Heather Honey, an Election Denier, Appointed to Oversee Election Security at DHS; Role Includes Content Writing for ProPublica

“`html

Election Denier Appointed to Key homeland Security Post

August 26, 2025

Washington D.C. – Heather Honey, a vocal proponent of unsubstantiated claims regarding the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election, has assumed a senior position at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Her new role involves oversight of the nation’s election infrastructure, a development that has prompted warnings from election experts and state officials.

Background and Allegations

Honey is a protégé of Cleta Mitchell, an attorney who actively supported efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. records indicate Honey played a central role in a 2024 initiative to alter georgia’s election regulations, potentially enabling Republican officials to contest future election outcomes. Furthermore, she has repeatedly disseminated election conspiracy theories, including assertions that were referenced by former President Trump prior to the January 6th Capitol breach.

The DHS plays a crucial supporting role in election security, assisting states with tasks that exceed their individual capacities – most notably safeguarding IT infrastructure and voter databases from external threats. This expanded role gained momentum following documented interference by Russia in the 2016 U.S. elections, highlighting the vulnerability of democratic processes to foreign influence.

Concerns Over Trust and Security

Experts are voicing caution that Honey’s appointment as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Election Integrity could damage the relationship between state and federal authorities, potentially discouraging states from sharing vital information with the federal agency. Adrian fontes, the democratic Secretary of state for Arizona, issued a statement expressing concern over a “perilous trend” of elevating individuals who have demonstrated a history of undermining public trust in elections. He specifically cited honey’s “well-documented history of spreading election lies that have been debunked in court.”

According to officials, Honey began her duties at DHS last week. An organizational chart dated August 18th identifies her as a leader within the agency’s Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans. This position, previously undefined in DHS organizational structures, grants her important duty in shaping agency policy and liaising with the White House and National Security Council.

Shifting Federal Election Security Landscape

The appointment occurs amid a broader restructuring of federal election security programs. During the second Trump governance, programs instituted to shield U.S. elections from foreign interference have faced significant cuts, including a reduction of hundreds of employees at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Chris Krebs, the former director of CISA who publicly refuted claims of a stolen 2020 election, is currently under federal examination. The Justice Department has also scaled back initiatives aimed at countering foreign influence operations, citing a need to “free resources” and avoid “weaponization” of prosecutorial powers.

Critics argue these changes, combined with Honey’s appointment, signal a intentional attempt to dismantle safeguards protecting the integrity of U.S. elections. David

Does Heather Honey’s prior promotion of election denial narratives compromise her ability to objectively assess and address vulnerabilities in election infrastructure at DHS?

Heather honey, Election Denial, and a Troubling DHS Appointment

The Appointment and Its Immediate Fallout

The recent appointment of Heather honey to a key position overseeing election security within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has ignited a firestorm of controversy. Adding to the complexity, Honey concurrently holds a content writing role with ProPublica, a non-profit investigative journalism organization. This dual role, particularly given Honey’s documented history of promoting election denial narratives, raises serious questions about potential conflicts of interest and the integrity of future election security measures. The core issue revolves around entrusting sensitive responsibilities to an individual who has publicly questioned the legitimacy of past elections – a direct contradiction to the principles of safeguarding democratic processes.

This isn’t simply a matter of differing political opinions; Honey’s past statements fall squarely within the realm of election disinformation and election fraud claims. Concerns are escalating regarding the potential for bias in policy decisions and the implementation of security protocols. DHS election security is now under scrutiny.

Heather Honey’s History of Election Denial

A review of Honey’s public statements and online activity reveals a consistent pattern of promoting debunked claims about the 2020 presidential election.This includes:

sharing articles from known disinformation sources: Honey repeatedly shared content from websites and social media accounts that have been flagged for spreading false or misleading details about election integrity.

Amplifying conspiracy theories: She actively engaged with and promoted conspiracy theories surrounding voting machines, ballot counting procedures, and alleged widespread voter fraud.

Questioning the certification of election results: Honey publicly expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the 2020 election results,despite numerous audits and legal challenges confirming their accuracy.

Supporting election audit efforts: She voiced strong support for controversial election audits, such as the audit in Arizona, which were widely criticized for their lack of transparency and methodological flaws. Arizona election audit became a focal point.

These actions demonstrate a clear alignment with the election denial movement and raise legitimate concerns about her ability to impartially oversee election security.Voter integrity is a key concern.

The Conflict of Interest: DHS and ProPublica

The simultaneous roles at DHS and ProPublica present a meaningful ethical dilemma. ProPublica’s mission centers on holding power accountable through investigative journalism. Honey’s position within DHS, responsible for election security, creates a potential conflict of interest.

consider these scenarios:

1. Information Access: Does Honey have access to non-public information at DHS that could influence her reporting for ProPublica?
2. Bias in Reporting: Could her DHS role subtly (or not so subtly) shape her journalistic coverage of election-related issues?
3. Perception of Impartiality: Even the appearance of a conflict of interest can erode public trust in both institutions.

ProPublica has stated they were unaware of the extent of Honey’s past election denial activity when hiring her. However,the situation demands careful scrutiny and a transparent review of internal policies to prevent similar conflicts in the future. Journalistic ethics are paramount.

Implications for election Security

The appointment has sparked fears that Honey’s personal beliefs could influence the direction of election security initiatives at DHS. Specifically, concerns center around:

Funding Priorities: Will resources be allocated to address legitimate security vulnerabilities, or will they be diverted to investigate unsubstantiated claims of fraud?

Policy Development: Will new policies be based on evidence-based best practices, or will they be shaped by election denial narratives?

collaboration with State and Local Officials: Will Honey’s presence hinder effective collaboration with state and local election officials who are committed to accurate and secure elections? State election officials are crucial.

Cybersecurity Measures: Will focus be placed on genuine cyber election security threats or on perceived vulnerabilities based on misinformation?

The broader Context: The Rise of Election Denial

Honey’s appointment is not an isolated incident. It reflects a broader trend of election denial gaining traction within certain political circles.This trend poses a serious threat to democratic institutions and requires a multi-faceted response.

Combating Disinformation: Increased efforts are needed to counter the spread of election disinformation online and offline.Fact-checking initiatives are vital.

promoting Civic Education: Investing in civic education programs can definitely help citizens better understand the electoral process and identify false claims.

Strengthening Election Infrastructure: Continued investment in secure voting equipment and robust election administration practices is essential.

Holding Individuals Accountable: Those who knowingly spread false information about elections should be held accountable for their actions. Election interference must be addressed.

Relevant Keywords & Search Terms:

Election Denial

heather Honey

DHS Election Security

Department of Homeland Security

ProPublica

Election disinformation

Election Fraud Claims

Voter Integrity

Arizona Election Audit

Cyber Election Security

Journalistic Ethics

State Election Officials

Election Interference

Fact-Checking Initiatives

Voting Machine Security

Ballot Counting Procedures

Election Audit

2020