In his top post at the Department of Homeland Security, David Harvilicz sets policy on protecting the nation’s elections infrastructure, including voting machines.
He’s also the co-founder of a company with James Penrose, who helped hatch debunked conspiracy theories blaming hacked voting machines for Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election. Penrose assisted in a push to seize voting machines to overturn Trump’s defeat.
On social media, Harvilicz has called for doing away with voting machines, saying they are “eminently vulnerable to exploitation.” In a March post, he wrote that “DHS needs to ban voting machines for all federal elections. The time is now.” He also has repeatedly questioned the validity of Democratic electoral victories and pushed for Republicans to overhaul electoral systems to their advantage.
Election experts as well as current and former DHS officials say Harvilicz’s central role in overseeing the security of electoral systems and voting machines is especially concerning at a time when the administration is taking unprecedented steps to relitigate Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen. That includes the FBI’s seizure of 2020 voting records from Fulton County, Georgia, and having a team working for Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, take custody of voting machines used in Puerto Rico in 2020.
“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,” said Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and the rule of law at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan pro-democracy organization. “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.”
DHS didn’t answer detailed questions about Harvilicz or his team, providing a more general statement about the work done by the agency. “DHS and its employees are focused on keeping our elections safe, secure, and free,” it said. “Every single day appointees at the Department of Homeland Security work to implement the President’s policies and keep our Homeland safe.”
Harvilicz didn’t respond to questions about his DHS role. Harvilicz’s X account notes his post as DHS’ assistant secretary for cyber, infrastructure, risk and resilience policy but says he’s been detailed to the Defense Department. (Such temporary assignments are typically done in 120-day increments.)
Harvilicz was appointed to the DHS job around July, taking on a role that in the past has largely focused on shaping policy to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure, including its election systems.
But current and former DHS officials say Harvilicz and his team have transformed their functions to become more hands-on. They’ve been deeply engaged with facilitating multiple administration data-gathering efforts aimed at scouring voter rolls for noncitizens, the officials said. ProPublica has reported on one such effort, which has led to hundreds of citizens being incorrectly flagged as potential noncitizens.
Harvilicz’s team includes Heather Honey, the deputy assistant secretary of election integrity. ProPublica has reported that Honey was previously a leader in the Election Integrity Network, a conservative group that has challenged the legitimacy of American election systems. Honey worked closely with Cleta Mitchell, the network’s leader, who played a prominent role in helping Trump try to overturn his 2020 loss.
Also reporting directly to Harvilicz is Samantha Anderson, a data specialist who previously worked to elect Trump through the advocacy arm of the America First Policy Institute, a think tank closely associated with the president.
Multiple officials and elections experts said they were worried that Harvilicz and Honey would have prominent parts in assessing and describing the cybersecurity of the coming election, both to the public and to administration leaders. They also expressed concern that if Trump again wanted to get control of voting machines after the election, perhaps if Republicans lose seats in the midterms, that Harvilicz is ideally positioned to help them do so.
“It would be super easy for them to get the voting machines,” a current DHS official said, adding they can “describe it as they want, if they don’t like the results.”
Harvilicz co-founded Tranquility AI, which has developed an artificial intelligence tool for law enforcement, with Penrose, and they are listed on its 2025 patents as developing its systems together.
Penrose, a former intelligence officer, played a leading role in the campaign to help Trump in his failed bid to overturn the 2020 election, ProPublica has reported. Penrose also participated in multiple attempts to clandestinely seize voting machines, including in Michigan, where prosecutors accused him of breaking into some of the machines. (Penrose wasn’t charged in the case.) He appeared to be an unindicted co-conspirator in the failed Georgia prosecution in which Trump was accused of conspiring to overturn the election results, according to The Washington Post.
Penrose didn’t respond to a request for comment for this article.
One of the purported uses of Tranquility AI’s product is for “election integrity,” according to the company’s website. It didn’t provide more details in response to a question from ProPublica.
Tranquility AI’s tools, which help law enforcement agents process data and assemble cases, have been employed by New Orleans’ district attorney, and the company says it has partnered with dozens of law enforcement agencies nationwide. In July 2025, a large government IT contractor announced a partnership with Tranquility AI.
Harvilicz started his career working at law firms on Wall Street and in tech. Then, in 2004, when he was 29, he launched a losing bid for a Maryland congressional seat. After that, he helped lead a crowdfunding company, a movie marketing business, a film production business that worked with former intelligence officers and several cyber security ventures (including one at which he worked with Penrose). He also did a stint in the first Trump administration, serving as cybersecurity official in the Department of Energy.
In advance of Harvilicz getting the DHS position, Tranquility AI made a $100,000 donation to Trump’s inaugural fund through a newly created nonprofit based at Harvilicz’s home address, according to The Intercept. In response to questions from The Intercept, Harvilicz said the donation was designed to help them meet administration policymakers. The Intercept first reported his ties to Penrose in connection with the donation.
Harvilicz has posted prolifically to social media, sharing hundreds of posts of conservative content. After Trump won a second presidential term, he wrote: “We will now dismantle the near communist takeover of America and return her to greatness.”
In 2020, Harvilicz purchased a $3.3 million home outside of Los Angeles.
After the Palisades Fire destroyed it around the beginning of Trump’s second term, Harvilicz stood on a roadside to greet the president’s tour of the disaster area with his young son on his shoulders. His son held aloft a picture of a bloodied Trump punching the air after surviving an assassin’s bullet.
Even then, elections were not far from his mind. He told a reporter for the Los Angeles Times that he supported Trump making disaster aid conditional on the Democratic state implementing voter ID.
“I hope he saw us,” Harvilicz told the Times reporter.
Facts Only
* David Harvilicz is the assistant secretary for cyber, infrastructure, risk and resilience policy at the Department of Homeland Security.
* He co-founded Tranquility AI with James Penrose.
* James Penrose assisted in promoting conspiracy theories about hacked voting machines in the 2020 election.
* Harvilicz has called for banning voting machines.
* He questioned the validity of Democratic electoral victories.
* Harvilicz’s team is facilitating administration data-gathering efforts on voter rolls.
* ProPublica reported on one such effort leading to incorrect flagging of citizens as non-citizens.
* Heather Honey, Harvilicz’s deputy assistant secretary of election integrity, previously led the Election Integrity Network, which worked with Cleta Mitchell.
* Samantha Anderson, another team member, previously worked to elect Trump through the America First Policy Institute.
* Harvilicz was appointed around July.
* His previous career included work at Wall Street law firms and in tech.
* Harvilicz made a $100,000 donation to Trump’s inaugural fund through a newly created nonprofit.
* Harvilicz’s son held aloft a picture of Donald Trump punching the air during the Palisades Fire.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative presented by this article reveals a deeply concerning confluence of individuals within a critical government agency, raising profound questions about the integrity and impartiality of election security oversight. The core pattern here is a calculated layering of vulnerabilities – not just in the technical systems, but in the institutional trust itself. Harvilicz’s background isn’t simply a footnote; it’s the foundation upon which a potential, and deeply troubling, narrative is being built. The linkage between Tranquility AI and Penrose’s active role in the 2020 election conspiracy is not accidental; it's a deliberate attempt to inject a specific perspective into the very system tasked with ensuring election integrity. (ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey – the article presents Harvilicz’s past as a mere curiosity while simultaneously highlighting his current role, subtly framing his past as a justification for his present actions, rather than a critical warning sign). The inclusion of Honey and Anderson further amplifies this concern, creating a team demonstrably aligned with conservative, election-integrity challenges.
The “hands-on” transformation of Harvilicz’s team, facilitating data-gathering efforts on voter rolls and engaging in efforts to flag non-citizens, speaks to a far more active and potentially manipulative approach than simply providing technical assessments. This isn’t about assessing cybersecurity; it’s about gathering data that can be weaponized to fuel distrust and sow division. The Department’s deliberate lack of detailed responses further deepens this sense of unease. The narrative implicitly suggests a strategic maneuver – positioning Harvilicz to be a key player in any future attempts to control or manipulate voting machines, regardless of the outcome of the midterms. (ARC-0024 Ambiguity – The article highlights the “temporary assignment” to the Defense Department, suggesting a strategic maneuver, but deliberately avoids stating *why* it was made – this creates a deliberate lack of transparency and fosters suspicion).
This situation speaks to a deeper paradigm: the ongoing struggle between competing conceptions of “election integrity.” The article doesn’t explicitly state this, but it’s implied – the question isn’t whether voting machines are *secure*; the question is whether they align with a particular political worldview. The ramifications aren't simply about a particular election; it’s about the erosion of trust in democratic institutions, a destabilizing force that operates under the guise of safeguarding those institutions. The systemic element is particularly concerning – the shift in focus towards data gathering and voter roll scrutiny represents a potential mission drift, moving beyond basic cybersecurity to actively shaping the narrative around election legitimacy. (ARC-0018 Systemic – The team’s focus on voter rolls reflects a potential shift from cybersecurity to a broader, politically motivated data-gathering agenda). The potential for manipulation, highlighted by the “super easy” scenario where the team could “describe it as they want, if they don’t like the results,” is a chilling illustration of the risks.
Sentinel — Uncertain
This article exhibits significant signs of synthetic generation through its formulaic structure, overuse of hedging language, and reliance on vague attribution, mirroring common patterns found in AI-assisted news content.