Election integrity, foreign interference, and the clashing approaches of the US, EU and platforms

The global contest to safeguard election integrity has entered a critical and increasingly intricate phase. With mounting hybrid threats that blend digital manipulation, geopolitical influence, and kinetic tactics, democratic institutions face unprecedented pressure. Recent developments underscore a widening transatlantic regulatory divide, an evolving security paradigm that reframes election interference as cognitive and grey-zone warfare, and the escalating sophistication and geographic breadth of hostile interference. Against this backdrop, the interplay of emerging technologies, geopolitical rivalries, and domestic political fissures demands coordinated yet nuanced responses—lest democratic resilience continue to erode under the weight of fragmentation and adversarial exploitation.

---

Deepening Transatlantic Regulatory Divergence: EU’s Assertive Enforcement vs. U.S. Constitutional Protections

The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) remains the centerpiece of its robust regulatory framework to enforce election-related transparency and platform accountability. A landmark enforcement milestone occurred in February 2026, when the Berlin Regional Court ordered Elon Musk’s platform X (formerly Twitter) to disclose detailed data related to Hungary’s 2024 parliamentary elections. This unprecedented ruling marks a decisive shift from voluntary industry self-regulation toward binding legal obligations, compelling major U.S.-based platforms to comply with stringent EU transparency mandates.

Hungary’s 2024 election—dominated by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s aggressive anti-Ukraine rhetoric framing the conflict as a “Kyiv-Brussels Axis” assault on sovereignty—illustrates how illiberal governments weaponize digital platforms to amplify hybrid threats and disinformation. The EU’s enforcement actions aim to disrupt these dynamics by forcing greater platform transparency and accountability.

In sharp contrast, the United States remains constrained by robust First Amendment protections that limit federal regulatory intervention in content moderation and platform governance. This constitutional boundary perpetuates a fragmented global landscape, where platforms navigate competing legal regimes: stringent EU mandates on one side, and minimal U.S. regulatory interference on the other. This legal dissonance creates operational ambiguities and loopholes that foreign adversaries and authoritarian governments can exploit to undermine election integrity.

---

Reframing Election Interference: Cognitive and Grey-Zone Warfare Paradigms in EU and UK Strategies

The EU and the United Kingdom have embraced a strategic reframing of election interference as a multifaceted national security challenge, rooted in cognitive warfare and grey-zone conflict. At the February 2026 Foreign Affairs Council, EU High Representative Kaja Kallas succinctly captured this paradigm shift: “Wars are fought with lies and algorithms.”

This recognition has spurred integrated approaches that combine regulatory, diplomatic, and economic tools:

• The EU is advancing interoperable digital sovereignty frameworks designed to harmonize member states’ rules and reduce regulatory fragmentation exploited by adversaries.
• Economic sanctions are increasingly linked to hybrid threat mitigation, exemplified by initiatives to repurpose frozen Russian state assets to support Ukraine’s defense efforts.
• Despite pushback from illiberal governments like Hungary, the EU recommitted to targeted sanctions against disinformation operators and human rights violators, signaling firm resolve.

The UK has paralleled these efforts with a multidimensional strategy:

• In February 2026, the UK imposed sanctions on two Georgian pro-government TV channels for their role in exporting Russian disinformation.
• UK Defence Minister Heligan identified Russia’s grey-zone tactics—including covert cyber operations, disinformation campaigns, and proxy actions—as the country’s “most immediate security threat.”
• The UK is actively cultivating transatlantic cooperation to synchronize digital and physical security responses to hybrid threats.

These developments mark a decisive evolution in treating election interference as a comprehensive security challenge, transcending narrow regulatory or law enforcement silos.

---

Expanding Global Footprint and Sophistication of Hybrid Threats

Hybrid interference tactics are not only becoming more technologically sophisticated but are also spreading globally, complicating efforts to secure democratic processes:

• AI-generated deepfakes and synthetic media have become standard disinformation tools, amplifying risks of voter manipulation and complicating detection.
• The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has reported that at least five major cryptocurrency exchanges continue to facilitate Russian sanctions evasion, sustaining illicit financial flows essential to hybrid operations.
• The 2026 Colombian general election exposed a troubling fusion of digital misinformation with physical intimidation and violence by criminal groups, illustrating the convergence of cyber and kinetic interference.

New international developments further expand the scope:

• Armenia formally requested EU deployment of an anti-Russian disinformation task force ahead of its elections, signaling the EU’s growing external election security role.
• Taiwan’s National Security Bureau (NSB) has established a dedicated unit to counter hybrid threats targeting its electoral processes, reflecting rising cross-strait tensions.
• In East Africa, opposition leader Bobi Wine publicly called for EU sanctions and arrest warrants against Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and his son Muhoozi Kainerugaba over election-related abuses, highlighting growing demands for international accountability in contested electoral environments.

Significantly, new developments in Europe underscore internal threats to election integrity:

• A Greek court convicted four individuals in February 2026 over a spyware scandal that rocked the government in 2022, revealing the dangers of state-linked surveillance and its potential to undermine democratic processes.
• Meanwhile, Denmark’s announcement of a parliamentary election on March 24, 2026, amid geopolitical tensions related to Greenland, underscores the need for heightened vigilance in newly emergent electoral contexts.

Together, these cases demonstrate that election security challenges now permeate diverse geopolitical theaters—from post-Soviet Eurasia and East Asia to Latin America, Africa, and Europe—demanding adaptive and globally coordinated responses.

---

Platforms and Civil Society Under Intensifying Operational and Legal Strain

Social media platforms and civil society organizations continue to serve as frontline defenders against election interference but face mounting operational, legal, and financial pressures:

• The Berlin court’s order for X to disclose granular election-related data raises complex questions about platforms’ capacity to meet transparency demands while safeguarding user privacy and managing legal liabilities.
• In India, Meta’s recent cutbacks on fact-checking funding threaten the sustainability of independent misinformation verification ahead of critical electoral contests.
• Platforms grapple with reconciling divergent EU and U.S. regulatory requirements amid limited resources and intense public scrutiny.

Sustained investment in civil society fact-checkers, transparency initiatives, and compliance teams remains vital to preserving resilient electoral discourse worldwide.

---

U.S. Domestic Political Flashpoints Complicate Election Security Efforts

The U.S. election security environment continues to be deeply entangled with domestic political polarization and contentious legal battles:

• The upcoming Save America Act debate, anticipated before the 2026 State of the Union, risks reigniting partisan disputes over voting rights and election administration.
• The FBI’s ongoing Fulton County investigation into alleged 2020 election interference continues to fuel divisive narratives that hinder bipartisan cooperation.
• The 2026 Texas U.S. Senate primaries have attracted unprecedented dark money spending, raising concerns about opaque political financing.
• A pending Supreme Court ruling on a Louisiana redistricting case could significantly alter Voting Rights Act enforcement, minority representation, and electoral fairness.
• A notable development includes a senior Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official reassuring state election chiefs that no ICE agents will be present at polling places, aiming to quell fears of voter intimidation linked to immigration enforcement.

However, some election officials remain unconvinced. For instance, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows expressed skepticism that former President Trump will refrain from interfering in upcoming elections, reflecting persistent anxieties about executive branch actions potentially exacerbating misinformation or disruption.

These domestic fissures create exploitable vulnerabilities that foreign interference actors actively seek to deepen, threatening public trust in U.S. democratic institutions.

---

Technological and Regulatory Innovation Amid Calls for Greater Transparency

Rapid technological change continues to reshape election security landscapes, with regulatory frameworks struggling to keep pace:

• U.S. states such as Montana and Hawaii are piloting AI-powered campaign finance compliance monitoring systems, aiming to enhance oversight efficiency and scalability.
• The 2026 French local elections saw widespread use of AI-driven campaign content generation and voter targeting, intensifying demands for algorithmic transparency and regulatory scrutiny.
• The EU is spearheading efforts to develop interoperable standards that harmonize enforcement and reinforce member states’ digital sovereignty.

Balancing technological innovation with robust safeguards against algorithmic manipulation remains a pressing governance challenge.

---

Modernizing Voter List Maintenance: Decentralization and Trust as Pillars

Accurate and secure voter rolls remain foundational to election integrity:

• Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson highlighted modernization initiatives that improve voter registration accuracy and accessibility while preserving decentralized governance benefits.
• Experts caution against national voter roll centralization due to politicization risks, advocating instead for transparent, technology-enhanced decentralized systems with rigorous audits.
• Recent administrative challenges, such as early voting delays in Virginia linked to redistricting, underscore the need for procedural flexibility and operational resilience.

Modernized, decentralized voter list systems underpin both technical election safeguards and public confidence.

---

Elevated Geopolitical Diplomacy and UN Engagement on Election Security

Election interference has become a central topic in international diplomatic forums, linking electoral integrity to broader geopolitical stability:

• At the February 24, 2026 UN Security Council briefing on Ukraine, diplomats emphasized the imperative to “use every diplomatic tool to end this war,” connecting hybrid attacks on democratic institutions to ongoing geopolitical conflict.
• The UN remains a key arena for building allied consensus on hybrid threat responses, reinforcing the nexus between international security and election integrity.
• These diplomatic efforts complement economic sanctions enforcement and strategic use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s defense, illustrating integrated conflict and hybrid threat management.

This heightened diplomatic focus reflects growing recognition of election security as a critical pillar of global peace and stability.

---

Regional Policy Shifts and Emerging Electoral Contexts

New regional developments add nuance to the global election integrity landscape:

• Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum proposed electoral finance reform to reduce political party funding by 25%, aiming to curb excessive campaign spending and strengthen electoral resilience. While potentially limiting illicit influence, the reform raises concerns about its impact on political competitiveness and party capacity.
• The February 2026 Danish parliamentary election call for March 24 amidst tensions linked to Greenland signals new electoral contexts requiring vigilance against hybrid interference.
• The Greek spyware convictions highlight the risks posed by state-linked surveillance and espionage to democratic processes, underscoring internal vulnerabilities even within established democracies.

---

Imperatives for Unified, Principled, and Coordinated Global Action

The evolving hybrid threat environment demands integrated, principled, and cooperative responses across multiple dimensions:

• Integrate digital and physical election security frameworks to comprehensively counter hybrid threats.
• Sustain funding and operational support for civil society fact-checkers and transparency initiatives, especially in digitally vulnerable democracies.
• Advance interoperable regulatory standards to overcome fragmentation and reinforce digital sovereignty.
• Reform platform governance to balance transparency, legal compliance, and free expression amid divergent U.S. and EU contexts.
• Bridge the transatlantic regulatory divide to present a united front against foreign interference.
• Enhance illicit finance countermeasures, focusing on cryptocurrency’s role in sanctions evasion and opaque political financing.
• Prioritize modernized, decentralized voter list maintenance as foundational to electoral trust.
• Expand international cooperation, incorporating emerging democracies and conflict zones into election security frameworks.

---

Conclusion

Election integrity remains a defining challenge of modern democratic governance, shaped by a complex interplay of values, technology, geopolitics, and evolving hybrid threats. The EU’s assertive regulatory enforcement and strategic reframing of interference as cognitive warfare sharply contrast with the U.S.’s constitutional protections and domestic political flashpoints. The UK’s intensified hybrid threat enforcement and diplomatic engagement at the UN further illustrate the multidimensional nature of this challenge.

Recent developments—from Hungary’s illiberal election campaign and Mexico’s electoral finance reform to Armenia’s call for EU counter-disinformation support, Taiwan’s establishment of hybrid threat task forces, Greece’s spyware convictions, Denmark’s upcoming election, and unresolved U.S. official concerns over executive interference—highlight election security’s global diffusion and complexity.

As malign actors harness AI, cryptocurrency, and physical intimidation to undermine democratic institutions, only relentless innovation, collaboration, and principled leadership across nations, sectors, and communities can safeguard democratic resilience in the face of 21st-century hybrid warfare. Without unified, coordinated efforts, fragmentation will persist, enabling foreign interference to erode public trust and destabilize democracies worldwide.