The Trump administration’s decision to review CISA’s involvement in election-related matters has drawn outrage from media figures who have long defended the agency’s expanded role. While CISA was originally tasked with safeguarding critical infrastructure, it quickly became a key player in identifying and censoring election-related content online.
Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed that CISA’s election security functions are now under evaluation. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has argued that the agency has overstepped its intended role and that Congress should consider legislative action to rein it in.
Documents obtained through congressional investigations show that CISA partnered with outside organizations to influence online discourse. The Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), formed at CISA’s request, worked to suppress social media content — including factual posts that were deemed politically sensitive. The agency also held regular meetings with Big Tech executives, encouraging them to take a more active role in removing flagged content.
Major media outlets have rushed to CISA’s defense. Politico framed the review as “Trump’s purge of federal election security officials,” while Wired accused the administration of “undermining democracy.” VoteBeat expressed concerns that without CISA’s influence, election officials would struggle to combat misinformation.
CISA’s past leadership justified its intervention in online discussions by claiming it was necessary to protect Americans’ “cognitive infrastructure.” Reports show that under the Biden administration, the agency expanded its reach, coordinating with Pennsylvania officials to monitor online speech and flag so-called “threats” to election integrity.
With Trump’s executive order banning government censorship now in effect, CISA’s future remains uncertain. The administration’s review could significantly reduce the agency’s role in election oversight, marking a major shift away from its controversial actions in previous election cycles.
