Cover: Wikimedia Commons, public domain (US federal government). Source:

FBI and CISA Warn of Election Scams and Cyberattacks

Federal agencies have flagged phishing against officials and AI-driven fraud against voters. Neither warning is proof of a compromised ballot count.

As the November 3 midterms approach, the FBI and CISA's October 16 advisory warns election and campaign officials about phishing and text-message attacks aimed at credentials and sensitive data.

The latest official federal warning available before Election Day is not a claim that vote totals have been hacked. On October 16 the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency warned election and campaign officials that criminals may use phishing and text-message impersonation to acquire credentials and sensitive information. A separate FBI advisory dated October 15 described fraud schemes exploiting campaign donations, supposed political investment opportunities and fake voter-registration messages. These are documented warnings about methods and exposure, not evidence that a successful attack has changed a ballot count.

The distinction matters on November 3. One scam targets election administrators and campaign personnel through messages that invite them to open a link or hand over a password. Another targets ordinary voters by pretending to be an official registration service or a candidate seeking funds. The FBI also warns that generative artificial intelligence can make impersonation more persuasive, including through realistic voices, images and messages. That makes verifying the sender and source more important than the production quality of a video or call.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has a federal infrastructure-security role, but elections are administered primarily by state and local officials. Michigan's election office, for example, explains how electronic poll books, ballot processing and result reporting work in its state. The separation between a cyber incident affecting a website or email account and an actual change to the legally tabulated vote must remain explicit. A fake result screenshot or unavailable county webpage does not establish that ballots were altered.

The broader electoral integrity question is whether voters can obtain authentic information promptly, whether local offices record and respond to incidents, and whether investigators disclose substantiated findings. The existence of disinformation, including possible foreign interference, does not automatically prove a coordinated foreign operation in a specific county. Attribution requires independent evidence, not a suspicious social-media post.

Who benefits from these schemes? Credential thieves and fraudsters can gain money, private information or leverage if users trust fake instructions. Political actors spreading unsupported accusations can also exploit uncertainty, although the alerts do not attribute every operation to any campaign. Who pays? Individual donors, voters whose information is stolen, overstretched election workers and the public that needs an auditable count.

The practical response is verifiable. Voters should check their state or local election-office website for polling location and hours, avoid unsolicited payment links, and report apparent voter suppression or fraud through official channels. Journalists should distinguish an agency's risk advisory, a confirmed incident and a verified effect on vote counting. Those are three different statements.

What to watch Tuesday: first U.S. polls close at 6 p.m. ET / 1 a.m. Wednesday Kyiv; major East Coast results follow from 7 to 8 p.m. ET / 2 to 3 a.m. Kyiv. Look for dated statements from state election offices, the FBI and CISA about specific incidents and their demonstrated effects. Do not present generic cybersecurity warnings as Election Day breaches.

Sources:

• FBI and CISA, October 16, 2026 cyber threat alert (opens in a new tab)
• FBI, October 15, 2026 election-related fraud warning (opens in a new tab)
• FBI, October 15, 2026 election crimes guidance (opens in a new tab)
• FBI, election crimes and security guidance (opens in a new tab)
• Michigan Secretary of State, election security information (opens in a new tab)

The institutional context includes FBI Director Kash Patel (opens in a new tab), the White House (opens in a new tab) and the continuing concern for democratic resilience (opens in a new tab).