--- Page 1 ---
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE BY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT WARRINGTON on 10 July 2026

Declassified by D/CIA Ratcliffe on 1 July 2026
ET pee ers ai ne ea es

X

AN “L CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
F

4 CIA NOTE

(U) Summary of Select Intelligence Reporting from 2004-
2020 on Venezuela’s Electronic Voting Manipulation
Capabilities

29 June 2026
py
(x)

imc

--- Page 2 ---
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

C fA N OT E “29.June 2026

(U) Summary of Select Intelligence Reporting from 2004-2020 on
Venezuela’s Electronic Voting Manipulation Capabilities

(U) Summary

eee 'ntelligence Community reporting from 2004-2020 documented persistent concerns about
Venezuelan government manipulation of electronic voting systems and the potential national security
implications for US election infrastructure. The intelligence established that Venezuelan government
officials developed sustained jnterest-and likely some capability in manipulating electronic voting
systems, including Smartmatic technology, to influence electoral outcomes in Venezuela. The 2006
Intelligence Community assessment that Smartmatic's ties to Venezuela posed.a national security threat
was based on solid intelligence regarding Venezuelan government intent to influence US politics and
evidence of Venezuelan manipulatian of their own electoral systems. This assessment led to US
government action forcing Smartmatic to divest'its. US operations in 2007. BRgaeamaes reporting indicated
that electronic voting systems contained vulnerabilities that could theoretically be-exploited by
sophisticated actors with insider access. However, while the intelligence validated significant concerns
about foreign-linked voting technology vendors, it did not-definitively confirm that large-scale electronic
fraud was successfully executed in specific Venezuelan elections, with CIA's baseline assessments
maintaining that other factors: better explained electoral outcomes. The reporting on advanced
techniques like aaa provided concerning insight into alleged Venezuelan government
capabilities and intent, but came from. limited sourcing.

(U) Venezuela Government Interest in
(U) Scope Note: This summary focuses on Election Manipulation
what (ntelligence Community reporting oe
established regarding Venezuela's intent ee EE (ntelligence sources
and capabilities to manipulate voting between 2004 and 2020 reported that Venezuelan
machines, both domestically and President Hugo Chavez and his successor Nicolas
potentially:in othér countries. Itis nota Maduro demonstrated sustained interest.in
comprehensive re-assessment of all manipulating electoral outcomes through
available intelligence on this topic, but electronic voting systems. In April 2004, .
rather a summary of key findings from intelligence reporting indicated Chavez stated his
select intelligence documents spanning objective was to prevent the reelection of a sitting
2004 to 2020. / US president, suggesting intent to influence US
domestic politics This.finding was part of the
basis for the Intelligence Community's 2006

under.the auspices of Depiity Director of CIA for Analysis.

Thils product reflects a CiA perspective and was not codrdinated within the intelligence Community, it was produced

--- Page 3 ---
CIA NOTE

assessment that Smartmatic's acquisition of US
voting systems company. Sequoia posed.a
“moderate threat” to US national security.”

Eee Prior to Venezuela's 2012
presidential election, aaa reported
that Chavez's intelligence services, including the
General Directorate of Military Gounterintelligence
{DGCIM} and the Bolivarian Intelligence Service
{SEBIN), worked with the National Electoral
Council {CNE):and Smartmatic to develop plans to
manipulate election results using preprogrammed
voting machines.

reported that these plans called for deploying
altered machinés to approximately 300 voting
centers ‘in traditionally pro-Chavez areas to ensure
victory by approximately 1.5 million votes.?
Following the election, which Chavez won by
‘approximately 1.6 million votes, sources reported
that Chavez congratulated his team for
successfully implementing the manipulation plan.*

NEN (n September 2020,

EE ec ported that Venezuela
had

developed detailed technical plans to manipulate
the December 2020 National Assembly elections
using what were

Hes According to this reporting, the
technique involved creating a'second set of virtual
machines that would replicate legitimate voting
machine results, then substitute manipulated data
while making. votes appear to originate from

legitimate machines. aaa eae

(U} Technical Capabilities and Vulnerabilities

Eee CA analysts assessed in. 2006
that certain capabilities igaaaanae an

régarding electronic voting manipulation were
technically possible and operationally feasible.*”

Specifically, aauaaaaamemem that voting machines

in Venezuela had unspecified artificial intelligence
components installed, were designed to alter vote
tallies; could detect when. they were being
audited, and could provide printed receipts
without registering, recording or transmitting
those votes,* While.CIA analysts judged these
capabilities were theoretically achievable, this
assessment focused on technical feasibility rather
than confirmation that such features were actually
implemented.

Hii A 2033 CIA alternative analysis, produced
using the "Devil's Advocacy" methodology,
outlined a plausible scenario for how large-scale
électronic manipulation could have occurred in
Venezuela's 2012 election. without.detection. This
analysis noted that Venezuela's electronic voting
system was vulnerable to insider access, the
centralized nature of the CNE’s control over voting
technology, and gaps in-opposition monitoring
capabilities. The report‘assessed that ‘if such
manipulation occurred, "elections in Venezuela
and other countries that are clients of the
technology provider could be in doubt.'* However,
CIA's baseline assessment maintained that.no
large-scale electronic fraud occurred in 2012,
based on pre-election.polling data, abserice of
irregular voting patterns, and the opposition's
concession.°

Hees Intelligence reportirig

consistently indicated that individuals with ties to
Venezuelan intelligence services.had access to
election technology.and voting systems. In 2012,
sources reported that Chavez assigned an army
communications specialist-to the:CNE to. provide
real-time access.to election results." Reporting
from 2012 also indicated that the CNE Information
Technology Director, described as a confidant of
the head of military intelligence with expertise in
Voting technology, was. responsible for designing
protocols for auditing voting software."2 These
relationships: provided potential pathways for
manipulation of electronic voting systems.

--- Page 4 ---
CIA NOTE

() A Technique

Ea | The September 2020
intelligence reporting on Qgaaaay plans provided

the. most detailed description of a specific
technical approach to-election manipulation,

technique was
allegedly-designed to:**

° eee Replicate digital hash
fies sent to the central vote counting
database;

* SE Viinic real voting
machines that favored the ruling party;

> Eee Overwrite hash files of
voting machines that favored the opposition;
and

° Eee Make altered-votes

appear to originate from legitimate voting
machinés.”*

this-technique-would, in:theory; allow the
Venezuelan government to monitor and adjust
results in real-time during and after the‘elaction.
The reporting indicated that virtual machine
technolagy would be employed:to accomplish this
manipulation while evading detection through
standard audit procedures,>

{U) IC Assessments and Concerns

Ei@gme The 2006 National Security Threat
Assessment.produced by the National Intelligence
Council evaluated Smartmatic's acquisition of
Sequoia Voting Systems as.a "moderate overall
threat to US national security interests." This
assessment was-based on séveral'factors:

© Ea |ntelligence indicating Chavez's intent to
influence US domestic politics and public
opinion;

© —Biy Reporting that the Venezuelan
government manipulated Venezuelan national
elections with Smartmatic's direct involvement;

° am intelligence
that Smartmatic directors held'credentials.from

Venezuelan intelligence services

© By Open source reporting of corrupt
relationships between Smartmatic and
Venezuelan government officials; and

© Wage Smartmatic’s and Sequoia’s reported
contracts in approximately 400 US counties at
the time.*®

gg The assessment concluded that
Smartmatic's susceptibility t6 Venezuelan
government manipulation makes the acquisition a
potential instrument for Venezuelan officials
seeking to.undermine confidence in, or
manipulate the-electoral process in, the United
States.’ This finding led to préssure from the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States {CFIUS) that résulted in Smartmatic
divesting its ownership of Sequoia in'2007,

Eee !n March 2018, Smartmatic

ceased cperations in Venezuela-after publicly
accusing the Maduro regime of inflating voter
turnout by over one million votes inthe August:
2017 National Constituent Assembly election—
figures that diverged from: data:recorded by.
Smartmiatic’s voting machines. This represented-a.
break between.Smartmatic. and the Venezuelan
government after years of the:company providing
electoral technology to:Venezuela.®

--- Page 5 ---
CIA NOTE

{U) Limitations and Analytic Caveats

Hig The intelligence reporting.contains
important limitations that must be considered
whén assessing what it establishes.

Hg First, the 2006 Intelligence Community
assessment concluded that neither Smartmatic
nor the Venezuelan Government had the
capability—thatis, the level of-control or.access
required—to manipulate the outcome of an
election outside of Venezuela in’a predictable
fashion. Thée:Venezuelan.Government's-ability to
manipulate the results of voting in Venezuela
rested in part.on its. ability to.control every stage
of the eléctronic voting process, from: initial
acquisition of the machines to pre- and post-
voting machine security, to programming, to
storage of paper voting receipts;:to control of the
audit'process. Neither the Venezuelan
Government-nor Smastmatic would have'such a
complete-spectrum of access:during an electoral
process outside Venezuela.

EE Second, ClA's-baséline

assessment regarding Venezuela’s.2012 election
maintained that large-scale electronic fraud did
hot occur, despite RRB reporting of
manipulation plans. This:assessment was
supported by pre-election polling showing Chavez
ahead by approximately 10 percentage points, a
24% increase in government spending before the
election, the opposition's concession of defeat,
and-CIA quantitative analysis showing: no irregular
voting patterns indicative of systematic
manipilation.>

Third, the 2013 Devil's
Advocacy Report that outlined’a plausible fraud
scénario was explicitly.an alternative analysis:
exercise rather than a definitive finding. The
report acknowledged "conflicting
reporting” and "limited insight into key elements
of the electronic. voting system."24

Eee Fourth, the September 2020
reporting 0° a

Ee
EERE
ee
HERR 27 judged the
regime did not need to resort to. gross fraud to win
the December 2020 National Assembly elections,
given that virtually the entire opposition

boycotted and the regime had already co-opted
opposition party leadership.

--- Page 6 ---
CIA NOTE