Why defunding the Election Assistance Commission may hurt election integrity
Americans want secure, trustworthy elections. Unfortunately, the president’s proposed budget envisions a substantial cut—nearly 40 percent—to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), a small agency focused on certifying voting technology. In an era of justifiable concern over rampant government spending, it’s tempting to see every budget cut as a win for fiscal responsibility. But some cuts risk doing more harm than good. At a time when public trust in elections is fragile and threats to voting systems are growing more sophisticated, gutting the very agency responsible for shoring up election infrastructure sends the wrong message and creates real vulnerabilities.
The EAC plays a vital role that few people know much about. Created under the 2002 Help America Vote Act, it coordinates testing and certification of voting systems, accredits laboratories, distributes grants, and publishes guidance to bolster election administration. It’s a bipartisan commission with a rare track record of productivity. While it’s right to ensure every agency delivers value for taxpayers, these cuts risk impairing the EAC’s ability to carry out core election security functions—just as the Trump administration looks to increase its workload.
The president’s FY 2026 budget proposes a significant 38 percent cut in EAC funding, slashing the budget from $27 million to just $17 million in one year and reducing full-time staffing significantly. That reverses years of steady growth, including a post-2021 boost meant to strengthen equipment audits, cybersecurity, and voting-equipment pilots. This reduction comes shortly after a presidential executive order expanded EAC responsibilities and just as it certified its first voting system under the new Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0, the most significant upgrade since 2005.
That 38 percent budget cut is more than symbolic—it shrinks EAC capacity just when demand for its services is growing. Certification, modeling, research, lab accreditation, cybersecurity outreach, and election grants all rely on staff to function effectively. The EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program tests and certifies new voting systems against federal standards in labs accredited by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Once certified, systems appear in the EAC’s inventory; states may require or recommend these systems under state law. In fact, 11 states and D.C. require full EAC certification before allowing machines to be used; 18 states and D.C. require testing to federal standards; and 25 states require testing in a federally accredited laboratory.
Budgets certainly shouldn’t grow by inertia, and Congress desperately needs to confront its spending problem. However, some cuts can be so severe that they imperil the very purpose any funding is meant to serve.
This cut risks some potential unintended consequences. First, new and updated machines might stall at federal testing, holding up state and local procurement. Second, there will be fewer staff to monitor election data or investigate vulnerabilities. Third, a smaller EAC means fewer grants, fewer webinars, and fewer essential training programs, leaving officials on their own. Finally, laws mandating federal certification will go unsatisfied, inviting litigation and administrative gridlock.
Ultimately, this cut undermines the very tools that boost election innovation, security, and transparency. While the EAC costs little compared to many other agencies, the proposed cuts could have outsized effects on state and local election management. It’s worth considering if the current budget requests align with the goals and objectives of the administration in this area.