With two weeks until Election Day, there is a high likelihood for a wide variety of physical and cyber threats, with the most concerning scenario remaining a close and disputed outcome in the presidential races that amplifies physical safety risks and threatens to harm business operations. With all eyes on Election Day on Nov. 5, more than 17 million Americans reportedly have already voted via mail-in or in-person early voting options – and many more will do so in the coming days. As former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris make their final pitches to voters, a long list of current and former government officials, as well as myriad independent experts and monitoring groups, are warning that the likelihood for election-related violence and cyberattacks is growing. While the two assassination attempts against Trump have attracted the vast majority of attention on the risk of physical violence, there is a much longer list of lower-level incidents that confirm simmering and intense political grievances. Stretching back to the start of 2021, Reuters has documented more than 300 cases of political violence, including more than 50 thus far this year, which the news agency characterizes as “the most sustained increase in U.S. political violence since the 1970s.” Aside from the two deaths at the July 13 Trump rally – the shooter and an attendee who was standing behind Trump – there have been no fatalities this year. However, recent incidents include clashes between protesters and counter-protesters, property damage at campaign events and offices, and various violent disputes between individuals supporting different candidates. These illustrate the many different ways violence can manifest, especially when considering what multiple top government officials have called an “unprecedented” number of threats against election workers, public officials and others linked to the voting process. Adding to concerns about the likelihood of greater violence and unrest as Election Day comes closer is the persistently aggressive rhetoric coming from both presidential campaigns and their supporters. While opponents have accused the Harris campaign of hyping threats against Trump by portraying him as a fascist threat to democracy, most experts say Trump’s incendiary rhetoric is the much larger driver for violent risks. Among other things, in recent days Trump has on multiple occasions threatened to jail his political enemies, deploy the military to confront “the enemy within” and refused to rule out violence should he lose the election – which he has repeatedly said will be rigged against him if he loses.
Between now and the end of Election Day, the likelihood for a wide range of violent incidents and cyberattacks, particularly against targets in any way linked to the voting process, will rise. With both presidential campaigns framing the election in existential terms, and against a backdrop of intense political polarization, all signs point to an antagonistic and volatile end to political campaigning. Threats could manifest anywhere given that the entire House of Representatives, one-third of the Senate and a long list of local and state offices are being contested, alongside a slew of ballot initiatives regarding contentious topics like abortion access. However, there will be especially high risks for personnel and infrastructure at all linked to the voting process, such as polling sites, mail-in ballot drop boxes and local and state government buildings connected to the election. At these and other election-linked locations, a particularly high risk will come from groups and individuals who intend to act as de facto “monitors” to prevent alleged fraud. These people are likely to harass and intimidate voters and election personnel – and the threshold for violence will be lower if such “monitors” are armed. Of even greater concern is the threat that extremists across the ideological spectrum seek to deliberately attack election-linked locations, a growing concern according to the Department of Homeland Security. Judging from aggressive political rhetoric and the continuing circulation of conspiracy theories, various minority groups (due to their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or immigration status) will also likely face elevated threats of targeted violence. Corporate executives and locations may also be at risk if they are in any way alleged to be supporting one candidate over the other, with threats ranging from swatting attacks against executives to property damage to corporate buildings. Taken together, the likelihood of all of these threats will be amplified by what can be expected to be a deluge of misinformation and disinformation – from both domestic and foreign groups – in the final days of the election cycle. Politically-motivated cyber threat actors will also carry out attacks ranging from more rudimentary distributed-denial-of-service attacks against targets like local and state election websites to more aggressive ransomware attacks against government networks and election infrastructure. Even though these attacks should not be able to change any vote tallies, they will be aimed at sowing distrust in the results and disrupting the voting process.
• Although motivated by financial gain rather than partisan politics, a wide variety of cybercriminal groups will also find numerous ways to exploit the closing days of election campaigning by carrying out election-themed lures like phishing attempts and business email compromise scams. For many organizations, these may be the most relevant cyber threats to consider around Election Day.
• Given the charged environment, organizations should also be mindful of the risk that employees of different political beliefs have workplace disputes that disrupt normal daily operations or potentially even escalate to violence. Some employees aggrieved at their employer’s political stance (or lack thereof) may also represent insider threats and could leak sensitive information, such as executives’ personal data or corporate emails.
• Separate from the potential for far-left and far-right violence, Islamist extremists also pose a threat to take advantage of the voting process to carry out attacks. Already, U.S. authorities have foiled at least one Islamic State-linked plot timed for Election Day and, with Islamist extremists’ anti-U.S. grievances elevated due to U.S. support for Israel amid ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, lone actors and small groups will pose an elevated threat to the U.S. homeland well into the new year.
A close and disputed presidential election will increase the likelihood of an even more escalatory scenario in which more intense violent unrest occurs in multiple places across the country for longer periods of time, in turn threatening greater risks to personal safety and business operations. The presidential election is too close to call and, according to most respected pollsters and forecasters, the leads Harris and Trump have in the key battleground states are all within the margin of error. This indicates that the outcome is likely to come down to a comparatively small number of voters in a few key counties across the approximately seven states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) considered to be most competitive. Both campaigns, but especially Trump’s, have already filed scores of pre-election lawsuits against various parts of the voting process and are all but certain to legally challenge the results in various locations. This means there is unlikely to be a clear outcome to the presidential race on Nov. 5 and, given the counting and expected recounting of votes in multiple jurisdictions – alongside what could be a protracted legal battle in the courts – the final result may not be known for multiple days, if not longer. This post-election period would be especially dangerous because it would feed narratives of fraud, interference and other improprieties, regardless of veracity. At a minimum, this will result in an uptick in disruptive and potentially violent street clashes between supporters of opposing candidates, but there would also be a higher likelihood that aggrieved individuals across the political spectrum seek to carry out targeted attacks. Even larger risks would come from more organized violence from various groups aligned with either candidate. Trump’s rhetoric would be a particular concern because he has repeatedly alleged that the election will be rigged, refused to rule out violence if he loses and implied backing supporters to take matters into their own hands if needed to restore him to the Oval Office; as such, were he to more explicitly condone action to this end, the likelihood for violence would significantly rise. In such a scenario, lone actors and small cells would likely carry out various attacks against anyone seen as involved in the alleged conspiracy to keep Trump out of office, meaning threats like targeted assassinations, mass shootings and civil disturbances would become more likely. Moreover, were far-right militias to get involved, their greater training, weaponry and other capabilities would increase the likelihood of more geographically widespread and longer lasting violence, such as creating various urban encampments, storming government buildings and more sophisticated, coordinated attacks like bombings. In this scenario, the threats to personal safety would dramatically increase, as would the likelihood of business disruptions in affected areas due to rioting, looting, property damage, transportation disruptions and authorities’ potential responses like curfews and restrictions on movement. Aside from suffering secondary disruptions from these threats, at least some corporate executives and corporate locations also would likely be specifically targeted for violence if they were in any way alleged to be involved in supposed election rigging.
• Likely even more so than in the days leading up to Election Day, a wide variety of cyber threat actors would be all but certain to ramp up their online influence campaigns, attacks against various election targets and other operations to take advantage, and often amplify, the uncertainty surrounding a disputed presidential race.
• While Trump’s repeated claims about election fraud and refusal to rule out violence should he lose indicate that his supporters are more likely to engage in post election violence, the two assassination attempts against him and numerous examples of aggressive far-left activism illustrate that people and groups backing Harris would also mobilize if she lost.
• Repeated surveys indicate that large numbers of Americans (especially Republicans) support political violence in some cases. According to the most recent Oct. 16 report from the Public Religion Research Institute, whose surveys on the topic are well regarded, 23% of Republicans who support Trump (and 19% of all Republicans) say that, if he loses, he should declare the results invalid and do whatever it is necessary to take office. By comparison, only 12% of Democrats say Harris should do the same. There are similar partisan splits regarding a variety of similar questions, including support for average citizens to commit violence if they believe it is necessary to save the country.
