Fact check: What role did cybersecurity play in the 2024 election, and which states had the strongest measures in place?

1. Why cybersecurity became the line of first defense—and how it held the line

Federal agencies and state officials treated cybersecurity as a primary defense across the 2024 cycle, focusing on protecting voting infrastructure, information-sharing, and incident response. CISA intensified support to state and local jurisdictions through resources, training, and operational coordination to manage risks to election systems, combining physical and cyber protections as a single resilience posture; this federal role was essential for rapid mitigation of attempted intrusions and threats ^[7]. CISA’s model of assistance and coordination underpinned the nationwide posture that year, enabling authorities to identify and block attempted cyberattacks and to advise on defensive measures in real time ^[1].

2. What kinds of cyberthreats actually materialized—and which caused the most concern

The 2024 cycle saw a mix of threats: foreign cyberattacks probing election systems, AI-driven disinformation campaigns, targeted doxxing and bomb threats against election offices, and rising threats from domestic extremist activity seeking to intimidate workers and voters. Analysts and federal briefings emphasized that while foreign intrusion attempts were detected and largely defended, the greatest operational risk during and after the vote stemmed from domestic radicalization and erosion of public trust, which drove offline disruptions and threats to personnel ^{[3] [2] [1]}. AI emerged as both a detection tool and an amplification vector for false content, complicating response efforts and public messaging ^[2].

3. Which states showcased the strongest technical controls—and why that matters

Some states applied rigorous technical and procedural controls that made systems harder to exploit and easier to recover. California established stringent voting-system certification and testing, enforced air-gapping where required, and maintained strict chain-of-custody protocols for ballots and hardware—measures that public officials characterized as among the most stringent in the nation ^{[4] [5]}. Georgia publicly reported fending off sophisticated foreign cyberattack attempts in prior cycles and invested heavily in detection and recovery capabilities, illustrating the value of continuous investment and tabletop exercises ^[1]. New Jersey combined cybersecurity monitoring through a state cyber integration cell with community-focused voter protections, showing how technical defenses and civic resilience can be paired ^[6].

4. Money, mandate, and the shifting balance between federal help and state responsibility

Between 2018 and 2024, Congress allocated roughly $1.4 billion in election security funding, funding that CISA and states used for modernization, training, and threat monitoring; however, policy shifts and program evolution reduced some centralized functions and put more onus on state and local officials to maintain capabilities ^{[8] [7]}. The funding bolstered baseline defenses, but uneven distribution of resources and varying levels of staff capacity meant preparedness still varied by jurisdiction, leading to a patchwork of resilience where some counties within otherwise well-defended states remained vulnerable ^[8].

5. What the post-election assessments highlighted as gaps and next steps

Post-election reviews emphasized sustaining investments in detection, recovery, and public communication; improving defenses against AI-enabled disinformation; and enhancing protections for election workers facing intimidation from domestic extremists. Officials called for continued federal-state collaboration for threat intelligence and incident response, and for more consistent standards on certification, chain-of-custody, and auditing practices across states. Auditability and transparency—including risk-limiting audits and paper trails—were repeatedly cited as crucial complements to cybersecurity hardening ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Conflicting narratives and the politics of "strongest" measures

Different sources highlight different states as models depending on criteria: California for technical certification and air-gapping ^{[4] [5]}, Georgia for operational readiness against foreign probes ^[1], and New Jersey for integrated monitoring and community safeguards ^[6]. No single state was uniformly superior across all dimensions, and claims of "strongest" measures often reflect selective criteria—technical certification, funding per capita, incident response, or community protections—so cross-jurisdictional comparisons require explicit metrics that are often absent from public reports ^{[7] [8]}.

7. Bottom line for future elections: resilience, not perfection

The 2024 election demonstrated that robust cybersecurity and coordinated response can prevent systemic collapse even amid sophisticated threats; however, resilience remains an ongoing project requiring sustained funding, intergovernmental coordination, AI-specific countermeasures, and protections for election workers. States such as California, Georgia, and New Jersey provide examples of effective elements, but the overall picture is mixed: success depended on combined technical controls, federal support, and community trust, none of which can be taken for granted going forward ^{[1] [5] [8]}.