Homeland Security Official With Ties to Election Conspiracy Theories Oversees Election Infrastructure Policy

In a development raising significant concerns among election experts and former government officials, David Harvilicz, currently holding a top policy-setting post at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for safeguarding the nation’s election infrastructure, including crucial voting machines, has a background deeply entwined with the very claims his department is tasked with debunking. Harvilicz is not only a vocal critic of voting machines, advocating for their elimination, but also the co-founder of a company with James Penrose, a key figure in promoting baseless conspiracy theories alleging hacked voting machines caused Donald Trump’s defeat in the 2020 presidential election. Penrose notably assisted in aggressive efforts to seize voting machines in a bid to overturn the legitimate election results.

Harvilicz’s public pronouncements further underscore these concerns. On social media, he has repeatedly called for the abolition of voting machines, declaring them "eminently vulnerable to exploitation." In a stark March post, he asserted, "DHS needs to ban voting machines for all federal elections. The time is now." Beyond this, Harvilicz has frequently questioned the legitimacy of Democratic electoral victories and actively pushed for Republicans to fundamentally reshape electoral systems to what he perceives as their advantage, a stance that aligns with partisan political objectives rather than neutral oversight.

A Controversial Appointment and Its Context

David Harvilicz’s appointment to a critical role within DHS around July of an undisclosed year marks a pivotal moment, placing an individual with a highly partisan and skeptical view of modern election technology at the helm of policies designed to protect it. Historically, this position has focused on shaping policy to secure critical infrastructure, a designation that includes election systems since 2017, acknowledging their vital role in national security. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a component of DHS, has traditionally been the lead federal agency for election security, working closely with state and local election officials to identify and mitigate threats. The designation was a bipartisan effort to ensure federal support for the decentralized election system against both foreign and domestic threats.

However, current and former DHS officials indicate that Harvilicz and his team have markedly transformed their operational focus, moving beyond traditional policy shaping to become more directly involved in election processes. They are reportedly deeply engaged in facilitating multiple administration data-gathering initiatives aimed at scrutinizing voter rolls for non-citizens. These efforts have drawn criticism, as ProPublica previously reported, with one such initiative leading to hundreds of legitimate citizens being erroneously flagged as potential non-citizens, casting doubt on the accuracy and intent of these programs. Such actions deviate significantly from CISA’s established, non-partisan approach of assisting state and local election officials in protecting existing infrastructure, instead leaning towards active intervention in voter eligibility verification, a role traditionally held by state election offices.

The Team Behind the Policy: Further Ties to "Election Integrity" Movements

The composition of Harvilicz’s team further amplifies the concerns regarding impartiality and adherence to established election security norms. His team includes Heather Honey, who serves as the deputy assistant secretary of election integrity. ProPublica has previously detailed Honey’s past leadership role in the Election Integrity Network, a conservative organization known for challenging the legitimacy of American election systems. Honey worked in close collaboration with Cleta Mitchell, the network’s founder, who gained notoriety for her prominent involvement in former President Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, including her participation in the infamous phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Also reporting directly to Harvilicz is Samantha Anderson, a data specialist whose previous work involved actively campaigning for Trump through the advocacy arm of the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank closely associated with the former president. The collective background of Harvilicz’s core team—his own history of questioning election outcomes and advocating for the elimination of voting machines, combined with Honey’s and Anderson’s ties to organizations and individuals committed to re-litigating the 2020 election and advancing partisan election reforms—creates an environment perceived as highly politicized within a department mandated to be neutral and objective in protecting democratic processes.

Broader Administration Efforts to Revisit 2020

The appointment of Harvilicz and his team is viewed by election experts and current/former DHS officials as particularly troubling given the broader context of the current administration’s unprecedented steps to re-litigate Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of a stolen 2020 election. This includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) seizure of 2020 voting records from Fulton County, Georgia, a move that sparked alarm among voting rights advocates and raised questions about federal overreach into state election administration. Adding to these concerns, a team working for Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, reportedly took custody of voting machines used in Puerto Rico in 2020. These actions, coming years after the election results were certified and upheld by numerous courts, signal a concerted effort to revive and investigate debunked allegations, creating an atmosphere of distrust around election integrity.

Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and the rule of law at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan pro-democracy organization, articulated these fears succinctly: "The security of our election infrastructure depends on leadership that is trusted, impartial and grounded in evidence — not individuals who have promoted conspiracy theories about the very systems they are now responsible for protecting." Lang emphasized that "Placing someone with that background in charge of policies affecting election security can undermine public confidence in our elections at a time when trust is already fragile," highlighting the potential erosion of faith in democratic institutions.

Concerns from Experts and Insiders

Multiple officials and election experts have voiced profound worry that Harvilicz and Honey will play prominent roles in assessing and describing the cybersecurity of upcoming elections, both to the public and to administration leaders. Their concern extends to the potential for these individuals to manipulate the narrative around election security, especially if results do not favor the administration’s preferred outcomes. A current DHS official, speaking anonymously due to fear of reprisal, expressed alarm at the ease with which Harvilicz’s team could potentially facilitate the acquisition of voting machines and subsequently "describe it as they want, if they don’t like the results." This statement alludes to the very actions undertaken by James Penrose and others in the wake of the 2020 election, where efforts were made to gain access to election equipment under the guise of forensic audits, often by unauthorized individuals, leading to serious security breaches and criminal investigations in multiple states.

The integrity of election systems relies heavily on the perceived impartiality of those safeguarding them. The presence of officials with publicly stated biases against voting machines and a history of questioning legitimate election results introduces a significant conflict of interest. It risks politicizing technical assessments of vulnerabilities and undermining the credibility of official reports on election security, which are crucial for maintaining public trust.

Tranquility AI: Business Ventures and Political Donations

Harvilicz’s professional ties to James Penrose extend beyond shared political leanings; they co-founded Tranquility AI, a company that has developed an artificial intelligence tool primarily for law enforcement. Both Harvilicz and Penrose are listed on its 2025 patents as co-developers of its core systems. Penrose, a former intelligence officer, was a central figure in the unsuccessful campaign to overturn the 2020 election results. ProPublica previously reported on his involvement in multiple attempts to clandestinely seize voting machines, including in Michigan, where prosecutors accused him of illegally accessing some of the machines. While Penrose was not ultimately charged in that specific case, he was identified by The Washington Post as an unindicted co-conspirator in the failed Georgia prosecution against Trump for conspiring to overturn election results.

Intriguingly, one of Tranquility AI’s advertised uses on its website is for "election integrity," although the company provided no further details when questioned by ProPublica. This specific application, coupled with Penrose’s history, raises questions about the nature of the "election integrity" solutions Tranquility AI might offer and whether they align with or depart from mainstream, evidence-based approaches to election security. Tranquility AI’s tools, which aid law enforcement agents in data processing and case assembly, have been employed by New Orleans’ district attorney, and the company boasts partnerships with dozens of law enforcement agencies nationwide. In July 2025, a major government IT contractor also announced a partnership with Tranquility AI, indicating significant reach within the public sector.

Adding another layer to Harvilicz’s journey to his DHS post, Tranquility AI made a $100,000 donation to Trump’s inaugural fund through a newly established nonprofit based at Harvilicz’s home address, as reported by The Intercept. Harvilicz, in response to The Intercept, stated the donation was intended to facilitate meetings with administration policymakers. The Intercept was also the first to report his connections to Penrose in the context of this donation, highlighting a potential quid pro quo arrangement preceding his significant federal appointment.

A Career Defined by Tech, Politics, and Loyalty

Harvilicz’s career path is diverse, starting in law firms on Wall Street and in the tech sector. At 29, in 2004, he launched an unsuccessful bid for a Maryland congressional seat. Following this, he led a crowdfunding company, a movie marketing business, a film production company that notably collaborated with former intelligence officers, and several cybersecurity ventures. It was during one of these cybersecurity endeavors that he again worked with James Penrose. He also served a stint in the first Trump administration as a cybersecurity official within the Department of Energy, establishing an earlier connection to the former president’s inner circle. This varied background demonstrates an entrepreneurial spirit and a consistent engagement with technology and security, but also a clear gravitation towards political involvement.

Harvilicz has maintained a prolific presence on social media, sharing hundreds of conservative posts. Following Trump’s second presidential term victory, he posted, "We will now dismantle the near communist takeover of America and return her to greatness." This statement explicitly outlines a highly partisan political agenda, reflecting a worldview that sees the democratic process as a battle against existential ideological threats, a perspective that could color his approach to neutral election oversight.

In a poignant personal anecdote that further illustrates his deep loyalty to Donald Trump, Harvilicz, after losing his $3.3 million home outside Los Angeles to the Palisades Fire around the beginning of Trump’s second term, stood roadside to greet the president during his tour of the disaster area. With his young son on his shoulders, Harvilicz’s son held aloft a picture of a bloodied Trump, seemingly having survived an assassin’s bullet – a highly symbolic and politically charged image. Even amid personal tragedy, Harvilicz’s political priorities were evident. He told a Los Angeles Times reporter that he supported Trump making disaster aid conditional on the Democratic state implementing voter ID laws, a policy often advocated by Republicans. "I hope he saw us," Harvilicz told the Times reporter, underscoring his desire for presidential recognition and alignment with Trump’s political agenda.

Official Responses and the Path Forward

DHS, when confronted with detailed questions about Harvilicz and his team, refrained from providing specific answers. Instead, the department issued a general statement: "DHS and its employees are focused on keeping our elections safe, secure, and free. Every single day appointees at the Department of Homeland Security work to implement the President’s policies and keep our Homeland safe." This generic response sidesteps the fundamental questions regarding Harvilicz’s controversial background and the potential conflict of interest it presents for a role demanding strict impartiality. Harvilicz himself did not respond to requests for comment regarding his DHS role. His X (formerly Twitter) account notes his position as DHS’s assistant secretary for cyber, infrastructure, risk and resilience policy but indicates he has been detailed to the Defense Department, a temporary assignment typically done in 120-day increments, raising further questions about his current status and future intentions.

The implications of Harvilicz’s appointment and his team’s operational shift are profound for the integrity of American elections. The very department tasked with protecting election infrastructure from both foreign and domestic threats now has a leadership component whose past actions and public statements have actively undermined trust in those systems. This situation risks not only politicizing crucial cybersecurity efforts but also alienating the state and local election officials who are the frontline defenders of democratic processes. As the nation approaches future elections, the public’s confidence in the fairness and security of the vote hinges on the perception of unbiased oversight. The presence of officials with partisan agendas and ties to debunked conspiracy theories in critical election security roles casts a long shadow over that essential trust, potentially exacerbating political polarization and further eroding faith in democratic institutions. The challenge for DHS and the broader administration will be to demonstrate a commitment to objective election security that transcends partisan politics, a task made significantly more difficult by these controversial appointments.