logo
Stop gutting America's cyber defense agency

Stop gutting America's cyber defense agency

The Hill26-03-2025
The Trump administration's cuts in cyber programs are putting national security at risk.
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem defended such cuts in her confirmation hearing, saying that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency needed to be 'smaller, more nimble to really fulfill their mission.' She is mistaken.
Over the past three weeks, the agency has reduced staff, slashed budgets and terminated programs, with the administration suggesting that these cuts will 'eliminate redundancies' and focus its work on 'mission critical areas.' However, the cuts, imposed by the Department of Homeland Security, are in fact undercutting the agency's core mission areas, weakening U.S. national resilience and casting doubt on America's ability to repel, thwart and deter attacks in cyberspace.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has attempted to fire 130 probationary workers. Among them are some of its most talented cyber experts. They include career intelligence analysts, experienced vulnerability analysts and world-class threat hunters. An unreported number of terminated employees were hired through the Cyber Talent Management System, an initiative created by Congress to help the federal government entice talent from the private sector to address significant federal cyber workforce shortages.
In addition to firing employees, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency also terminated contracts with cybersecurity experts who serve as 'red teams.' These penetration testers hack into systems to help the government identify vulnerabilities so that defenders can bolster security before adversaries corrupt their systems.
These red teams are often the most experienced and specialized experts in the cyber field. Without their essential work, vulnerabilities in government networks will go unidentified, further risking infiltration by foreign adversaries.
At the same time, the agency terminated $10 million in funding to the Center for Internet Security. This nonprofit houses the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, the mechanism through which state and local election officials and federal partners can share information about cyber and physical threats to election infrastructure.
Complicating this action, the Center for Internet Security also houses the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which provides cyber threat intelligence, cyber incident response assistance and free services to state and local governments. Among its 16,000 members are municipalities that manage local electric and water utilities and K-12 schools. The center is now unfunded, and its future is uncertain. The result is that state and local governments are made increasingly vulnerable to foreign actors.
Noem also dismantled several cybersecurity advisory boards, including the Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee, the Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee and the Secret Service's Cyber Investigations Advisory Board. Each of these boards provides unique perspectives on threats to U.S. cybersecurity and technology development. They serve as vehicles for the government to gain insights and advice from private industry.
More concerning was the decision to disband the Cyber Safety Review Board, an investigative body that reviews significant cyber incidents. At the time it was disbanded, the board was specifically looking into how China has compromised U.S. telecommunications infrastructure. The secretary of Transportation would never have dared eliminate this board's aviation equivalent, the National Transportation Safety Board.
Finally, Noem suspended the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, which is essential for bridging the divide between the government and private companies. It provides legal protection and serves as the convening body under which the Sector Coordinating Councils — consisting of critical infrastructure owners, operators and their associations — meet with the federal government to share threat information, engage in cyber response simulations and flesh out industry-wide cyber challenges. Not every such council was running perfectly, but some were highly successful anchor points of public-private collaboration.
Because of these actions, the Sector Coordinating Councils are not operational. It remains unclear when or whether they will be reactivated, especially without the protection of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council. Their absence leaves industry without a critical lifeline to the government and its intelligence-gathering resources, severely limiting the public and private sectors' collaborative ability to combat threats in cyberspace.
Another unintended consequence of disestablishing the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council was the removal of protections for the use of the Enduring Security Framework, a favorite tool of the National Security Agency to share information with the private sector.
There is nothing wrong with building a more efficient Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and certainly the agency needed some corrective course action. What Noem has done, however, is take a chainsaw to an agency that needed only a scalpel.
Congress specifically created some of these now disbanded programs to address gaps in both the government's and the private sector's cybersecurity capabilities. The rationale behind and necessity for these programs remain.
The consequences of these cuts will be felt in our schools and hospitals, in our water systems and electric grids and in many other critical areas as America's ability to defend itself in cyberspace erodes. This matters because the Trump administration, like the Biden team, recognizes the rapidly growing threat to our national security from China's malicious cyber activity, as shown by the exploitation of critical U.S. infrastructure by both the Volt and Salt Typhoon operations.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency should rehire its talent, restore funding and reinstate these programs immediately. Elections have consequences and the Trump administration certainly can make changes as it sees fit, but canceling the tools for public-private collaboration in securing America's cyberspace is a mistake.
Trump recently nominated a new director, Sean Plankey. A career Coast Guard officer with extensive interagency experience, he has the talent and expertise to make the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency more efficient. Congress needs to confirm him fast, and Noem needs to stop gutting the agency in his absence.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why would Trump and Intel want to work together: Opening Bid top takeaway
Why would Trump and Intel want to work together: Opening Bid top takeaway

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why would Trump and Intel want to work together: Opening Bid top takeaway

Investors are in wait-and-see mode. Fed watchers have had quite a week, getting a hot Producer Price Index, a tame Consumer Price Index, and solid retail sales data out today. As it stands, markets are still betting on that September rate cut from the Jerome Powell-led Federal Reserve. There have been a few earnings stumbles in CoreWeave (CRWV), Applied Materials (AMAT), and Cava (CAVA), but a few bright spots from the likes of Cisco (CSCO). The Bullish (BLSH) IPO saw an enthusiastic response. And now markets cast their gaze to the highly anticipated meeting today between President Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The outcome of this meeting could have a host of surprises that bullish investors haven't even thought about! Stock analysis: Intel The Trump administration is reportedly in talks to have the US government take a stake in Intel (INTC). An Intel spokesperson didn't comment directly on this to me, but offered this: "Intel is deeply committed to supporting President Trump's efforts to strengthen U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership. We look forward to continuing our work with the Trump Administration to advance these shared priorities, but we are not going to comment on rumors or speculation.' The questions here are numerous. Why would the administration even want a stake in an Intel that is far behind chief rivals Nvidia (NVDA) and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)? I encourage Trump to compare Nvidia's earnings report on Aug. 27 to the last disaster from Intel a few weeks ago. The president isn't known to hitch his ride to losers. Intel has been a loser and may stay that way in the chip game for some time. Then again, why would Intel want to get in bed with the government when embattled CEO Lip-Bu Tan and the board must act quickly to reorganize the company? I find it hard to believe the government will be a quiet minority shareholder! Intel has billions in cash and doesn't need the money that comes with terms from any government deal. There is a lot at stake here, as Intel should be a beacon of US chip-making, not the punching bag in tech circles. The company's financials have taken a major hit, with sales down for more than three straight years and earnings evaporating in the process. "[A stake would] be a big step for Intel, but right now Intel is on a horse and buggy compared to the Godfather of AI Jensen [Huang] and Nvidia," Wedbush tech analyst Dan Ives told me. Roundtable analysis: More tech When a Wall Street analyst who has been a bear on a stock for a while suddenly issues an upgrade, it always catches my attention. Today, we have that situation on Salesforce (CRM). DA Davidson analyst Gil Luria lifted his rating on Salesforce to Neutral from Underperform. Luria said investor sentiment has declined sharply on Salesforce in recent months as questions mount around the company's acquisition strategy and near-term margins. But what may not be factored into the stock is new activist investor activity, Luria said. Luria pointed out that noted activist investor Starboard Value — led by Jeff Smith — increased its stake in Salesforce by 47% this quarter, according to new 13F filings. Starboard pushed for big changes at Salesforce three years ago, which ultimately led to a new focus on margin expansion by CEO and co-founder Marc Benioff. Luria said, "We believe this is a signal there will be another round of investor activism and increased pressure on management to refocus on growth of the core business, additional margin expansion and hold off on dilutive M&A." Meanwhile, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway sold 20 million shares of Apple (AAPL) during the period, according to a new 13F filing. Berkshire's Apple holdings remain its largest equity stake by market value, despite dropping by about $9.2 billion in the second quarter. Is Buffett signaling he is concerned about Apple's tariff exposure? Perhaps. After all, Apple did warn tariffs would hit its profits by $1.1 billion in the current quarter. Brian Sozzi is Yahoo Finance's Executive Editor and a member of Yahoo Finance's editorial leadership team. Follow Sozzi on X @BrianSozzi, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Tips on stories? Email Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Why Trump might push for a US gov't. stake in Intel
Why Trump might push for a US gov't. stake in Intel

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why Trump might push for a US gov't. stake in Intel

Intel (INTC) stock is popping following reports that the US government is considering taking a stake in the legacy chipmaker after Trump's meeting with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan. Slatestone Wealth chief market strategist and host of Yahoo Finance's Trader Talk, Kenny Polcari, and Yahoo Finance Senior Reporter Allie Canal join Opening Bid to take a closer look at what the reported government partnership could mean for the US, Intel, and the evolving chip landscape. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Opening Bid. All right, let's fire up, uh, my stock of the day. The Trump administration is reportedly in talks with Intel to have the US government take a stake. Uh, Intel declined to comment specifically on this to me, but they did say this, uh, quote, Intel's deeply committed to supporting President Trump's efforts to strengthen US technology and manufacturing leadership. Uh, the questions here are many though. One, why would the administration even want to stake in an Intel that is scary behind chief rivals Nvidia and AMD? President Trump has interacted a lot with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and has got a taste as to what it means to be a leader in semiconductors. Two, why would Intel want to get in bed with the government at a time in which CEO Lipu Tang and the board must act quickly to reorganize the company. I find it hard to believe the government will be a quiet minority shareholder. There's a lot of stake here, as Intel is and should be a beacon of US chip making, not the punching bag it has become. The company's financials have taken a major hit with sales down for more than three straight years and earnings evaporating in the process. A lot going on there. Still with me, my round table, Kenny, Paul Kerry, uh, Slate Stone Wealth chief market strategist, David Seif, Nomora chief economist, and Yahoo Finance reporter, senior reporter, Allie Canal. Kenny, I want to go over to you. Um, any interest in going long in Intel on news like this, uh, even in the, uh, keeping the back of your mind, or maybe just putting the front of your mind that this is a fundamentally, uh, just wrong company. I mean, nothing's going right for them. Uh, uh, agree. So Intel's not a name that I've ever owned, uh, and we don't own it here. But look, I it's certainly has a pop because of the news. But is the pop temporary? I'm not even sure. And I agree with you. Why would you want to get, why would the government want to now be partners with Intel? Why would Intel want to be partners with the government? And what does that say about future opportunities? Is the government now going to start this Trump going to start the stick his hand in other companies? Kenny, it's like the auto bailout. I mean, it reminds me of when they took a stake in GM, what, 15, 20 years ago. 100%. And so I'm a little bit I'm a little bit confused about that. But Intel's not a name that I ever owned at all. I think there's other places to put your money in the space. But so this news does nothing in terms of getting me excited about, oh, I got to jump on this Intel bandwagon. I do not. David, does the, does it benefit, um, the US economy to have a healthy Intel? Or at this point, the semiconductor industry led by Nvidia, AMD, and of course, Taiwan semiconductor, they have just passed this company by, and our economy can go chugging along relying on chips from these three companies. Yeah, I mean, you know, I don't have much to say about individual companies, but certainly, um, you know, the US has a multi-century track record of doing well by sort of not sticking its nose into things and allowing, allowing the private market to go where it may. Um, to the extent that Intel has been lagging behind, uh, it it may be the best thing for the economy to simply allow it to, uh, continue to either wither or sink or swim, so to speak, um, and allow the current leaders to continue to lead and only lose their lead if they actually get out competed. Uh, Allie, uh, we're just about almost two weeks away from that Nvidia earnings report. And it will look starkly different to what Intel put up a few weeks ago. And it's night and day. I mean, these are, these companies both might be making computer chips, but they couldn't be more different. Couldn't be more different. And Intel, I just feel like it's too late for the company to really catch up to AMD, to Nvidia. Of course, for the Trump administration, they're viewing this as an issue of national security, that they really want to make sure that Intel can survive through this volatile time. We did have the that CEO meeting with President Trump, and really we've seen that across the board of big tech, right? Apple CEO, Tim Cook, met with Trump recently. And then out of that meeting was a $100 billion investment in the US. So that is President Trump's goal. He wants to bring manufacturing production, all the things, including all the chip makers back onto the domestic soil. But they also have other types of agreements that they're rolling out that are very unique and really unprecedented. One of those being that revenue share agreement with Nvidia and AMD. They're letting them sell some of their chips to China for a kickback, for some of the revenue to the federal government. So there's just a lot of moving parts and moving pieces to this. It's still an unconfirmed report. Intel did say that they are looking forward to working with the government, but they didn't confirm whether or not this was actually happening. So it feels like the US is just going to continue to be involved in some of these companies, at least throughout the term of Trump's presidency. What ultimately comes from that and the legacy that leads and how it really changes what we view the the chip supply chain as at this current moment, that remains to be seen. Related Videos How Trump's meeting with Putin impacts investors Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway sold Apple shares. Should you? Intel Soars as Trump Considers US Stake in Chipmaker 3 AI chip stocks that are best positioned right now Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

How Trump's meeting with Putin impacts investors
How Trump's meeting with Putin impacts investors

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How Trump's meeting with Putin impacts investors

US President Trump is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine. Slatestone Wealth chief market strategist and host of Yahoo Finance's Trader Talk, Kenny Polcari, shares his expectations for the meeting and how it could move markets, while Nomura's chief economist David Seif examines the potential economic impact of the meeting's outcome. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Opening Bid. Kenny, I want to go over to you here. This is a market that is still inclined to trade on economic data rather than geopolitical events, but this meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin could that change the tone of the market, do you think? Listen, it can change the tone temporarily. Geopolitical stuff can cause chaos, short term chaos in the market because it doesn't really price stocks in the long term. So on a day like today, everybody's gonna be paying attention. They want to see how long Trump stays in the room or not in the room, right? He's already made it very clear. If he stays in there less than five minutes, there's no deal, he doesn't want to talk about it. And there's going to be more more threats and sanctions on Russia. If the if the if the meeting goes longer than five minutes, then we can all assume that maybe they're making some progress. And that should help to settle things down. So yes, while it's not gonna price stocks in the long term, people should be paying attention although it's not going to hit until 3:00 this afternoon just because of the time difference. So the market may not have a lot of time to react. David, good to see you here this morning, David. What What Hey, how are you? Good. What are the economic ramifications of a meeting like this? Well, you know, I think that the the Russia Ukraine war, of course, is is sort of a travesty, um, from a humanitarian basis. It's not a first order importance to the United States. And I actually think that if there were to be some sort of a solution, either coming out of this meeting, or or in the near future, uh, one of the biggest beneficiaries at least in sort of the developed world would actually be Europe. Europe has this war on its on this war on its doorstep. And, um, solving it would unlock a lot of the potential that, uh, or undo a lot of the hit that occurred in 2022 when the war began. Uh, In addition, I think other countries could benefit such as India because that would allow them to avoid these, the the tariffs that Trump has talked about from trading with Russia. And so relief from those could also be a benefit to, uh, to India in particular, which is is one of the main trading partners with Russia that's also been a historic US ally. Ali, I've been making the argument all week, the market has totally forgotten about geopolitical risks, so focused on corporate earnings, what's happening with interest rates, but look, any bad headline from this meeting will likely dent stocks. Full stop. Look, Brian, geopolitical risks are always lurking around the corner, and you often don't know when they're going to hit. And I referenced earlier that Israel-Iran escalation, and that really took markets by surprise. We saw that intense spike in oil. We saw equities fall. There was a lot of concern whether we could be heading into a World War III situation. So that's always something that you have to keep in mind. But I totally agree with you. There's just a lot of momentum in stocks right now. There's a lot of risk trading. We are looking at Big Tech cap companies continuing to outperform. Crypto stocks have surged. And like you were saying, earnings have really been a big driver for that. And across the board, we've seen analysts raise their forecast for the S&P 500, specifically citing earnings. And it's not just earnings expectations for 2025. It's really for 2026 and beyond as well. So that is where the optimism is stemming from that this rally has legs and that it can also continue to trade higher from here. And I've been speaking to a lot of sources about whether or not we are overbought in this market. And they tell me no, that we're really at a fair value considering where earnings are and how the fundamental story has largely remained intact. Of course, we saw those hotter than expected inflation reports this week. TBD on the impact of that will have on the Fed and equities and trade policy moving forward. Kenny, I originally met you eons ago down the New York Stock Exchange trading floor. So let's pretend we are back there right now. What trades do you put in or put on going into the close, knowing that this meeting with Trump and Putin will happen likely 30 minutes before the market closes? So I think you have to decide on where you stand, right? I'm more optimistic. I actually think that there's going to be a deal. So if that were the case, then I'm gonna I'm going to go long the market, right? I'm going to be I'm going to buy bets. I'm going to be in the market. If you're on the side of the case that you think there's not going to be a deal and the market's going to back off, then you want to get short the market or at least maybe you want to get short parts of the market, right? You'd want to go long oil. You'd want to go long gold if in fact, you think that there's not going to be a deal. So it depends on who you are is gonna dictate how you set yourself up or how you how you get ready for what this may be. I'm optimistic. I think there's going to be a deal. I think oil's going to go lower. I think gold's going to go lower. And I think stocks will continue to move higher. Related Videos Why Trump might push for a US gov't. stake in Intel Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway sold Apple shares. Should you? US July Retail Sales Rise Despite Tariff Uncertainty Watch: Trump Departs White House for Putin Summit on Ukraine Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store