Trump Just Fired a Well-Respected Election Security Official for Disagreeing With Him

Christopher Krebs, director of the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on May 14, 2019. Tom Williams/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA Press

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

President Donald Trump fired one of the US government’s most senior officials responsible for cybersecurity and election security in a Tuesday night tweet—a move that’s been widely expected for days, as the official, Chris Krebs, led the effort to loudly debunk some of the president’s most outlandish claims about election irregularities after Trump’s Nov. 3 loss.

Trump appointed Krebs, a former Microsoft executive, as the inaugural director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in 2018, designating the agency as the focal point for government cybersecurity issues. Election security was a major focus for Krebs and his team over the past two years, and the work largely managed to fly under the radar of a president who is hyper-sensitive to any discussion or action related to election security, for fear that the subject draws focus to the Russian election interference operations in 2016.

That changed recently as Krebs and other agency officials became more vocal in swatting down inane election-related conspiracy theories and defending the integrity of the November election. A rumor control page from CISA told readers that no, dead people were not, in fact, casting ballots, and the fact that results aren’t available on election night does not make them fraudulent. As noted by Politico, Krebs’ Twitter account was more direct in its rebuttals of election-rigging claims from the president and his allies.

On November 12, CISA and a group that includes secretaries of state, election directors, and election equipment vendors, issued a statement saying the “November 3rd election was the most secure in American history,” and added that “there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” This of course was in direct conflict with the president’s baseless and plentiful claims of widespread election fraud. 

It’s probably no surprise then that in firing Krebs, Trump explicitly referenced this statement, claiming it was “highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud – including dead people voting, Poll Watchers not allowed into polling locations, ‘glitches’ in the voting machines which changed votes from Trump to Biden, late voting, and many more.” 

A spokesperson for the agency did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday night. Shortly after the president’s tweet, Krebs tweeted from his personal account:

Krebs’ firing was quickly followed by strong reaction from those who watch the election security space. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), one of the Senate’s most active members on election security matters, called the firing a “gut punch to our democracy.” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a longtime election security advocate, tweeted thatTrump fired a government official for telling the truth so he can accelerate his lying about the election.” Last week, when Reuters initially reported that Krebs’ job was in jeopardy, Wyden tweeted that Trump was “preparing to spread lies about the election from a government agency.” Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, called the firing “pathetic, but sadly predictable.”

Krebs and his team got a lot of credit for their nonpartisan approach to election security coordination between states and local jurisdictions, which actually run elections, and the federal government.

“It is disheartening that in the dwindling days of this presidency, in the midst of a global pandemic that is surging rather than abating, that the outgoing president is using his time to dismantle government agencies and attack dedicated public servants,” Tammy Patrick, a longtime election administration and security expert, told Mother Jones Tuesday. “The totality of what we are seeing, not just this firing, is dangerous and continues erode our democratic norms. Those who sit idly by and enable this behavior are culpable.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate