The U.S. Braces for a Turbulent – and Potentially Violent – End to the Election

(Getty Images)

A digital illustration shows a map of the United States.

As U.S. Election Day approaches, there is a high likelihood of further physical and cyber attacks targeting election infrastructure and personnel, while the prospect of a disputed outcome of the presidential race could lead to more intense violent unrest that severely harms business operations. On Nov. 5, U.S. voters will go to the polls to elect a new president, with the race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump currently too close to call. Americans will also vote to elect the entire 435-seat House of Representatives, 34 of 100 seats in the Senate and scores of local and state positions. While the outcome of the elections will have major implications for U.S. domestic and foreign policies in the coming years, more immediately federal, state and local authorities are warning about a wide range of threats surrounding the polls. In just the past few days, there have been multiple violent incidents, most recently on Oct. 28, when an unidentified individual placed two incendiary devices at ballot drop boxes in Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington, causing fires that destroyed hundreds of ballots at the drop box in Vancouver. The words ''Free Gaza'' were reportedly found on the devices, but it is unclear if the perpetrator was a true pro-Palestinian activist or aimed to carry out a ''false flag'' attack to stoke U.S. societal divisions. In another recent, high-profile incident, on Oct. 22 police in Arizona arrested a man who had on at least three occasions shot at the facade of a Democratic Party campaign office in Tempe and had amassed a huge arsenal of weapons and ammunition in what authorities alleged was preparation for a ''mass casualty'' attack.

As of Oct. 30, NBC News estimates that over 50 million Americans have already cast their ballots via early in-person or mail-in voting options.
On Oct. 24, an individual wearing a pro-Trump hat at a polling place southwest of San Antonio, Texas, was arrested after he punched an election worker who had asked him to remove his hat to comply with a state law that forbids wearing items endorsing a candidate at voting sites. While a low-level and isolated altercation, it was one of a series of similar disputes demonstrating the intensity of political grievances.
Illustrating that violent threats extend beyond far-right and far-left extremists, on Oct. 7, federal authorities arrested an Afghan national residing in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on charges of plotting an Islamic State-inspired terrorist attack on Election Day to take advantage of the dense crowds and symbolism.

With a deeply polarized electorate, Republicans and Democrats have been trading blame for who is responsible for what authorities and independent experts have characterized as an unprecedented level of threats to the election process. Most trusted polls and polling averages have Harris and Trump neck-and-neck across all seven swing states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin). These states will likely be most competitive and thus crucial in determining the outcome of the Electoral College, which will determine who takes control of the White House. The tightness of the presidential race reflects the deep divisions within the U.S. public, and repeated surveys indicate that large numbers of Americans reportedly support violence to ensure their preferred candidate wins. Partisans on both sides have framed the election's outcome in existential terms, frequently using incendiary rhetoric that has become more antagonistic in recent weeks. Trump's critics argue that he constantly uses belligerent rhetoric, has repeatedly condoned violent attacks, and has repeatedly refused to rule out post-election violence if Harris wins by claiming the only way he could lose would be if the election is rigged. Meanwhile, Harris' opponents argue that she has portrayed Trump as a fascist who must be stopped at all costs, blaming her for the second assassination attempt against Trump on Sept. 15 (and Democrats more broadly for the first attempt on July 13 when President Joe Biden was still in the race). Regardless of political blame, a long list of government agencies, top current and former officials, and independent experts warn that there are myriad intense threats to the final stretch of the presidential campaign. These include assaults against poll workers, volunteers, government officials and others connected to the voting process, as well as attacks against polling places, government offices and other election infrastructure. In addition, there is a long list of cyber threats from both domestic and foreign threat actors, including a deluge of misinformation and disinformation, hacktivist attacks like distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks against election-related websites, and more aggressive attacks featuring the deployment of ransomware or other disruptive tools to interfere with critical infrastructure during the voting process.

Since the summer, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have routinely warned state and local partner agencies about violent threats to the voting process, including plots from a wide array of extremists to attack ballot drop boxes, polling stations and election personnel.
Since the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Reuters has documented more than 300 cases of political violence in the United States, including over 50 so far this year as of Oct. 21, which the news agency characterizes as ''the most sustained increase in U.S. political violence since the 1970s.'' Aside from the two deaths during the failed assassination 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.
Multiple surveys indicate that large numbers of Americans (especially self-described Republicans) support political violence in at least certain cases. According to an Oct. 16 report from the well-regarded Public Religion Research Institute, 23% of Republicans who support Trump (and 19% of all Republicans overall) say that, if he loses, he should declare the results invalid and do whatever is necessary to take office. Approximately 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.
On Oct. 22, the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released a sanitized version of a previously classified intelligence memorandum warning that foreign countries like China, Iran and Russia have been carrying out online influence campaigns to promote divisive narratives, including to cast doubt on the integrity of the polls, ahead of Election Day. In recent weeks, different media outlets and cybersecurity firms have published scores of evidence showing that many foreign countries are spreading election-related misinformation and disinformation ahead of the polls.

In the coming days, there is a high likelihood for a further range of violent incidents and cyberattacks, particularly against targets in any way linked to the election process. As the presidential candidates make their closing pitches to the American public, all signs point to an antagonistic end to the race. While the Harris campaign appears to be doubling down on its strategy to portray Trump as a dictator-in-waiting, the Trump campaign is sticking to its strategy of using a wide range of bellicose rhetoric, including repeated statements from Trump himself denigrating many groups and alleging he can only lose if there is fraud. This indicates there will be a high likelihood of further physical violence, particularly against election-related locations (such as ballot drop boxes, polling stations, local government buildings and political campaign offices), as well as against individuals affiliated with the voting process (such as poll workers and volunteers, law enforcement officers and public officials). Certain corporate executives and locations may also be at elevated risk if they are in any way linked to support for one candidate or controversial issue, with potential attacks ranging from ''swatting'' attacks against executives to property damage against company offices. The continued spread of conspiracy theories and false information makes it all the more likely that these and other violent threats, such as targeted attacks against minorities (due to race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, immigration status or other characteristics), continue to emerge in the coming days. Politically-motivated cyber threat actors are also highly likely to carry out attacks ranging from more rudimentary DDoS attacks against targets like local and state election websites to more aggressive and sophisticated attacks against the networks of critical infrastructure and specifically election infrastructure. While such threat actors are highly unlikely to be able to manipulate vote tallies due to numerous safeguards, cyberattacks against election infrastructure will aim to disrupt the voting process and sow doubt in the results.

Media coverage about leaked intelligence memos prepared by DHS, FBI and a wide range of other security agencies at both the federal and state levels warn of an expected uptick in the likelihood of attacks in the final days of the presidential campaign. These include violent attacks by political extremists, harassment and intimidation by (potentially armed) militia members acting as supposed ''poll watchers,'' and insider threats from election workers, volunteers and others who seek to disrupt the voting process.
Although motivated by financial gain rather than partisan politics, many cybercriminal groups will also find ways to exploit the closing days of the election cycle to carry out election-themed lures like phishing attempts and business email compromise scams, in order to defraud companies and obtain access to corporate networks for future exploitation.

A close and disputed outcome of the presidential race would raise the likelihood of more intense, geographically widespread and longer-lasting violent unrest that significantly disrupts business operations. If polls are generally accurate, the presidential race will likely be decided by a comparatively small number of votes in a few counties in different swing states. This means a clear winner is unlikely to be known on Nov. 5, especially as two key states — Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — do not allow for ballots to be counted until Election Day itself, unlike other states that allow counting to begin as soon as early voting ballots are cast. Moreover, if the outcome of the race is as tight as expected, legal challenges are all but certain, given that the Trump campaign and, to a lesser extent, the Harris campaign have already filed scores of pre-election lawsuits. Such challenges would force legal processes and recounts that would take additional time to complete, further delaying the confirmation of a winner. This uncertain post-election period would provide fertile ground for violent unrest because there likely would be numerous allegations of irregularities and potentially mass fraud, which both foreign domestic cyber threat actors would amplify in online influence campaigns. This could incite violent street clashes between supporters of opposing candidates, and may also compel at least some aggrieved lone actors and small groups to commit targeted attacks. Violent risks would grow further if either Trump or Harris explicitly alleges that the election was stolen and calls on supporters to take matters into their own hands. Such a scenario — which, judging from the 2020 election and subsequent Jan. 6 Capitol riot, is eminently possible — would increase the likelihood of more aggressive, geographically widespread and prolonged violence. This could include multiple assassination attempts, mass shootings and civil disturbances. If Trump wins, some aggressive far-left activist groups would mobilize to carry out violent and disruptive protests, though compared with far-right groups, they are less likely to engage in lethal violence and more likely to conduct property damage and other anti-corporate attacks. By contrast, if Harris wins and more organized groups like far-right militias get involved, such groups' greater capabilities would raise the risk for even more intense violent unrest like the creation of encampments in major cities, storming of government buildings and coordinated attacks like bombings. Taken together, threats to personal safety would dramatically increase, as would the likelihood of business disruptions due to rioting, looting, property damage, transportation disruptions, and authorities' potential responses like curfews and restrictions on movement.

In its Oct. 22 memo, the ODNI also warned that Iran and Russia, and potentially other countries, would ''at least consider'' more aggressive tactics to stoke violent unrest after the polls close.
The risk of such an escalatory scenario will likely persist into at least the start of 2025 as there are numerous post-election events before Inauguration Day on Jan. 20 that could be flashpoints. These include the Nov. 26 criminal sentencing of Trump in his New York hush money case; the Dec. 11 deadline for states to issue Certificates of Ascertainment confirming their election outcomes; the Dec. 17 meeting of Electoral College electors to vote in each state; and a Jan. 6 joint session in Congress to count the electoral votes Jan. 6.
A more escalatory post-election scenario involving more consistent and aggressive acts of violence would likely force the next president, no matter who it is, to devote at least the beginning of his or her term to addressing the unrest and thus have less time to focus on other policy priorities. Foreign rivals and adversaries like China and Russia would also exploit any violence in propaganda to denigrate the United States and try to convince U.S. partners that the United States is unreliable and mired in internal turbulence. These efforts would harm U.S. foreign policy goals like imposing new restrictions against China and Russia, and improving ties with developing countries to gain access to critical minerals and signing new defense agreements with various nations.