Americans vote in this year’s consequential presidential election in an environment marked by growing threats, including the weaponization of artificial intelligence, influence campaigns run by foreign authoritarian adversaries, and false election narratives that threaten to undermine faith in the US election system. Here is what experts from the Alliance for Securing Democracy at GMF are watching:
Election Information
“Around elections, those of us focused on information threats look at three distinct time periods when false or misleading information can have an effect: the period before the election, which can affect how people vote; the day of the election, which can affect the administration of the election; and the period immediately after an election, which can affect people’s confidence in the results. Without question, the period I, and I think most of my colleagues, am most concerned about is the period after the election, particularly if the result is extremely close. In 2020, we were prepared for stolen election claims, but I don’t think anyone was prepared for how pervasive and enduring those claims would become. That has created an environment in which some people—according to polls, maybe as many as half of all Americans—believe that elections can be stolen, meaning that any glitches, errors, delays, or honest mistakes by election officials likely will be framed as evidence of widespread malfeasance. I think it is, therefore, inevitable that we will see doubt cast on the integrity of the election. What I will be watching is the extent to which that doubt is fanned by parts of the media, political parties, and, most importantly, the candidates themselves.” —Bret Schafer, Senior Fellow
Election Administration
“Election administration has faced increased and, in many cases, unwarranted scrutiny since 2020. As such, I will be paying close attention to how smoothly the election runs—particularly in the seven battleground states—and whether a longer vote-counting period or issues with election administration will fuel narratives that could raise doubt about November’s outcome. As we head into what will likely be another hotly contested election, it is critical that voters remember that our elections have safeguards in place to ensure their accuracy and that longer counting times—especially in races as tight as this year’s—are normal and not indicators of malfeasance. This will help minimize the impact of harmful narratives that degrade trust in our election systems.” —Krystyna Sikora, Research Assistant
Rejecting False Narratives
“Americans are already familiar with the playbook for undermining trust in elections. They know that elections aren’t perfect but are designed to catch and correct mistakes quickly. They have heard the false claims about voter registration lists, mail-in voting, drop boxes, and noncitizen voting, to name a few. The overarching theme of these narratives is that the system cannot be trusted, a point often backed by fabricated incidents or a real election mistake, mischaracterized as proof of something more widespread and sinister. Over the next two weeks, I will be watching how election officials and local communities respond to false claims aimed at themselves or their neighbors. We have already seen a willingness across the country to push back against distrust in the election system and against false claims. Currently, my favorite example comes from the Benedictine nuns of Erie, Pennsylvania, who, when accused of not living at their monastery by an activist looking for irregularities in voter registration, pushed back hard. Sisters have sat for interviews, making clear that they exist and are involved in the community, and they refuse to be fodder for false claims. In other states, groups such as the Conservative Agenda for Arizona have placed on billboards in their state messages supportive of election workers in a preemptive show of support and confidence. A fake video created by a Russian influence operation purporting to show the destruction of ballots was debunked by Bucks County, Pennsylvania, election officials and law enforcement within three hours of its circulation online. In this complex information space, Americans must remember that there is truth, and it still matters. I will be watching closely to see if that can break through the noise.” —Rachael Dean Wilson, Co-Managing Director
The US Intelligence Community’s Role
“In the run-up to Election Day, the US intelligence community has been releasing periodic bulletins about nation-state actors running information operations and interference campaigns targeting American voters. These threats, which manifest predominantly from Russia and Iran, seek to denigrate the democratic process in the United States and undermine Americans’ confidence in the vote, as well as inflame polarization and even spark violence. I am eager to see how the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reacts on and around Election Day should there indeed be foreign threats that target the voting process—not so much actual threats to voting infrastructure but information operations, including deepfakes and manipulated content, that purport to show malfeasance at polling places. Will the intelligence community react in a timely manner by publicizing threat information, presumably to reassure Americans that the vote has not, in fact, been falsified? And more importantly, will national political figures, including a presidential candidate who fuels false election narratives, simply twist whatever the intelligence community does for their own political purposes? Millions of Americans are already inclined to believe the electoral process is rigged. Foreign actors are exploiting their skepticism. And it is the intelligence community’s job to track such threats. Unfortunately, the political climate in the United States is such that millions of Americans are liable to dismiss out of hand whatever intelligence is made public and cry foul anyway.” — David Salvo, Co-Managing Director
Internet Culture
“Memes will be front and center in this election cycle, shaping narratives and influencing behaviors in subtle but powerful ways. Candidate-aligned meme brigades will swarm platforms, creating viral content that amplifies campaign messages and drowns out competitors. At the same time, disillusionment memes will push narratives like ‘voting is pointless’, discouraging turnout, especially among younger voters. Post-election chaos will see memes amplifying contested results or inciting unrest, while meme laundering—where fringe content slowly becomes mainstream—could or would seek to normalize radical or false narratives. Russia, the People’s Republic of China, and Iran are primed to exploit these divisions and dynamics, using memes to promote voter apathy and sow discord. In this battlefield of humor and manipulation, memes are no joke. They’re political weapons.” —Peter Benzoni, Investigative Data and Research Analyst
The View From Beijing
“The US presidential election will be followed closely and with great interest in Beijing. For years, the People’s Republic of China has worked to position its economic and political systems as models for countries around the world, especially for those in the ‘Global South’. The economic success and political stability of US democracy is a major impediment to that messaging. Recent indictments and warnings issued by US law enforcement should remind everyone that PRC operatives and proxies are actively working to confuse US voters and blunt US support for democracy globally. However, the biggest win for the PRC would be a protracted and disorderly transition of power that weakens the legitimacy of whoever ends up in the White House come January 2025. Should such a chaotic scenario arise, the PRC propaganda apparatus will undoubtedly promote and disseminate news of the unrest around the world.” —Etienne Soula, Research Analyst
The View from Brussels
“From a European standpoint, no other election this year—perhaps not even the European Parliament vote in June—has been met with greater angst over its outcome than that in the United States. Most of Europe will watch the epilogue of this nail-bitingly close race with bated breath. Harris is more of a ‘known unknown’, given that a possible second Trump administration proved a massive distraction for serious strategic thinking about how to engage with her. Yet a Harris administration is widely seen as bringing stability and predictability to the Oval Office, as compared to Trump’s perceived disruptiveness and unpredictability. Given the former president’s aversion to NATO, consistent threats about cutting critical US support to Ukraine, and repeated promises to slap widespread blanket tariffs on incoming goods, most European leaders are clearly wary of the security and economic implications of a second Trump administration. Linked to that are also deep concerns about the weaponization of the information space, which has emerged as one of this election’s most significant challenges.” —Vassilis Ntousas, Senior Manager for Europe and Fellow
The views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the views of the author alone.
