The Global Stakes of Election Interference: Why Democracies Must Confront Foreign Meddling With Law, Not Shrugs

In the years since 2016, the United States has lived with the aftershocks of one of the most consequential national security breaches in its modern history: foreign interference in its presidential election. The Mueller Report, officially released in March 2019, chronicled an unprecedented assault on the democratic process by the Russian state and its proxies. While political actors in Washington continue to argue over its meaning, the facts it established remain clear — and those facts carry implications that extend far beyond U.S. borders.

The issue is not whether foreign meddling occurred. It did. The question is whether democracies, acting together, will treat such attacks on sovereignty and self-determination as unacceptable crimes demanding accountability, or whether they will continue to normalize interference as just another feature of twenty-first century politics.

The answer should be obvious. Election interference corrodes democracy at its roots. It is not merely about one candidate or one cycle. It is about whether citizens, anywhere, can trust that their ballots reflect their own will, not the manipulation of a hostile foreign power. That principle is not negotiable, and it requires collective defense through law, diplomacy, and coordinated action.

What the Mueller Report actually showed

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation laid out two main avenues of Russian interference in 2016.

The first was a sweeping social media campaign run by the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Kremlin-linked operation that created thousands of fake accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. These accounts impersonated American activists, stoked racial and cultural divisions, organized real-world rallies, and pushed millions of targeted messages at U.S. voters. The objective was explicit: hurt Hillary Clinton, help Donald Trump, and erode trust in American democracy.

The second was a cyber-intrusion campaign by Russian military intelligence (the GRU). Operatives hacked into Democratic National Committee servers and the personal email account of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman. They then strategically leaked stolen documents through cut-outs like WikiLeaks. This was not rumor-mongering or trolling; it was state-directed theft and weaponization of information.

Alongside these operations, the report documented numerous contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russian intermediaries. While Mueller concluded the evidence did not meet the legal standard to charge conspiracy, the picture is troubling: senior campaign officials were willing to entertain offers of assistance from a foreign government. The report was equally clear on obstruction: it outlined at least ten episodes in which President Trump attempted to impede the investigation, concluding, “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. We cannot exonerate him.”

These findings matter because they establish a record: interference was real, it was state-directed, it was designed to influence the outcome, and it succeeded in compromising the informational environment in which American voters made decisions.

A pattern, not an anomaly

To treat 2016 as a one-off would be a grave mistake. Russian interference did not stop with that election. Subsequent investigations have shown similar tactics deployed in European contests, including attempts to sway referenda, parliamentary elections, and public debates on NATO and EU policy. Other authoritarian states have adopted similar playbooks. Disinformation, cyber intrusions, and illicit funding streams have become tools of statecraft.

That pattern highlights a simple reality: this is not about Democrats or Republicans, not about Clinton or Trump. It is about whether democratic processes are allowed to function free from covert manipulation. Left unchecked, election interference will spread, becoming normalized as a tool in the arsenal of every state that wishes to weaken its rivals.

What democracies can and must do

Rhetoric will not stop this. Only coordinated, lawful, enforceable measures can. The path forward involves at least five pillars.

1. Joint forensic investigations and attribution. Democracies must work together to investigate interference incidents and publish transparent, evidence-based accounts of what occurred. NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence and EU institutions already have technical expertise; these capacities should be pooled into independent teams that can establish facts beyond reasonable dispute.
2. Targeted sanctions against perpetrators. Once attribution is established, states must impose real costs. That means freezing assets, restricting travel, and sanctioning entities tied to interference campaigns. These measures should be coordinated across the U.S., EU, Canada, the U.K., and other allies to maximize impact. When democracies move in concert, sanctions bite. When they move piecemeal, bad actors exploit the gaps.
3. Mutual legal assistance and prosecutions. Where domestic law permits, prosecutors should pursue indictments against identified operators and their sponsors. The United States has already indicted GRU officers for the 2016 hacks. Other states can and should follow suit, using mutual legal assistance treaties to share evidence. The message must be clear: meddling in another country’s elections is a crime, and perpetrators will face criminal liability when they travel or attempt to access the international financial system.
4. Strengthening democratic resilience. Accountability is not only about punishment; it is about prevention. Allies must invest in strengthening electoral systems against cyber intrusions, supporting independent journalism and fact-checking initiatives, and promoting civic literacy campaigns to help citizens identify disinformation. Democratic resilience is the best inoculation against manipulation.
5. Public diplomacy and norm-setting. Finally, democracies must work through international institutions to set norms: election interference is illegitimate, unacceptable, and subject to consequences. Public diplomacy, coordinated statements, and international resolutions can help build consensus and stigmatize the practice. Just as chemical weapons use is treated as a red line, so too should deliberate election interference be recognized as beyond the pale.

The stakes for NATO and the EU

Some critics argue NATO should steer clear of “domestic politics.” But election interference is not a domestic issue when it is directed from abroad. Article 4 of the NATO Treaty allows any member to bring threats to security to the table for consultation. Cyber operations already fall within NATO’s purview, and the alliance has recognized hybrid threats as legitimate security challenges. The EU, for its part, has the power to impose sanctions and to build regulatory frameworks for transparency in political advertising and digital platforms. Together, NATO and the EU can cover both the security and the economic dimensions of accountability.

Importantly, this is not a call for military intervention. The answer to interference is law, not war. But NATO’s credibility depends on its ability to adapt to the threat environment, and that includes treating cyber and disinformation campaigns as attacks on democratic sovereignty.

Conclusion: Democracy defends itself by enforcing rules

Election interference is not a partisan talking point. It is a test of whether democracies can still defend themselves in an age where aggression takes digital and informational forms.

The Mueller Report drew the blueprint: foreign interference happened, it was serious, and it undermined democratic trust. The task for the democratic world is to respond accordingly. That means moving past political fatigue and rhetorical condemnations. It means establishing clear consequences, enforced through sanctions, prosecutions, and coordinated diplomacy. It means strengthening the resilience of our institutions so that voters, not foreign operatives, decide outcomes.

Democracy cannot defend itself on auto-pilot. It survives when free societies draw lines, enforce them, and hold accountable those who would undermine the most basic of civic rights: the right to choose one’s leaders without outside interference. The time for hesitation has long passed. The time for lawful, collective action is now.

---

References

Mueller, R. S. (2019). Report on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Council on Foreign Relations. (2021). Russian election interference, 2016–present. CFR Backgrounder. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/russian-election-interference-2016-present

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2022). Cyber defence. NATO Topics. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_78170.htm

Treasury Department. (2018, March 15). Treasury sanctions Russian cyber actors for interference with the 2016 U.S. elections and malicious cyber-attacks. U.S. Department of the Treasury. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0312

NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. (2021). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge University Press.

European Union External Action Service. (2020). EU sanctions against cyber-attacks. EEAS Publications. https://www.eeas.europa.eu