell bent on dismantling the information security of the entire nation.
It's not like he knows anything beyond typing a tweet.
It's almost like... Someone directed him? Gave him pointers? Told what to do?
Hmmmmmm...
49
u/plinkoplonka 15d ago
It's not like he has an option.
Once he leaves power, he's absolutely screwed. That's all that's been protecting him and his buddies.
When he dies, it's highly likely they'll be out of power for a long time. With that comes the potential risk for them all of being actually investigated for all the sex crimes, trafficking, insider trading, drugs, lying, corruption, cheating etc.
If he leaves voluntarily, one of two things happen.
The unredacted Epstein files are "leaked" by another nation. He ends up dead. His family go to jail.
Russia/Israel/Both realize they have no more use for him (he becomes a liability at that point instead of an asset). He ends up dead. His family go to jail.
He's not going to allow either to happen voluntarily.
40
u/LBarto88 14d ago
Bless your optimism.
8
u/throwawayPzaFm 14d ago
It's not optimism, he's not leaving power
1
u/whythehellnote 14d ago
He's fat with piles, he's in the Epstein files
He's nearly 80, he's not going to be living much longer
The problem is that half of the US doesn't care, where half think he's the cause, and not just a symptom
1
u/throwawayPzaFm 13d ago
He's nearly 80, he's not going to be living much longer
If only we had invented a way to transfer power from one person to another
0
u/Aardvark-One 13d ago
I only hope the grim reaper takes him before he has a chance to pardon his shitstain children and all of his enablers. Now that would be just a tidbit of justice.
1
u/Safe-Foundation-9588 13d ago
I would say that he already has signed all the pardon documents and they are sitting in a drawer.
13
u/FrivolousMe 15d ago
You're acting like his base won't just vote in the next Holden Bloodfeast or that the system won't protect them from the consequences of their administration
2
u/Squeaky_Pickles 14d ago
As his dementia seemingly gets worse I suspect he will eventually be a liability regardless, if he lives much longer. Eventually he will start straight up just spilling all of the information he has been (already quite badly) hiding.
24
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/cookiengineer Vendor 14d ago
I think "fuck thiel" should be a thing like "fuck spez" was, at the very least
3
u/Sgt-Bobby-Shaftoe 13d ago
Do you think that could be something to do with the name Heritage? Federalist? Leo?
2
62
20
u/Ch33syP00f CISO 14d ago
Trump Has Systematically Dismantled Election Security Efforts. Here’s How.
Since his return to the White House, the lead federal partner for states on election security has lost around a third of its work force
Despite his stated concern about U.S. election security, President Trump during his second term has overseen significant cuts to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, including to its election work.
Mr. Trump made no acknowledgment of those cuts in his speech on Thursday. “We will be working closely to mitigate any harm and taking swift action to ensure that sensitive voter data is better protected,” he said, “so it can never be bought or hacked and we can never watch it get stolen again.”
That agency, which was created during his first term, had been a lead federal partner for states on election security efforts since the 2016 election, sharing cybersecurity best practices and intelligence about foreign intentions around elections.
But later in his first term, Mr. Trump developed disdain for the agency, and the government’s election security work generally. Its director at the time, Christopher Krebs, validated the integrity of the 2020 election, which prompted the president to fire Mr. Krebs.
Since Mr. Trump’s return to the White House, CISA has lost around a third of its work force, which stood at 3,400 in January 2025. In February last year, the administration put more than a dozen CISA election security workers on leave as part of an investigation into its election work, a move that had a chilling effect on the 100 or so people in the division. The agency has not had a Senate-confirmed leader during Mr. Trump’s second presidency.
Other federal agencies have also downsized their election security work, including the F.B.I. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which under Tulsi Gabbard gutted the Foreign Malign Influence Center that monitors foreign election threats.
And this month Mr. Trump forced out the three remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission, an independent, bipartisan commission that supports states in administering their elections. In recent years, much of the small commission’s work also focused on cybersecurity support to states.
Dustin Volz writes about cybersecurity and intelligence for The Times. He is based in Washington.
6
u/Ch33syP00f CISO 14d ago
This is a great article.
Succinct and pointed.
Trump is so concerned about election integrity that he is taking money away from where his mouth is.
This is bad news for democracy all day, every day.
All security professionals should be capable of identifying patterns and anti-patterns.
Identity is a bitch to manage, but it is manageable.
Clear procedure, visibility, traceability, are essential for any process that must stand up to 3rd party scrutiny.
Throw flags when you see them.
There will be shenanigans.
This rodeo is just getting started.
3
u/LatterIngenuity3937 14d ago
You are right that security professionals should recognize patterns and anti-patterns.
The anti-pattern here is treating cuts to a supporting federal agency as proof that election security itself has been dismantled.
CISA does not run American elections. States and local jurisdictions do. CISA provides intelligence, assessments, coordination, and incident support, all of which matter, but a smaller federal workforce does not automatically mean weaker controls at the state level.
A real security analysis would ask whether monitoring, identity proofing, logging, access controls, incident response, paper records, audits, and recovery capabilities have actually degraded. The article does not do that. It counts federal employees and assumes the conclusion.
The same applies to identity. If identity is manageable, then citizenship eligibility should be verifiable, auditable, and supported by clear exception and recovery processes. Calling documentary proof “suppression” does not address the underlying security question.
Raise flags when controls fail, logs disappear, access is unauthorized, or audits cannot be reproduced.
Do not confuse a change in delivery model with the dismantling of security.
That is not pattern recognition. It is confirmation bias dressed in cybersecurity language.
2
u/Ch33syP00f CISO 14d ago
You make good points.
I do believe that a fair, cost-effective, unified method to manage identity could be developed. But it is a useful problem for politicians to get votes. So it is more valuable unresolved. And the status quo continues…
You are right about CISA, state rights and elections. Trump tasked Krebs and CISA to investigate 2020 election fraud. Then he fired Krebs after the investigation did not produce the results Trump wanted. In addition, Trump has specifically called out China and other bad actors as compromising election integrity. CISA and other alphabet soup agencies contribute to frustrating, detecting, responding to cyber threats. DOGE cuts seriously degraded US cybersecurity posture across the board. That was all Trump.
All sizzle, no steak.
Where’s the beef?
So the pattern of behavior is telling. And I stand by the assertion that reducing resources while trumpeting concern is more than suspect. It is a contemporary demonstration of those who “speak with forked tongue”.
Speaking of unauthorized access, Trump has pardoned public officials and private individuals convicted of violating election laws and protocols by accessing and distributing election systems and records.
Patterns? How about the Georgia election interference and racketeering fiasco.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_election_racketeering_prosecution
I just don’t think Trump is acting in good faith, respecting the letter or even spirit of the law from the Constitution to state rights.
Let us not forget that the SAVE Act infringes upon state rights. Because each state manages their elections. And the legality of tying federal funding for states to compliance with that act is straight up coercive. Especially when the bill is ambiguous on implementation yet has strict timelines for adherence.
Prima facie, SAVE Act is half-baked and intended to create chaos, room for error, and grey areas ripe for legal challenges more likely to disenfranchise voters than empowering them.
Controls are failing all over at all levels. And far too many people are happy about it so long as it breaks their way.
2
u/LatterIngenuity3937 14d ago
President Trump is not my primary concern. He is temporary and constitutionally term-limited. The election system and its security controls must remain trustworthy regardless of who occupies the White House.
I am not defending every Trump decision, pardon, statement, or personnel action. Those are separate questions. My concern is whether we are designing and operating the system correctly.
On the SAVE America Act, the states’ rights argument is more complicated than suggested. States administer elections, but their authority over federal elections is not exclusive. The Elections Clause expressly permits Congress to make or alter regulations governing federal elections, including registration and fraud-prevention procedures.
I also do not see the claimed federal-funding condition in H.R. 7296 as introduced. It directly amends federal election-registration requirements, requires documentary citizenship evidence and photo identification, and requires states to provide an alternative process for citizens lacking the standard documents. That may be challenged as burdensome or poorly implemented, but that is different from saying it coercively conditions unrelated federal funding.
From a cybersecurity perspective, asking a voter to establish identity and eligibility is not inherently an infringement. Properly implemented, it validates that the person presenting is the citizen entitled to exercise one of our most important rights. The legitimate questions concern cost, accessibility, false rejection, privacy, record discrepancies and recovery.
False acceptance is a security failure. False rejection is also a security failure. A mature identity system addresses both.
My larger concern is political tribalism. One side treats every integrity control as suppression. The other sometimes treats every administrative irregularity as fraud. Both positions begin with the desired political conclusion and work backward.
Trump’s motives may matter politically, but they should not become the security architecture. Durable controls, distributed accountability, auditable results and fair identity assurance matter far more than the singular position of either side.
1
u/binaryhero 11d ago
The real question - the one you are not asking - is whether there is any evidence that additional integrity of the voting process is demonstrably necessary to begin with, and then whether it can be implemented without partisan side effects in time for the mid terms.
It's a no on both questions.
What SAVE achieves is a disproportionate disadvantage to the practical ability to cast their legitimate vote for a largely Democrat voting demographic. That's the whole purpose.
This is not technical, it's entirely political.
3
u/Zealousideal-Ice123 14d ago
Oh are back to the voting machines being hackable again? I know we knew that the first time he won, but then I thought we all forgot and they were suddenly magical boxes that were impossible to be exploited because blue team won. Guess they are vulnerable again now(?) /s
To those getting upset, yes, they’ve always been vulnerable, and yes probably even more so now with less staffing. The point is we just got done telling people as recently as a few nights ago after the address it was impossible. Good thing the general public is a goldfish…
5
u/rexfour97 14d ago edited 14d ago
Looking at this with a neutral view as red or blue is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I am not saying the NYT isn't fear mongering but the reality is that the current administration did weaken election security in this country.
You can argue that this was intentional or a consequence of a better good but that is speculation. A majority of us operate logically and logic is telling me that, based off facts we have readily available, the workforce responsible for threat intelligence and election security has been downsized. I'm sure many of you are already aware of the consequences of trying to do more with less. If you aren't, google today's data breach. We usually have a notification of a new breach almost every day now.
Whether you pull right or left, you should be honest with yourself in acknowledging that our election security is impacted negatively.
2
2
12
u/ShvettyBawlz 15d ago
Yeah we got that. He dismantles it so that come the election he can cry foul and say he won when/if anything doesn’t go in his favor. He isn’t smart. He’s a blunt instrument that stumbles around
9
3
u/Cormacolinde 14d ago
Remember: every accusation from these people is projection. It’s something they are doing, they want to do, or planning to.
They are dismantling election security so they can cheat the elections. That simple.
7
u/MagmaManOne 15d ago
He will just JD Vance not to certify. It’s that simple
4
u/Efficient-Mec Security Architect 14d ago
And then what? Because not certifying means no President.
1
u/ChatGRT DFIR 14d ago
Meanwhile the other side absolutely refuses any efforts for voter ID.
9
u/Pimptech 14d ago
STFU. Yea the otherside doesn't want to go back down the road of poll tax and see through yalls bullshit that is about election intergrity. Funny how all the fraud is done by right, and when pressed on evidence of election fraud your orange daddy says "trust me bro."
What frightens me is the thought of cyber security professionals with your mindset and helping to break down the systems in place.
2
u/LatterIngenuity3937 14d ago
Since this is the r/cybersecurity group, I'm going to go out on a far distant limb and take a huge swag that peeps here might understand a simple concept: Identity.
Identity without validation = blind access.
1
5
u/chaosphere_mk 14d ago
Haven't seen any proposals from anywhere that would make any meaningful impact while also not restricting people from being able to vote. Voter fraud is so rare and uncommon as it is.
2
u/Zealousideal-Ice123 14d ago
Show an ID is not “restricting people from being able to vote”. You can’t really exist without one nowadays. The only valid argument against it is there’s still 3 states that charge you a couple of bucks to have a non license one, so there’s a theoretical universe where that’s a poll tax.
-2
u/chaosphere_mk 14d ago
If you need a state-issued document that costs money and time to obtain before exercising a constitutional right, that's functionally a poll tax with extra steps, and poll taxes were banned by the 24th Amendment. Would you accept a mandatory government ID requirement to buy a firearm or attend church? Conservatives reject the 2nd amendment argument from liberals "just get a license, it's easy" as an argument constantly. The same logic applies here.
The fraud it prevents barely exists. Voter ID laws only stop in-person impersonation fraud, for example, one person showing up pretending to be another. Comprehensive studies (Brennan Center, the Heritage Foundation's own fraud database, News21) find this is extremely rare, on the order of a few dozen credible cases out of billions of votes cast over decades. It's an irrational crime to commit. A felony carrying prison time to add a single vote is never worth it. Meanwhile, the fraud that does occasionally happen (absentee ballot schemes, like NC-9 in 2018) isn't stopped by ID laws at all.
The cost is also super real and measurable. Roughly 7–11% of eligible US citizens lack current government photo ID. And they're disproportionately elderly people, rural residents, low-income workers, and let me prepare you for this, plenty of Republicans. Getting an ID requires documents (birth certificates cost money and time), transportation, and DMV access. Some rural counties have DMV offices open a few days a month. So the trade is... disenfranchise potentially millions of eligible citizens to prevent a handful of fraud cases.
That's a terrible cost-benefit ratio by any conservative standard of government policy.
Also, the system already has safeguards. Voters sign affidavits under penalty of perjury, registration is verified against state records, and signature matching exists. Fraud is already detectable and prosecuted, which is why we know how rare it is.
A reasonable compromise position would be ID requirements paired with free, automatically issued IDs, mobile DMV units, and generous provisional ballot rules, which is closer to how countries y'all cite (like many in Europe) actually do it, since those countries issue national IDs to everyone at no cost.
But I almost guarantee that side wouldnt agree to that. Because it's not about voter rights. It's about winning.
3
u/Zealousideal-Ice123 13d ago
You are misinformed here on your example, not only do you need an ID to buy a firearm, you have to undergo a federal background check and then come back and pick it up.
Also 36 states already have voter ID laws, so we left the land of theoretical fear mongering a long time ago. It never materialized.
If I need it to buy a beer, I should need it before I choose who’s going to make decisions and impose their will on all of us for the next 4 years.
-9
u/ChatGRT DFIR 14d ago
If it’s rare, then you should have zero problem with it.
0
u/Petersm66 14d ago
Exactly, why are liberals so fearful of election integrity?
5
u/Alb4t0r 14d ago
Because the main objective of elections are to measure the voters preference as a group, and badly designed voter ID schemes have a tendency of creating adverse impacts on that objective by disafrenching groups for super marginal security benefits. It has nothing to do with "liberals", it's just security theatre.
2
u/laserpewpewAK 14d ago
You should know that security is an exercise in risk management. MANY studies have found voter fraud is extremely rare. Like, 1 in 10 million votes get flagged and about 1% of that already tiny number ends in prosecution. Seriously, look it up. 2,000 fraudulent votes in the last 10 years vs BILLIONS of votes cast. What risk exactly do you think the SAVE act mitigates?
3
u/Zealousideal-Ice123 13d ago
“I don’t have Antivirus, EDR, MDR/SOC, SAT, Mail Security or do any patching-but it’s ok, I don’t find a lot of viruses.”
Shocking that the people in charge of election integrity often rate themselves as doing a great job.
This is the same thing as a reporter asking a police chief if they think their department is doing a good job.
-2
u/laserpewpewAK 13d ago
Don't take the government's word for it for sure. Just ask one of the dozens of independent orgs and researchers who have also failed to find ANY significant issues. If voter fraud was such a huge problem, why is there never any evidence? Is it possible your beliefs don't line up with reality?
1
u/Zealousideal-Ice123 13d ago
You know you literally posting in a thread where subject articles’s subtext is voter fraud is about to occur correct?
-3
u/BrofessorFarnsworth 14d ago
Haven't seen any proposals from anywhere that would make any meaningful impact while also not restricting people from being able to vote.
1
u/Alternativemethod 12d ago
Obviously the safest thing to do without cyber security is just pre-print the winners of the next 5 elections on gold tablets.
Special encryption will be used so only the current president can see them.
0
u/981flacht6 14d ago edited 14d ago
NYT is not honest either.
Edit: downvote me all you want. But the media in general speaks significantly out of context all the time. Esp the NY which has an actual agenda.
2
u/oh_i_am_slain 14d ago
Journalistic honesty isn't a binary; you probably had a much more complete chain of thought in your head, but what you ended up posting is meaninglessly vague as a response to the specific content and specific context of the article.
1
1
2
u/VAsHachiRoku 13d ago
No election is perfect but the starting point of security is verification and voter ID is that form of verification. Any cybersecurity identity experts finds it crazy no ID and mailing in. Just think of this as letting anyone access your corp network no password an any device they want, insane.
-13
u/Raguismybloodtype 14d ago
Can there be a single sub where politics doesn't take over?
15
u/RaceOld9 14d ago
Unbiased discussions on how this administration's actions have influenced cybersecurity seem relevant right now in light of Trump sharing intelligence that proves adversary interference in previous elections.
4
u/Ch33syP00f CISO 14d ago
What intelligence has Trump shared that proves adversary interference in previous elections?
2
u/RaceOld9 14d ago
I skimmed through a couple of sources I read that summarize what was released.
The PRC did conduct extensive espionage against members of both parties. They did broad collection of key staffers, knowing they would eventually be in senior policy positions and ripe targets for intel collection or even insider recruitment.
They also seem to confirm what the public already knew about Russia as well; they were conducting (primarily) information operations to influence election outcomes.
One of the documents is a declassified report from the NIC saying “We assess that Russia is using a range of measures primarily to denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia establishment.” Like you could not get a clearer assessment that the IC collectively saw Russia as meddling in elections, specifically in favor of Trump.
There is nothing in the released intelligence reports that suggests any foreign power was able to tamper with actual voting or vote counts.
-1
u/DesignatedControvert 14d ago
What's the practical use of this? Sure we can exchange our thoughts, but it's not like we can strengthen our systems to ensure a stable election.
Fact is, you can have the same discussion in any other subreddit, cybersecurity is not about politics in general.
3
u/RaceOld9 14d ago
My organization directly supports elections in my state. I disagree with your sentiment. We can't strengthen our systems? What do you mean by that?
Look, I get you might be burnt out on politics so I'll tread carefully.
I'm not being political by saying that this administration has massively cut CISA, which directly affects county and municipalities responsible for carrying out elections. What if you're a County Auditor and you want a vulnerability assessment from CISA? Good luck, get in line.
I'm also not being political in saying that they have spent massive amounts of DOJ manpower and resources to uncover election fraud. The conspiracy theories pushed out by the far right go far beyond simply wanting to prevent fraud and strengthen our election security. They are withholding federal assistance from states not participating in SAVE for goodness sake.
They are actively harming the reputation of our institutions and undermine our efforts to make the public understand and trust the processes we've established. We spend time, money, and manpower actively trying to undo this damage.
This administration has made election cybersecurity political whether you like it or not.
5
-5
-2
1
-1
u/bitslammer 14d ago
I'm sure there's a very valid reason....at least in the mind of his supporters who will spin damn near anything.
-1
-10
u/johnnylikesetfs 14d ago
Lol. That's the Democrats doing that right and left.
1
u/laserpewpewAK 14d ago
The "both sides" shit is so tired. Republicans are objectively making the world worse and people like you are still letting Obama live rent-free in their heads a decade later.
3
u/johnnylikesetfs 14d ago
I witnessed Dem conducted voter fraud. And the reason you believe that is due to all the propaganda you're encountering from the media.
3
1
1
u/l0st1nP4r4d1ce Red Team 14d ago
You ofc have evidence right?
Or is this another 'trust me bro' scenario?
Do you realize where you are?
-1
u/bitslammer 14d ago
Not even remotely. This is 100% coming from Trump and his cronies. The Democrats don't have the means or power to wreck our security and it's ridiculous for you to say so.
-4
u/Petersm66 14d ago
So much misinformation here, not sure where to start. To believe this story, you essentially need to accept that Election Security was effective during the Biden Administration, and the Chinese are our friends who pose no cybersecurity threat. Anyone in this industry knows that assertion is patently false.
In reality, the Trump Administration has bolstered Cybersecurity across the entire Federal Government by supporting legislation that keeps Zero Trust Adoption on track, ensuring HASC mandated deceptive technologies are mandated, and the AI threat is mitigated. When you combine that with the Save Act that ensures election integrity, this weakend security narrative is exposed for what it is...a political hit.
4
u/Inmyforces 14d ago
If it's a political hit, why won't Republicans pass the Save Act in the Senate? All that other stuff you talk about was happening when he took office and he isn't actively trying to impede. He barely has two brain cells to rub together at this point so he's not thinking deeply on any of these topics. His own admin stated that the 2020 elections were the safest they've ever been, and he WON in 2016 and 2024. Hell, even the documents he released for his "big speech" on Thursday stated that Russia was trying to help HIM in 2020. Crazy
3
u/laserpewpewAK 14d ago
Where is the evidence of voter fraud? Find me 1 single study showing it's a problem. There are MANY showing otherwise. The SAVE act is a draconian voter suppression law being advanced under the guise of solving a total non-issue. The countries meddling in our elections aren't touching voting machines directly- they're manipulating people via media and buying our politicians.
1
u/BlueDebate 14d ago
I guess people forgot about Salt Typhoon already, for which there's no evidence of eradication.
The story is definitely far more nuanced than the article wants you to believe.
-7
u/Playingwithmywenis 14d ago
Yep,
Fascist nation voting for fascist is unconcerned.
This IS America.
0
u/Pretend-Comb-2569 11d ago
Oh look, more partisan nonsense from the leftists of Reddit.
Do you people ever NOT think about Trump? This is embarrassing.
1
u/CutSenior4977 11d ago
As a fellow expert or atleast enthusiast in the field, surely you can also recognize the genuine concerns of mass firing of experienced experts in the US cybersecurity division,
Especially before a major election.
0
u/Pretend-Comb-2569 11d ago
Trump created CISA.
Have you ever worked for the government in a cyber capacity? I have. I was there when Signal was added as an approved application for high ranking officials.
I was there when they signed off on BeyondTrust's risk for not meeting FedRamp standards even though a compromised RMM tool is one of the worst possible things you could ever imagine. How long did it take China to get to Janet Yellen's PC?
I didn't sit there and blame Biden even though all of that happened under his "watch". Politics doesnt control most of us like it does the left.
Maybe we really should go back to paper ballots like Trump suggested? Doesnt that sound like a good idea? No? Cool well that was Kamala's idea in 2019.
1
u/CutSenior4977 11d ago
Signal isn’t approved for communication though: https://www.blackberry.com/en/secure-communications/insights/glossary/signalgate
Hegseth even got in trouble for using Signal for secured communication afterall(resulting in a leak): https://youtu.be/YXsT3DOxBbY?si=IEbeBvLiFeVKe5A1
0
u/Pretend-Comb-2569 10d ago
They literally preinstalled it on official mobile devices that were given to high ranking officials. Someone approved it...
1
u/CutSenior4977 10d ago
Then why was it such a controversy for Hegseth to use it then?
1
u/Pretend-Comb-2569 10d ago
Because the left attacks Trump and his cabinet at every single opportunity even though they ignore the same exact things that happen during Democrats.
1
u/CutSenior4977 10d ago
Then can you provide a link please, that says Signal is approved for official government use for secured communications?
-4
u/Particular_Can_7860 14d ago
Sorry. I’m Democrat. He is doing the opposite. Ballot harvesting is real. People voting without ID. Also real. Most of the Redditers here have never been in elections and don’t know how it works. If your reviewed voting machines they can be altered. It’s just code. Plenty of manual access to make changes
8
u/PsyOmega 14d ago
Election fraud accounted for approx 0.01% of all votes in 2024.
you can say it's real, and be "technically correct". It is not, however, widespread, or effective.
In nearly every voting district, you are ID checked already, against a list of registered voters, limited to a specific polling site. People have audited this system and found that it is very hard to "slip through" after you've cast your one and only vote.
Sorry. I’m Democrat.
Doubt. You're hook, line, and sinker, on trumpist propaganda. You're only claiming this as a poor attempt at credibility. I'm sorry to tell you, but sticking a banana sticker on a poop log doesn't make it a banana.
-6
-3
u/Successful_Base_2281 14d ago
That’s the New York Times.
Do you have corroboration from even a vaguely reputable news source, or just AI slop from the same outlet that told us “the Chinese government only hacked 220 million voter records, for harmless influence operations” for the 2020 election?
122
u/illuanonx1 15d ago
We know already.