President Donald Trump’s July 16 address on foreign election interference placed that issue back at the center of American politics. Citing newly declassified intelligence that is seemingly inconsistent with previous U.S. government assessments, the president alleged Chinese interference in the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden and suppression of relevant intelligence by domestic officials. He also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration. Such requirements can burden eligible citizens. For example, a 2024 U.S. national survey estimated that 21.3 million voting-age citizens lacked ready access to citizenship documents. In Fish v. Schwab (2020), the Tenth Circuit upheld an injunction against Kansas’s documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirement, finding that it imposed an unjustified burden on eligible voters and was preempted by the National Voter Registration Act.
Recent experience in the United Kingdom and Romania offers an urgent warning for U.S. institutions. Democratic self-defense must safeguard elections against genuine foreign interference while preventing incumbent governments from exploiting allegations of interference to undermine voting rights or challenge legitimate electoral results. The principle is familiar; applying it is more difficult when governments control the evidence and press for restrictive remedies.
Trump’s current allegations about the 2020 election should be tested against the full intelligence record, particularly given his administration’s dismantling or reduction of several mechanisms designed to detect, assess, and counter foreign interference. In February 2025, the Justice Department under then-Attorney General Pam Bondi disbanded the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force and narrowed criminal enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The State Department closed its Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference office in April 2025. A month earlier, congressional oversight leaders had reported that election-security personnel at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) had been placed on leave and election-security work paused. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) also announced substantial workforce reductions and plans to integrate the core functions of the Foreign Malign Influence Center, established in 2022 to coordinate intelligence community efforts against foreign malign influence, into the ODNI’s Mission Integration office and National Intelligence Council. On Sept. 24, 2026, CISA published a new election security plan. Congressional oversight should examine whether CISA has sufficient staffing, resources, and specialist capabilities to implement the plan.
These decisions do not disprove any particular intelligence assessment. They do, however, strengthen the case for independent congressional scrutiny and transparent, verifiable evidence when declassified claims are selectively used to restrict voting or challenge results. Any proposed remedy must also address the actual threat.
As retired Central Intelligence Agency senior executive Brian O’Neill recently explained, the materials released alongside Trump’s July 16 speech raise at least three distinct questions. First, what does the intelligence actually establish? Second, does the selective declassification of such information provide a reliable account of the underlying assessments? Third, does the proposed legislation address the threat identified? Foreign acquisition of voter data or cyber access to election systems may raise grave security concerns. It does not follow that proof-of-citizenship requirements are a responsive or proportionate remedy.
That mismatch points to a wider danger. Foreign interference is real, but an allegation of foreign interference can itself become an instrument of domestic political power. A government may use a genuine, exaggerated, or selectively presented national-security concern to restrict participation, discredit election officials, alter the rules close to an election, or prepare supporters to reject an unfavorable outcome.
Researcher Emerson T. Brooking warned of this danger in 2022, after a draft executive order from the final weeks of Trump’s first administration revealed plans to invoke alleged foreign interference as a basis for seizing voting equipment and involving the military in election administration. The document illustrated how claims that were difficult for the public to verify could create a veneer of emergency legality for attempts to delegitimize an election.
The problem is therefore two-sided. Democratic governments cannot remain passive when foreign powers covertly fund candidates, steal campaign information, probe electoral infrastructure, impersonate citizens, or manipulate political communication. But the language of democratic self-defense cannot become a blank check for incumbent governments to suppress votes or neutralize electoral results.
Europe has recently confronted the same dilemma, though its emerging response is incomplete and not directly transferable to the United States. It nevertheless offers useful principles for American lawmakers, courts, intelligence agencies, election officials, and civil society as the 2026 midterms approach. At the heart of these lessons is the challenge of strengthening democratic resilience against foreign interference without compromising the very democratic rights and institutions such measures are intended to protect.
The Post-1989 Problem Comes Home
After the fall of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989, the transatlantic democratic project focused considerable attention on supporting elections in countries transitioning from authoritarian rule. For Western governments and democracy-monitoring bodies, the concerns included governing parties’ abuse of State resources, their capture of courts and media, manipulation of electoral commissions, exclusion of opponents, and refusal to transfer power. Established Western democracies tended to see themselves as sources of democratic guidance rather than as countries that might themselves benefit from it.
The one-way flow of democratic guidance can no longer be taken for granted. European States now confront a dual challenge: external influence from revanchist authoritarian foreign powers seeking to undermine democratic institutions and internal pressures from democratic backsliding, populism, and anti-democratic movements. The United States faces its own version of the same danger. Institutions created to protect national security and election integrity are increasingly being pressured to support partisan narratives about who is entitled to vote, whether officials can be trusted, and which outcomes should be accepted.
Analyses by the Brennan Center for Justice, Protect Democracy, and elections and democratic reform expert Michael McNulty situate the 2026 midterms within this broader pattern. Democratic erosion does not necessarily occur through a single coup-like event. It can develop through cumulative changes to the rules, referees, institutions, and information environment that together tilt the field before voting begins.
In the United States, the constitutional division of election authority between the states and Congress is an important barrier to presidential control, as former Justice Department official Chris Hardee noted in a recent analysis of Trump executive orders related to elections. But dispersed authority is not self-executing protection. Checks and balances work only when institutions assert their lawful powers, demand evidence, and resist pressure to convert national-security claims into partisan election administration.
Europe’s Dilemma
The European Court of Human Rights addressed the affirmative side of the problem in Bradshaw and Others v. United Kingdom (2025). Former members of the British Parliament had filed suit alleging that the government had failed to adequately investigate credible allegations of Russian interference in Britain’s democratic processes, including the 2019 general election, and to establish an effective framework for protecting elections.
The European Court found no violation of the right to free elections. In reaching that conclusion, the Court relied on the United Kingdom’s undertaking of parliamentary inquiries and subsequent legislative and operational measures. But it accepted that States may have positive obligations where hostile interference poses a real risk of impairing the essence of electoral rights. A free election is not guaranteed solely by accurately counting ballots. It also depends on the free circulation of political information and opinion. At the same time, the Court granted governments a wide margin of appreciation or discretion about how to respond. In explaining that discretion, the Court noted in its ruling that the effects of influence operations are difficult to measure. European countries have yet to reach consensus on the safeguards needed to counter foreign interference, particularly given the imperative to protect freedom of expression. Bradshaw thus affirms that democracies may need to take protective measures while leaving them considerable discretion in determining how best to do so. The European Court did not recognize a freestanding duty to investigate every interference allegation. Rather, investigation is one means of fulfilling the broader obligation to ensure protection of electoral rights.
A December 2024 case in Romania then exposed the inverse danger. In Ruling No. 32, its Constitutional Court annulled the presidential election process after declassified intelligence indicated non-transparent digital promotion, algorithmic manipulation, use of artificial intelligence and undeclared campaign financing. The concerns centered on the campaign of pro-Russian challenger Călin Georgescu, but the public disclosures did not conclusively establish that all the activity was foreign directed. The decision presented election cancellation as a defense of electoral sovereignty against covert manipulation. The ruling sought to protect democratic choice by canceling its formal expression. It is difficult to imagine a more constitutionally drastic remedy. On Sept. 29, 2026, a Romanian appeals court ordered Georgescu’s pretrial detention for 30 days in connection with a separate fraud case. Georgescu denied any wrongdoing. Those proceedings do not resolve the legality of the 2024 annulment.
The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters, responded with an urgent report on the legal standards governing election cancellation. The Commission did not determine whether Romania’s annulment was justified, because the Parliamentary Assembly had requested general comparative standards rather than a review of the Romanian facts or ruling. Instead, it drew broader lessons from European and comparative constitutional practice. Those lessons matter in the United States even though no American constitutional court possesses a general power to annul a national election.
The Venice Commission report begins with a simple proposition, namely that voters must ordinarily be able to trust that their vote is final. Cancellation is an ultima ratio, permissible only in exceptional circumstances. Any power to invalidate an election must be clearly regulated. The Venice Commission emphasizes that such decisions must be grounded in clearly established facts demonstrating irregularities, such as double counting, the exclusion of eligible voters, or serious campaign-finance violations, sufficiently widespread or consequential to have potentially affected the electoral outcome. Affected parties must be able to present evidence and arguments before an impartial body, and the resulting decision must be public, timely, and adequately reasoned.
Of particular relevance to ongoing debates in the United States, the Venice Commission emphasizes that decisions to annul elections on grounds related to online campaigning must identify specific violations and supporting evidence and cannot rest solely on classified intelligence. Classified material may provide context but cannot replace transparent and verifiable proof.
Six Lessons for the United States
The Venice Commission’s recommendations do not supply a ready-made answer to American election disputes. They do, however, clarify the questions that U.S. institutions should ask before a foreign-interference allegation is allowed to justify changes to voting rules or challenges to results.
1. Identify the Mechanism, Not Merely the Adversary
“Foreign interference” is not a single category of harm. It may involve cyber reconnaissance, theft of voter information, covert campaign funding, hack-and-leak operations, impersonation, disinformation, threats, or actual interference with registration, voting, tabulation, and reporting. Each mechanism calls for different evidence and different remedies. A foreign actor’s acquisition of voter data may justify a counterintelligence investigation, cybersecurity measures, sanctions, or criminal enforcement. It does not by itself demonstrate that noncitizens voted, that eligible citizens should produce new documents, or that mail voting should be restricted. Naming China, Russia, or Iran cannot substitute for explaining the pathway from the alleged conduct to the proposed legal response.
2. Declassification is Not Adjudication
The executive branch may possess information that cannot immediately be made public. But selective declassification presents a particular risk where the U.S. president is both the source of the allegation and a political beneficiary of the proposed response. As O’Neill’s analysis of Trump’s address emphasized, declassification changes who can read a document; it does not establish the document’s reliability, resolve analytic disagreement, or show how it fits within the full intelligence record. The intelligence community’s own analytic standards require objectivity, independence from political considerations, evaluation of source quality, explanation of uncertainty, and attention to contrary information. Congressional intelligence committees should obtain the less-redacted materials, hear from the analysts and technical experts who produced the assessments, and test the relationship between the new disclosures and the intelligence community’s previous public findings. Intelligence must inform democratic decision-making without becoming a self-authenticating warrant for it.
3. Separate Conduct, Electoral Effect, and Remedy
Three questions must remain distinct. Did a foreign actor attempt to interfere? Did the conduct materially impair participation, campaign fairness, election administration, or the result? What response is legally authorized and proportionate? Evidence supporting the first proposition does not automatically prove the second or justify the third. The 2021 U.S. intelligence community assessment concluded that Russia and Iran conducted influence operations related to the 2020 election but found no indication that any foreign actor attempted to alter voter registration, ballot casting, tabulation, or reporting. That distinction is essential. Foreign influence may nevertheless be serious or unlawful even when there is insufficient evidence that it changed voters’ choices or altered the electoral outcome. For example, the U.S. federal prohibition on foreign-national election spending does not require proof that votes were altered. In Bluman v. FEC (2011), a federal court upheld restrictions on campaign contributions and express-advocacy expenditures by foreign nationals, excluding lawful permanent residents, as legitimate safeguards of democratic self-government.
4. The More Drastic the Remedy, the Stronger the Safeguards
The more consequential a response is for voting rights or electoral outcomes, the more rigorous the evidentiary, procedural, and institutional safeguards must be. Public attribution, investigation, sanctions, and cybersecurity improvements do not carry the same democratic costs as excluding voters, refusing certification, disqualifying a candidate, or setting aside an election. The U.S. constitutional framework already disperses authority over elections among multiple levels of government. States have primary responsibility for administering federal elections, Congress has authority to regulate congressional elections under Article I, Section 4 (the Elections Clause), and the president lacks general authority to override or rewrite state election law. This distribution of authority should be understood not as an obstacle to responding to alleged emergencies, but as a fundamental safeguard against the concentration of power in a democratic system. Any institution asked to take an extraordinary step should identify its legal authority, disclose the relevant evidence to the maximum extent possible, hear from affected parties, provide reasons, and remain subject to judicial review.
5. Apply a Principle of Minimum Electoral Interference
The Venice Commission emphasizes that the consequences of invalidation must be less harmful than accepting the result despite its deficiencies, and that remedies should be limited to the electoral units actually affected wherever possible. The underlying principle travels well. Protect valid votes and disturb democratic choice no more than necessary. Where the mechanism is a data breach, secure the data. Where it is covert financing, investigate the funding and apply campaign-finance law. Where it is platform manipulation, expose the network, preserve evidence, and require transparency. Where particular ballots or districts are demonstrably affected, tailor the remedy accordingly. A diffuse security allegation should not become a basis for nationwide restrictions imposed on voters who had no connection to the misconduct.
6. Build Safeguards Before the Crisis
The worst time to design standards for foreign-interference allegations is after an incumbent has lost or fears losing an election. Congress, states, intelligence agencies, and election authorities should establish in advance how interference assessments will be produced, reviewed, disclosed, and connected to remedies. That should include protected roles for career analysts; bipartisan congressional access to underlying intelligence; clear attribution standards; rapid but independent judicial processes; preservation of evidence; rules against restricting voting rights or canceling elections solely on classified intelligence; and a public explanation of why the proposed response addresses the identified mechanism. The United States should also continue investing in ex ante defenses, campaign-finance transparency, cybersecurity, political-advertising disclosure, provenance for synthetic media, and platform accountability, so that it is less likely to confront the difficult task of deciding whether covert interference compromised an election when its effects cannot reliably be separated from other influences on voters.
The Quandary of Democratic Self-Defense
The United States should avoid drawing the wrong lesson from Europe’s experience. The Venice Commission does not suggest that foreign interference warrants attention only when its effects on individual voters can be demonstrated with mathematical certainty. Even without tampering with voting systems, covert influence operations can undermine electoral fairness, distort voters’ access to reliable information, erode public trust in democratic institutions, and threaten national sovereignty. For example, in 2024, the Justice Department seized 32 internet domains allegedly used in a Russian-directed Doppelgänger campaign to impersonate news outlets and influence U.S. voters. A separate indictment in 2024 known as the Kalashnikov indictment charged two employees of the Kremlin-controlled news outlet Russia Today with conspiring to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act, alleging that they used foreign shell companies to covertly fund and direct a U.S. media company. In both examples, the alleged harm concerned covert manipulation of public debate, rather than alteration of voting machines.
The Venice Commission’s deeper lesson is that democratic self-defense must itself remain democratic. National-security claims require lawful authority, independent scrutiny, verifiable evidence, fair process, reasoned decisions, and remedies proportionate to the demonstrated harm. Those requirements do not weaken election security. Rather, they ensure that measures intended to protect elections cannot themselves be used to compromise electoral integrity.
These principles also matter where the federal executive is unwilling to apply them. State and local election officials can preserve records, strengthen cybersecurity, and prepare public explanations of incidents. State attorneys general, candidates, and affected voters can seek timely judicial review of unlawful restrictions or interventions. Congressional committees can seek the underlying intelligence, while journalists, researchers, and civil society can scrutinize public evidence and expose covert coordination. These actors cannot replace federal counterintelligence capacity, and partisan obstruction, restricted access to intelligence and litigation deadlines may limit what they achieve. Their immediate task is to keep evidence available and lawful challenges possible, so that an executive allegation does not itself determine who may vote or which result stands.
Protecting elections from both foreign interference and domestic abuse of interference claims is urgent because the two threats can reinforce each other. Foreign adversaries benefit when domestic actors amplify distrust, while domestic anti-democratic actors benefit when genuine foreign interference lends credibility to their own claims. A democracy that dismisses all interference allegations leaves itself vulnerable to hostile manipulation. A democracy that accepts such allegations without institutional discipline leaves itself vulnerable to manipulation from within. The purpose of democratic self-defense is to preserve the conditions under which citizens can cast their ballots, have their votes counted, and trust that neither a foreign power nor their own government can overturn the choices they have made.
The post Foreign Interference and the Democratic Self-Defense Trap: A European Perspective Going into the 2026 Midterms appeared first on Just Security.