If Election Infrastructure Is a National Security Issue, November Cannot Be Business as Usual

 By Linda Brickman

Before President Trump Speaks, Voters Should Be Asking Whether The 2026 Election System Is Secure Enough to Trust

ADVERTISEMENT

Tomorrow night, President Trump is expected to address the nation on what may become one of the most consequential election-security questions in modern American history.

Public reporting indicates the President’s address may involve newly reviewed or declassified government materials, election-integrity concerns, foreign cyber-intrusion risks, national election security, and alleged vulnerabilities in voting systems. Reuters reported that the address is expected to focus on newly declassified intelligence and what the White House describes as voting-machine vulnerabilities; while other outlets report that election integrity is expected to be a central theme.

If that reporting is even close to accurate, then every voter in America should be asking one urgent question before November:

Can the next election be trusted if the same vulnerabilities remain in place?

This is not a small question.

ADVERTISEMENT

It is not merely a 2020 question.

It is not only a partisan question.

It is a national-security question.

For years, Americans have been told that election concerns are “debunked,” “settled,” “baseless,” or “conspiracy theories.” But if the President of the United States is preparing to present irrefutable documentation involving foreign interference, election infrastructure, cyber risks, or vulnerabilities in the system itself, then the country may be entering a very different conversation.

Because once election infrastructure is framed as a national-security issue, the debate changes.

The question is no longer whether citizens are allowed to ask questions.

The question becomes whether public officials have a duty to fix the system before voters are asked to trust it again.

ADVERTISEMENTThe Question Before November

Before Americans cast ballots in November, voters should be asking:

Why are unsecured drop boxes still treated as normal?

Why is ballot harvesting still tolerated in any state?

Why are election machines still used in ways many voters do not understand, cannot verify, and do not trust?

Why are paper ballots not the national baseline as they were for hundreds of years?

Why are absentee ballots not limited to those who truly need them, such as the elderly, the sick, the disabled, citizens temporarily away from home, and the military?

Why are voters expected to trust systems they cannot personally verify?

Why are election officials allowed to demand public confidence while resisting the reforms that would actually create public confidence?

And most importantly:

If foreign actors or cyber vulnerabilities have touched America’s election infrastructure, why would the country go into November without emergency reforms?

Executive Order or National Emergency Declaration?

Before the President speaks, Americans should understand the difference between an Executive Order and a National Emergency Declaration tied to national security.

An Executive Order is a signed presidential directive used to manage the operations of the federal government. It can direct federal agencies, set enforcement priorities, or implement policy within existing presidential authority. The National Archives describes Executive Orders as official documents through which the President manages operations of the federal government. Executive Orders can be challenged through the courts; and subsequent Presidents can revoke them.

A National Emergency Declaration is different. It formally declares that an emergency exists that allows the President to invoke specific emergency powers that Congress has already placed in federal law. Further, unlike Executive Orders, the declaration cannot be challenged in the courts; only the Congress can challenge with a two-thirds vote in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.

In plain English:

An Executive Order tells the federal government what to do within presidential authority.

A National Emergency Declaration may unlock additional statutory powers Congress has already made available for emergency situations, and the Supreme Court has validated Presidential use of such declarations.

THAT DIFFERENCE MATTERS…

If election infrastructure is treated as a national-security emergency, the issue may move beyond ordinary election administration and into a larger fight over foreign interference, cyber risk, voting-system vulnerability, and whether America can safely proceed into November using questionable procedures and systems voters cannot fully verify.

But neither Presidential tool is a magic wand.

For example, the Constitution gives the States the first role in setting the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, while Congress has power to alter those rules by law. And any attempt by a President to force major nationwide election-rule changes through an Executive Order would almost certainly trigger immediate legal and political challenges.

However, only Congress can act to terminate a National Emergency Declaration by a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

So, the legal fight may be enormous…

Congress may attempt to fight, but they need two-thirds of their members in each chamber to succeed.

States may attempt to fight, but they have “no legal standing” to challenge.

Courts may be asked to intervene, but the courts have “no jurisdiction” to hear a challenge.

The media may attempt to fight by trying to frame and define the issues before voters hear the evidence.

But none of that changes the Central Question for Voting Citizens:

Should America go into November using election systems that may be vulnerable, confusing, decentralized, machine-dependent, and impossible for ordinary citizens to fully verify?

The Answer Should Be NO!

Election Confidence Cannot Be Built on Political Slogans

Election confidence cannot be built on media assurances.

It cannot be built on bureaucratic talking points.

It cannot be built on “trust us.”

It cannot be built on after-the-fact lawsuits.

It cannot be built on audits that come too late to restore public confidence.

Election confidence must be built before the first ballot is cast.

That means voters should demand election procedures they can see, understand, audit, and trust.

That also means:

Paper ballots.

Real chain of custody.

Strict voter identification.

Proof of citizenship.

No ballot harvesting.

No unsecured drop-box systems.

Transparent counting.

Tight absentee-ballot rules.

Limited machine dependence.

Auditable tabulation.

Public accountability before certification, not after the damage is done.

If those reforms are called “extreme,” voters should ask:

Extreme compared to what?

Extreme compared to foreign interference?

Extreme compared to cyber vulnerability?

Extreme compared to election results half the country does not trust?

Extreme compared to machines voters cannot inspect?

Extreme compared to ballots moving through systems ordinary citizens cannot follow?

Extreme compared to another November election followed by another wave of lawsuits, accusations, hearings, and public distrust?

Over the past two decades, We the People have let our guard down when unelected bureaucrats, together with ideological weak politicians, embraced trading proven and secure, elections procedures and systems, for more convenient non-precinct voting procedures and systems, including mail-in ballots, centralized voting, extending 1-day voting to weeks and months of early voting, and extending ballot counting to weeks and months after election day!

And this was all done despite bi-partisan support by Democrats and Republicans alike at the national level against these changes, out of legitimate concerns over abuse, misuse, and fraud, up until the time Trump was elected President in 2016.

Think about this…

Secure elections should not be controversial.

Transparent elections should not be controversial.

Paper ballots should not be controversial.

Proof of citizenship should not be controversial.

Chain of custody should not be controversial.

The only people who should fear fraud-proof elections are those who benefit from systems that are not fraud-proof.

Before The Speech, Ask the Question

President Trump has not yet given the speech.

The public has not yet seen what documents he may present.

The country does not yet know what action he may announce.

So, Americans should be careful not to claim more than has been proven.

But voters should also be careful not to ignore the seriousness of the moment.

If the President is preparing to present evidence involving foreign interference, cyber vulnerabilities, election infrastructure, or voting-system risks, then voters should not wait until November to ask questions.

They should ask them now.

Because the issue is not whether one side likes the outcome of a past election.

The issue is whether the next election can be trusted before it happens.

And if the President does indeed issue a National Emergency Declaration and sets forth the major reforms needed, then they are needed immediately.

Not after November.

Not after another contested election.

Not after another round of hearings, lawsuits, audits, excuses, and media lectures.

NOW!

America cannot afford another election in which voters are told to trust a process they cannot verify.

The Question Every Official Must Answer

If President Trump’s Thursday address confirms that foreign actors, cyber risks, or national-security vulnerabilities have touched America’s election infrastructure, then every voter, every legislator, every Governor, every Secretary of State, every Attorney General, every county recorder, every election official, and every candidate should be asked the same question:

If you now know the system is vulnerable, why would you not support fixing the system immediately and in time for the November mid-term elections?

That is the question…

Not after the election…

Before the election…

Because once the ballots are cast, the damage may already be done.

And if election infrastructure is truly a National-Security Issue, November cannot be business as usual.

By Linda Brickman

©2026 Linda Brickman All Rights Reserved.