A new report claims National Guard units are preparing to support election cybersecurity operations nationwide, with some personnel potentially assigned to monitor polling locations and ballot drop boxes, raising questions about the military’s role in the November 3 elections.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — National Guard units across all 50 states are reportedly being mobilized ahead of the November 3 midterm elections to support federal cybersecurity operations, protect critical infrastructure and potentially monitor polling places and ballot drop boxes, according to a report published Wednesday.
Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that military sources described a nationwide mission focused primarily on protecting election infrastructure against cyber threats, with some National Guard personnel expected to perform additional election-related security and observation duties.
The October 28 report published on Klippenstein’s Substack comes amid questions from congressional Democrats about the military’s preparations for Election Day and the legal authority governing possible deployments.
“National Guard units across the country are being quietly mobilized for next week’s midterm elections, despite reassurances from the Pentagon brass that it has ‘no plans’ to involve itself in the elections,” Klippenstein wrote.
“The Guard’s mission spans all 50 states, military sources tell me. Its focus is supporting federal government cybersecurity efforts; but Guardsmen will also be observing ballot drop boxes and polling places, in addition to safeguarding so-called critical infrastructure.”
The reported deployment has not been independently confirmed in its entirety. The Defense Department has not publicly released a nationwide list of units assigned to election-related operations or confirmed that Guardsmen will observe polling locations in all 50 states.
The distinction between cybersecurity assistance and uniformed military activity at voting sites is central to the controversy.
National Guard cyber units have previously assisted state authorities in identifying network vulnerabilities, monitoring digital threats and protecting election-related information systems.
Such cybersecurity support does not necessarily involve troops being stationed at polling places or participating in election administration.
However, the possibility of military personnel observing voting locations has prompted concern among lawmakers who argue that elections must remain under civilian authority.
The reported preparations follow a September directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordering major military intelligence and cybersecurity organizations to strengthen defenses against foreign interference.
According to Klippenstein, Hegseth directed U.S. Cyber Command, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to mobilize available resources to protect election infrastructure.
The directive instructed military agencies to “mobilize every authorized asset, capability, and partnership under your command to defend our election infrastructure from foreign malign influence and ensure that every lawful voter can cast their ballot free from foreign intimidation, coercion, or fear.”
The directive’s stated objective was to protect election systems against foreign threats, although questions remain about how those efforts relate to National Guard deployments and activities involving physical voting locations.
The reporting comes two months after the nation’s highest-ranking military officer publicly stated that the Pentagon had no plans to deploy federal troops to polling places during the midterm elections.
In an August 31 statement reported by Reuters, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said election administration and security would remain the responsibility of state and local authorities.
“The Joint Force has no plans to send Federal military personnel or Federalized members of the National Guard to polling places during the 2026 elections,” Caine wrote in a letter to Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.
“Likewise, the Joint Force has no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material.”
Caine also said he had not received and did not anticipate receiving an unlawful order involving military participation in the elections.
The Defense Department reiterated its position in a subsequent response to Slotkin.
According to an October 1 announcement from the senator’s office, Assistant Secretary of Defense Mark Ditlevson confirmed that the department had no plans to deploy active-duty troops or federalized National Guard personnel to polling sites or interfere with election materials.
Those assurances concerned federal military deployments and did not necessarily exclude National Guard cybersecurity activities conducted under state authority.
National Guard personnel can serve under different legal arrangements, including state active duty, federally funded duty under Title 32 or federal active duty under Title 10.
Their command relationships and legal restrictions vary depending on which authority governs their activities.
Those distinctions are particularly important when determining whether troops can participate in domestic security operations.
On October 26, Slotkin and Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., demanded additional information from the Pentagon and National Guard Bureau concerning plans to establish a nationwide National Guard Quick Reaction Force.
Their letter followed an August executive order from President Donald Trump directing the Pentagon to prepare National Guard forces capable of responding to civil disturbances and public safety emergencies.
The senators argued that the administration had failed to explain whether those forces would operate under federal or state authority, or how military commanders would coordinate with governors.
“The memo provides no clarity on whether this force would operate under state or federal authorities, or whether they operate under a dual-status commander,” the senators wrote.
“The distinction is critical and legally consequential to preventing the National Guard from being used to abuse the constitutional or civil rights of Americans or to circumvent existing legal limitations.”
Slotkin and Kelly requested information about the forces’ command structure, troop assignments, funding, activation procedures and potential involvement in election-related disturbances.
They also asked whether National Guard personnel could be assigned to assist the Department of Homeland Security or Justice Department during the next 100 days.
“This administration must make clear that our troops will not be used to interfere with Americans’ lives or to meet some political end,” the senators wrote.
“The use of military personnel in connection with elections raises additional legal concerns, including the risk of violating federal restrictions on troops at polling places, interference with election officials, and voter intimidation.”
The lawmakers requested a response by October 28.
Their concerns followed public remarks by Trump suggesting that the National Guard could be deployed to Atlanta.
During an October 26 campaign appearance in Georgia, Trump defended the Justice Department’s decision to send federal election monitors to several counties.
In an interview with Atlanta News First, the president also discussed the possibility of sending National Guard personnel to the city if local authorities requested federal assistance.
“I believe I will be the first call they make,” Trump said.
“They’re gonna call me, and they’re gonna say, please do me a favor. Send in your National Guard. Send in your people.”
The comments drew criticism from Democratic officials who questioned the appropriateness of discussing military deployments immediately before a federal election.
The administration has maintained that federal election monitoring is intended to ensure compliance with voting laws.
Justice Department election observers are separate from military personnel and operate under different legal authorities.
Federal law imposes substantial restrictions on military involvement at polling places.
Under 18 U.S.C. Section 592, deploying armed federal personnel to locations where elections are being held is generally prohibited, subject to narrow statutory exceptions.
Other federal provisions prohibit military personnel from intimidating voters or interfering with election officials.
The precise application of these restrictions to National Guard personnel depends in part on whether they are operating under federal or state command.
States also maintain their own election security and voting-site regulations.
The National Conference of State Legislatures has documented federal restrictions on military activity at polling locations and additional state laws governing the presence of armed personnel during elections.
Cybersecurity support, by contrast, has been a recognized National Guard function in previous election cycles.
State Guard cyber specialists have worked with election officials to assess computer networks, identify malicious activity and assist with recovery planning.
These operations generally involve technical assistance rather than control over voting procedures, ballot counting or certification.
Election administration remains the responsibility of state and local officials, including the management of polling locations, voting equipment, ballot collection and vote tabulation.
The November 3 midterms will determine control of Congress and numerous state and local offices, placing election security and public confidence in voting procedures under increased scrutiny.
Klippenstein’s reporting raises additional questions about the scope of National Guard preparations, particularly whether the claimed observation of voting sites would involve federalized troops, personnel acting under governors’ authority or support activities conducted away from polling locations.
The publicly available information does not establish that military personnel have been ordered to interfere with voting, seize election materials or assume control of election operations.
It also does not independently verify that National Guard personnel will be physically deployed to polling locations in every state.
With Election Day approaching, the reported mobilization and congressional demands for greater transparency have renewed attention to the boundaries between election cybersecurity assistance, domestic military preparedness and civilian administration of American elections.
Original article
Comments