Trump’s Venezuela Election Claims: CIA Reports & Smartmatic Debunked

Trump falsely claimed CIA reports confirm Venezuelan manipulation of 2020 US elections via Smartmatic. CIA reports actually show theoretical manipulation in Venezuela, no evidence of US impact, Smartmatic's limited US presence, and robust US election security protocols debunking his claims.

” Today, we are releasing records that reveal the CIA obtained coverage of a particular story to do a big number for the corrupt Maduro regimen in Venezuela,” Trump claimed in his primetime address to the nation on July 16, describing Venezuelan Head of state Nicolás Maduro. “And that’s specifically what happened. Conspiring to digitally rig their own country’s political elections in 2020. And that’s what they did. This reporting included specific information concerning methods to regime establish, to electronically change ballot totals in manner ins which can not be found, even with an audit, regardless of how deep they went.

Trump’s Election Fraud Claims

At the facility of supposition concerning voting equipment manipulation in Venezuela is a cybersecurity company called Smartmatic, founded in 2000 in Florida by individuals with Venezuelan citizenship. The tiny firm took on worldwide importance when it was tapped by Venezuela to offer voting equipments for its 2004 political election.

“While CIA experts judged these capacities were theoretically attainable, this analysis concentrated on technical usefulness as opposed to confirmation that such features were actually applied,” the report stated.

Smartmatic’s Venezuelan Origins and US Operations

“Smartmatic is a firm that does not sell or have ballot makers anywhere in the USA, with the exemption of Los Angeles Region,” Becker said. In the swing states of “Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania– not a single Smartmatic gadget [was used], not a single device that can have potentially been under the control of Venezuela or any kind of other dead despot anywhere else worldwide.”

According to a New York Times tale in October 2006, “Smartmatic was an obscure company without experience in voting technology before it was selected by the Venezuelan authorities to replace the country’s political elections equipment in advance of a contentious referendum that verified Mr. Chavez as head of state in August 2004.”

That searching for, the report claimed, “became part of the basis for the Intelligence Area’s 2006 evaluation that Smartmatic’s acquisition of US ballot systems business Sequoia positioned a ‘modest threat’ to United States nationwide safety and security.”

Bryan added that “the only evidence in the record on trial worrying Smartmatic’s involvement in elections in various other nations shows that Smartmatic has actually never swiped any type of election, and its modern technology has actually never ever been utilized to manipulate ballots.”

CIA’s Theoretical vs. Actual Manipulation Assessments

“According to this reporting, the technique entailed developing a second set of online makers that would certainly duplicate legit voting machine results, after that substitute adjusted data while making votes appear to stem from legit makers,” the CIA report claimed.

In his primetime address, Trump did not “also purport to show … that any type of voting machines were actually endangered,” Rick Hasen, director of the Shielding Freedom Project at UCLA Institution of Regulation, composed for the Election Regulation Blog Site on July 16.

A 2013 CIA analysis utilized a “‘ Evil one’s Campaigning for’ methodology” to describe “a plausible circumstance for exactly how large electronic adjustment might have happened in Venezuela’s 2012 election without detection.” A section on “Limitations and Analytic Caveats” later in the record kept in mind that this “Devil’s Advocacy Report” was “clearly an alternate evaluation workout as opposed to a definitive finding.” The assessment kept in mind that there was “clashing” CIA reporting and “minimal insight into key elements of the digital voting system.”

As Area Court Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan wrote in an order in September 2025 in Smartmatic’s defamation instance versus Trump supporter and election denier Mike Lindell,” [G] iven the margin of triumph in Los Angeles Region and California … it is mathematically difficult” for the Smartmatic devices “to have actually altered the outcomes of the 2020 Political election in California.”

Smartmatic ended its organization with Venezuela in 2018 after implicating Maduro’s government of manipulating voter turnout data in a 2017 political election, inflating the vote tally by more than 1 million votes. The figures from Maduro were at odds with the tallies indicated by the voting devices, Smartmatic said.

Debunking 2020 US Election Interference

Trump mentioned the Venezuelan government “having some ability to interfere with Venezuelan voting machines,” Becker said, yet beyond one county, those makers “aren’t even used in the USA.”

In a meeting with reporters the day prior to Trump provided his primetime address, David Becker, the executive director and creator of the Facility for Election Technology & Research study, a detached nonprofit, also dismissed the idea that Smartmatic equipment might have guided the 2020 election.

The summary of knowledge over a 16-year period– declassified on July 1– included a 2006 CIA evaluation that wrapped up “electronic voting control” in Venezuela– including artificial intelligence components that can alter ballots without being found via auditing– was “practically feasible and operationally possible.”

By that time, however, as we kept in mind, Smartmatic had offered Sequoia and was no more working with Venezuela. In the 2020 election, only one U.S. area used Smartmatic voting equipment. Los Angeles used the firm’s VSAP touchscreen makers, according to the California assistant of state’s checklist of certified voting tools made use of in each county.

Robust US Election Security Measures

“The reality is that, like every piece of modern technology, our ballot makers are not untouchable to assault, and we don’t trust them,” Becker said in a press conference 2 days later on. “We build in systems by design that verify and verify everything those equipments do. Those machines are not linked to the internet. Those devices are maintained under stringent lock and key and chain of wardship. They are evaluated before and after every election. And then also afterwards, every voter in the United States, with the exception of Louisiana, elects on paper ballots. Those paper ballots are auditable. Every state carries out audits. … They examine and ensure through hand audits, reviewing the ballots, validating the matters by hand under transparent monitoring … and afterwards they compare it to the device matter to make sure it functioned. We understand that our voting makers have actually precisely counted the outcomes. We understand the results are accurate as a result of those audits.”

The record kept in mind that it was the CIA’s “standard assessment” that “massive electronic fraud did not occur” in Venezuela in 2012, regardless of “reporting of control plans.” That evaluation was based on “pre-election ballot revealing Chavez in advance by around 10 percent factors, a 24% increase in government investing before the election, the opposition’s giving in of defeat, and CIA measurable evaluation revealing no uneven ballot patterns a sign of systematic control.”

CIA’s Final Assessment and Trump’s Misinformation

In asserting that American ballot makers are vulnerable to adjustment, President Donald Trump gave a distorted and incomplete summary of the CIA’s reporting about Venezuelan initiatives to manipulate digital voting makers because country.

Trump did not mention in his July 16 speech any kind of details given by Hugo “El Pollo” Carvajal, the president’s cases partly echo those of the former head of Venezuela’s army knowledge.

In December, Carvajal, that pleaded guilty in the United state in 2025 to narcoterrorism, drug-trafficking and weapons charges, wrote Trump a letter (very first released by the traditional Dallas Express), stating, “Smartmatic was born as a selecting device of the Venezuelan regime yet quickly obtained right into a tool to help maintain the regime remain in power forever. Routine operatives keep connections with election authorities and voting-machine companies inside your country. I do not declare that every political election is taken, however I specify with assurance that elections can be set up with the software program– and has been made use of to do so.”

Making use of cash from those Venezuelan agreements, the Times noted, Smartmatic in March 2005 purchased the “much larger and much more recognized” Sequoia Ballot Equipments, which at the time provided ballot tools to 17 states and the Area of Columbia.

International Intent vs. US Capability

“[T] he 2006 Knowledge Area assessment ended that neither [voting machine maker] Smartmatic neither the Venezuelan Federal government had the capability– that is, the degree of control or accessibility required– to control the result of an election outside of Venezuela in a foreseeable style,” the CIA report stated. “The Venezuelan Government’s capacity to control the outcomes of voting in Venezuela rested partially on its ability to manage every stage of the electronic ballot process, from initial procurement of the equipments to pre- and post-voting maker protection, to programming, to storage of paper ballot receipts, to control of the audit procedure. Neither the Venezuelan Federal Government nor Smartmatic would have such a full spectrum of accessibility during a selecting procedure outside Venezuela.”

A declassified version of an Intelligence Neighborhood assessment on “international risks” to the 2020 election, released in March 2021, kept in mind: “The Venezuelan program of Nicolas Maduro had an adversarial relationship with the Trump administration and we analyze that Maduro had the intent, though possibly not the capacity, to try to influence popular opinion in the US against the previous Head of state.” The evaluation continued, “We have no information suggesting that the present or former Venezuelan regimes were involved in attempts to compromise US election facilities.”

According to the record released by the CIA this month, intelligence coverage in April 2004 “indicated Chavez mentioned his purpose was to avoid the reelection of a resting US head of state, recommending intent to influence United States residential national politics.” In April 2004, after that President George W. Bush, a Republican politician, was campaigning for a second term in workplace.

Offered Smartmatic’s role in Venezuela, and concerns about feasible ties to the Chavez government, the Committee on Foreign Financial Investment in the USA in late 2006 opened up an examination into Smartmatic’s acquisition of Sequoia. According to the Times, Smartmatic and the Chavez administration at the time both denied the Venezuelan federal government had any role in the business, apart from Venezuela having with Smartmatic for its political elections.

Contrary to Trump’s claim that a plan to manipulate voting devices is “specifically what happened” in 2020, a September 2020 CIA record “evaluated the regimen did not require to resort to gross fraudulence to win the December 2020 National Setting up elections, provided that practically the whole resistance boycotted and the program had already co-opted resistance celebration leadership.”

The records the Trump management launched do not state “that’s exactly what took place,” as Trump stated. One of the files released before Trump’s address was a current CIA record, “Summary of Select Knowledge Coverage from 2004-2020 on Venezuela’s Digital Voting Control Capabilities,” that wrapped up Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and his follower, Maduro, “established continual interest and likely some capability” to adjust ballot makers. The CIA’s evaluation regarding the methods in which Venezuela can accomplish such manipulation was more of a “theoretical” workout, and the record quit short of affirming Venezuela actually lugged out strategies to alter voting maker tallies.

One of the records launched prior to Trump’s address was a recent CIA report, “Summary of Select Intelligence Coverage from 2004-2020 on Venezuela’s Electronic Ballot Control Capabilities,” that wrapped up Venezuelan Head of state Hugo Chávez and his follower, Maduro, “created continual interest and likely some capability” to adjust voting devices. “The Venezuelan Federal government’s capacity to adjust the results of voting in Venezuela rested in part on its capacity to manage every phase of the digital ballot process, from first purchase of the makers to pre- and post-voting device security, to shows, to storage space of paper ballot invoices, to regulate of the audit procedure. Los Angeles used the business’s VSAP touchscreen equipments, according to the California assistant of state’s list of certified voting devices utilized in each county.

“Smartmatic is a firm that does not have or sell voting devices anywhere in the United States, with the exception of Los Angeles Area,” Becker stated.” The fact is that, like every piece of technology, our ballot devices are not untouchable to assault, and we don’t trust them,” Becker claimed in a press meeting two days later.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept marketing. We count on grants and private contributions from individuals like you. Please think about a contribution. Bank card contributions may be made through our “Give away” web page. If you favor to give by check, send out to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Facility, P.O. Box 58100, Philly, 19102.

After That Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat of New York, that was the initial to require the federal examination, claimed at the time that the sale of Sequoia Voting Solutions seemed to be a recognition by Smartmatic that it “can not conquer the cloud of uncertainty surrounding this offer.”

A: Some subcontractors have actually stated they were not spent for their job. The Obama Foundation informed us that the building and construction project manager (Shore Alliance) has the “main responsibility” to “manage and employ all the subcontractors for the project.” The foundation claimed it has “no superior questioned charges” with Lakeside Alliance neither “straight legal arrangements or agreements” with subcontractors.

In the lead-up to Venezuela’s 2012 political election, knowledge sources showed that Chavez’s intelligence services worked with election software application developers “to establish plans to control election outcomes making use of preprogrammed voting makers.” Especially, the plan called for “deploying altered equipments to around 300 voting centers in traditionally pro-Chavez locations to ensure victory by about 1.5 million votes,” the report specified.