Last updated 2 weeks ago ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The National Security Council coordinates America’s defense against foreign election interference, orchestrating intelligence agencies, cybersecurity experts, and law enforcement to protect the democratic process from adversaries seeking to undermine public confidence in voting systems and electoral outcomes.
Since 2016, foreign interference has become a persistent threat to American elections. The NSC serves as coordinator, ensuring that intelligence gathering, cybersecurity defenses, criminal investigations, and diplomatic responses work together rather than operating in silos across different government departments.
Understanding the National Security Council
The NSC functions as the President’s hub for policy coordination rather than a standalone agency that deploys agents or runs operations. Its effectiveness depends on its ability to forge consensus, manage bureaucratic conflicts, and ensure presidential decisions are based on comprehensive, thoroughly vetted options from across the government.
Origins and Core Mission
The NSC was established by the National Security Act of 1947, landmark legislation passed after World War II. Policymakers recognized a critical flaw in government structure: no formal mechanism existed to coordinate diplomatic, military, and domestic policies essential for navigating Cold War complexities.
The NSC was created to fill this void, with a statutory mandate to advise the President on “integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security” and facilitate cooperation among various government departments.
While some initially envisioned the NSC as a collegial body that would collectively make policy, it quickly evolved to serve the President alone. Successive administrations have used the council not just for advice, but as a powerful instrument for managing competing departmental interests and ensuring that often-parochial views of different agencies are reconciled into a single, coherent national security strategy.
Who’s at the Table
The NSC’s composition reflects its mission to integrate key instruments of national power. By law, statutory members are the President (who serves as chairman), Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, and Secretary of the Treasury.
Two officials serve as statutory advisors: the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who provides military advice, and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who represents the consensus view of the U.S. Intelligence Community.
The President retains flexibility to invite other senior officials to meetings as needed, depending on subject matter. Regular attendees often include the Secretary of Homeland Security, Attorney General, White House Chief of Staff, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, ensuring all relevant perspectives are brought to the table when making critical decisions.
The Engine Room: NSC Staff and Committee System
Formal NSC meetings chaired by the President represent only the final stage of a long and complex policy development process. The real work of coordination and consensus-building occurs within a hierarchical committee system managed by the NSC staff and led by the National Security Advisor. This structure acts as a critical filter, ensuring issues are thoroughly analyzed and interagency disputes are resolved at the lowest possible level, reserving the President’s time for only the most significant decisions.
The National Security Advisor (NSA): Appointed by the President without Senate confirmation, the NSA directs NSC staff and is often the President’s most trusted foreign policy counselor. The NSA’s role is to manage information flow and policy options to the President, set agendas for NSC meetings, and ensure presidential decisions are communicated to relevant agencies for implementation. The NSA’s influence has grown substantially over decades, with figures like Henry Kissinger transforming the position into a central force in U.S. foreign policy.
The Tiered Committee Structure: The NSC system moves issues upward through a series of committees, each with progressively higher levels of seniority:
Policy Coordination Committees (PCCs): These are primary forums for day-to-day interagency coordination. Chaired by a senior NSC staff member, PCCs comprise assistant secretary-level officials from relevant departments and agencies. They are organized around specific regions (like Europe) or functional topics (like Counterterrorism or Cybersecurity) and are responsible for developing policy options, managing implementation of existing policies, and resolving routine interagency disagreements.
Deputies Committee (DC): Chaired by the Deputy National Security Advisor, the DC is the senior sub-Cabinet forum including second-in-command officials from key national security departments. This committee is crucial for crisis management, reviewing policy papers from PCCs, and ensuring options are fully vetted before presentation to Cabinet-level officials. Most interagency consensus is forged at this level.
Principals Committee (PC): Chaired by the National Security Advisor, the PC is the senior Cabinet-level interagency forum, consisting of the Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, and other principals as needed. Its primary function is to consider the most significant national security issues, resolve major policy disputes that could not be settled at the Deputies level, and finalize recommendations for the President’s consideration in formal NSC meetings.
The Modern Threat Landscape
The NSC’s coordinating function has been brought into sharp focus by evolving foreign threats to U.S. elections. The challenge extends beyond traditional espionage into the digital domain, where adversaries exploit American society’s openness to sow discord and undermine faith in the democratic process.
The primary objective of these foreign operations is often not to alter final vote counts—an act U.S. intelligence agencies assess would be difficult to accomplish at scale without detection—but rather to manipulate the political environment and erode public trust in outcome legitimacy.
Defining the Threat: Influence vs. Interference
The U.S. Intelligence Community draws a critical distinction between two types of foreign activity:
Election Influence: This is a broad category of activities, both overt and covert, intended to affect an election, including by shaping voters’ preferences or influencing candidates and political parties.
Election Interference: This is a more specific subset of influence that targets technical aspects of the election process itself, such as voter registration systems, ballot casting, vote tabulation, or reporting of results.
While the U.S. has developed robust defenses against technical interference, the more pervasive and challenging threat comes from foreign influence operations designed to achieve strategic goals like undermining confidence in democratic institutions and exacerbating societal divisions.
The Adversary’s Toolkit
Foreign actors employ diverse and sophisticated tools to meddle in U.S. elections, blending traditional espionage with modern cyber and information warfare techniques.
Cyber Operations on Infrastructure: Adversaries conduct operations targeting digital systems that underpin American elections. This includes attempts to hack into IT systems of political parties and campaigns, spear-phish election officials to gain access to their accounts, and probe state and local voter registration databases. While intelligence reports have consistently found no evidence these activities have prevented voting or changed vote totals, they represent persistent threats to sensitive political data security and can fuel narratives of compromised elections.
Malign Influence and Disinformation: This is the most common form of foreign meddling. Adversaries use social media platforms, state-controlled media outlets, and networks of inauthentic accounts to spread disinformation, amplify conspiracy theories, and inflame social and political tensions. These campaigns are often designed to “camouflage” foreign-directed content as authentic domestic discourse by using local influencers or posing as American citizens.
The advent of generative artificial intelligence has made this threat more potent, allowing for rapid creation of highly realistic but fake audio and video content, known as “deepfakes,” to deceive voters.
The Primary State Actors
U.S. intelligence assessments consistently identify a core group of state actors actively engaged in efforts to influence U.S. elections.
Russia: Often described as the most active and direct threat, Russia has engaged in broad malign influence activities. These include manufacturing and amplifying false content to undermine trust in election integrity, stoking social divisions, and attempting to compromise campaign infrastructure.
China: China has conducted cyber operations that have impacted networks associated with U.S. political organizations and has used its online infrastructure to promote divisive content related to U.S. “culture war” issues. Intelligence assessments indicate China has taken steps to undermine specific candidates it views as counter to its interests.
Iran: Iran has been identified as a significant foreign influence threat, conducting malicious cyber activities against presidential campaigns and creating fake media content intended to suppress voting or incite violence.
These efforts demonstrate that the primary battlefield for election security has shifted. While technical defenses for voting machines remain crucial, the more complex and enduring challenge is defending the cognitive space—the minds of American voters—from sophisticated psychological manipulation.
The NSC’s Coordinating Role
Faced with persistent threats, the U.S. government has institutionalized its response, moving from largely ad-hoc efforts of 2016 to a more structured and formalized process managed through the NSC. This evolution reflects recognition that foreign interference is now an enduring feature of the national security landscape, requiring permanent, coordinated defense.
The Coordinator, Not the Operator
The NSC’s fundamental role is that of coordinator. It does not conduct investigations, secure networks, or issue sanctions itself. Instead, it ensures agencies with legal authority and technical capability to perform these functions are working together effectively.
A 2018 law formalized this responsibility by establishing a “Coordinator for combating malign foreign influence operations and campaigns” as a designated position on the NSC staff, tasked with managing the interagency process for this specific threat.
Setting Strategy through Presidential Directives
The playbook for the U.S. government’s response is laid out in presidential directives, which provide the framework for interagency action coordinated by the NSC.
Presidential Policy Directive 41 (PPD-41): Signed in 2016, PPD-41, “United States Cyber Incident Coordination,” establishes the national framework for responding to any “significant cyber incident.” A major foreign cyberattack on election infrastructure would fall under this directive.
PPD-41 outlines “unity of governmental effort” and assigns lead agency roles for three concurrent lines of response:
- Threat Response: Led by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI, involving law enforcement and national security investigations to attribute attacks, disrupt actors, and collect evidence.
- Asset Response: Led by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), involving technical assistance to victims to protect systems, mitigate vulnerabilities, and recover from incidents.
- Intelligence Support: Led by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), involving integrating intelligence to build situational awareness of threats.
PPD-41 also established a Cyber Response Group (CRG) to coordinate policy at the national level, which operates in support of the NSC.
Executive Order 13848: Signed in 2018, this order created a specific process to address foreign interference in U.S. elections. It mandates that no later than 45 days after a U.S. election, the DNI, in consultation with other agencies, must deliver an assessment of whether any foreign government or its agents interfered.
This assessment triggers a joint report from the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security on the impact of that interference. Based on these reports, the Secretaries of State and Treasury are directed to impose sanctions on any individuals or entities found to have been involved. This executive order provides a formal, repeatable mechanism for holding foreign adversaries accountable.
The NSC Committee System at Work
These directives are implemented through the NSC’s committee structure. A new threat, such as an AI-driven disinformation campaign targeting a swing state, would likely be addressed first by a Policy Coordination Committee (PCC) composed of experts from the intelligence community, DHS, DOJ, and State Department.
This PCC would analyze the threat and develop potential responses, such as public attribution, diplomatic démarches, sanctions, or technical countermeasures. These options would then be debated and refined at the Deputies Committee, which would work to build consensus on a recommended course of action.
If the threat is severe enough or if agencies cannot agree on a response, the issue would be elevated to the Principals Committee, which would finalize a recommendation for the President.
The Key Players
The NSC’s success in securing elections depends entirely on its ability to effectively coordinate the unique capabilities of several key federal agencies. Each agency has a distinct role, and the NSC’s job is to ensure these roles are complementary rather than conflicting.
The Intelligence Community (ODNI): The Watchtower
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence serves as the lead for the U.S. Intelligence Community. Its primary role in election security is to provide a comprehensive intelligence picture of foreign threats.
The ODNI’s Foreign Malign Influence Center (FMIC) is the central hub for integrating intelligence related to foreign influence and election security, managing the IC’s collection and analysis on the topic. The DNI is responsible for delivering authoritative post-election assessments to the President, which form the basis for any subsequent actions under Executive Order 13848.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS/CISA): The Shield
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a component of DHS, is the nation’s lead agency for cyber and infrastructure security. Following the 2017 designation of election systems as “critical infrastructure,” CISA took on the primary role of protecting physical and digital assets that support U.S. elections. This corresponds to its “asset response” function under PPD-41.
CISA’s work is voluntary and collaborative; it provides state and local election officials with a range of no-cost services, including vulnerability scanning, security assessments, incident response assistance, and training. It also facilitates information sharing across the country through the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC).
Department of Justice (DOJ/FBI): The Sword
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the lead federal agency for investigating and responding to foreign malign influence operations and criminal cyber activity targeting U.S. elections. This is its “threat response” role under PPD-41.
In 2017, the FBI established the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) to centralize its efforts to identify and counteract these operations. The FBI works with partners to disrupt adversary activities, attribute attacks to specific actors, and, in conjunction with the DOJ’s National Security Division, prosecute those who violate U.S. law.
| Entity | Primary Role | Key Responsibilities |
|---|---|---|
| National Security Council (NSC) | Coordinator | Advise President; Coordinate interagency policy; Manage committee process (PCC, DC, PC); Ensure implementation of presidential directives (PPD-41, EO 13848) |
| Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) | Intelligence Provider | Lead Intelligence Community; Integrate intelligence on foreign threats; Produce post-election assessments; Warn policymakers and the public |
| Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) | Infrastructure Defender | Protect critical election infrastructure; Provide voluntary technical support to states; Share threat information with election officials; Lead “asset response” |
| Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) | Law Enforcement/Threat Responder | Investigate foreign influence operations and cybercrimes; Disrupt adversary activities; Attribute attacks; Lead “threat response” |
Assessing the Impact: Successes and Shortcomings
The ultimate question is whether this NSC-led, whole-of-government approach has been effective. The evidence suggests a mixed but largely positive picture, with clear successes in hardening technical aspects of elections, but persistent and evolving challenges in fighting foreign influence.
The Evolution of Defense: From 2016 to Present
The foreign interference in the 2016 election served as a profound wake-up call that exposed significant vulnerabilities in the nation’s election security posture. The response in following years was transformative.
The January 2017 designation of election infrastructure as a subsector of the nation’s critical infrastructure was pivotal, as it unlocked a new level of federal support and resources for state and local election officials.
This led to unprecedented collaboration between federal agencies like CISA and FBI and thousands of state and local entities that administer elections. By 2020, this effort had paid significant dividends. Federal, state, and local partners had worked together to implement defensive measures, improve information sharing, conduct cybersecurity training, and increase use of auditable paper ballots.
This preparation led a coalition of election security officials to declare the 2020 election “the most secure in American history.” This success in hardening technical defenses was reaffirmed in the 2022 midterms.
Intelligence Community assessments for both 2020 and 2022 elections concluded that while foreign adversaries, including Russia, China, and Iran, continued their attempts to compromise and influence elections, there was no evidence that any foreign actor had succeeded in preventing voting, changing votes, or disrupting tabulation of ballots.
The Persistent Challenge: Countering Influence and Eroding Trust
While the U.S. government has demonstrated considerable success in protecting technical integrity of the vote, it faces a far more difficult and amorphous challenge in countering foreign influence operations. Adversaries have recognized they do not need to hack a voting machine to achieve their strategic goals; they only need to erode the American public’s faith in the democratic process.
These influence campaigns are designed to exploit and amplify existing social and political divisions within the United States. By spreading disinformation, promoting conspiracy theories, and using covert online personas to mimic authentic political discourse, foreign actors can create an information environment rife with distrust and polarization.
This type of cognitive attack is exceptionally difficult for a democratic government to counter. Any direct government intervention to label information as “false” or remove content from social media platforms can be easily portrayed as censorship or partisan politics, potentially doing more to undermine trust than the original foreign operation.
This creates a fundamental asymmetry: the government must be perfect in its technical defense of thousands of election systems, while an adversary only needs to be persuasive in its psychological manipulation of the public to succeed.
Critiques and Room for Improvement
The effectiveness of the NSC’s high-level coordination ultimately depends on the capabilities and performance of individual agencies it directs. A 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided a critical look at CISA’s operational readiness in the run-up to that year’s election.
The GAO found that CISA had been slow to finalize its strategic and operational plans and that these plans did not fully address all mandated lines of effort, such as providing security assistance to political campaigns and raising public awareness about foreign influence threats.
The report also highlighted several challenges from CISA’s 2018 efforts that had not been fully resolved, including failure to adequately tailor services to needs of resource-strapped local election jurisdictions and lack of clarity regarding incident response capabilities.
While state officials were generally satisfied with CISA’s support, the GAO’s findings underscore the immense difficulty of translating a “whole-of-government” strategy conceived in Washington, D.C., into effective, on-the-ground support for more than 8,000 decentralized election jurisdictions across the country.
Although CISA subsequently took action to implement GAO recommendations, the report serves as a reminder that even well-designed coordination systems can face significant friction at the point of execution.
The Ongoing Challenge
The NSC’s role in coordinating election security represents one of the most complex challenges in modern national security. Unlike traditional threats that target military assets or government facilities, foreign election interference attacks the foundation of democratic legitimacy itself.
The success in hardening technical election infrastructure demonstrates that when the U.S. government coordinates effectively through the NSC structure, it can achieve significant defensive improvements. However, the persistent challenge of countering influence operations reveals the limits of what government coordination can accomplish in a democratic society committed to free speech and open debate.
As foreign adversaries continue to adapt their tactics and new technologies create additional vulnerabilities, the NSC’s coordinating role will remain essential. The institution’s ability to balance security imperatives with democratic values while managing competing agency interests will continue to be tested in each election cycle.
The ultimate measure of success is not the absence of foreign interference attempts—which intelligence assessments suggest will continue—but the preservation of public confidence in the integrity and legitimacy of American democratic processes.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.