Cybersecurity agency's top recruits decimated by DOGE cuts
Nearly three years ago, the longtime senior intelligence analyst left the Navy, after being recruited by the nation's top cyber defense agency and rising up through the ranks. Eventually, Shaw helped establish a congressionally mandated program designed to continuously monitor and detect cyber breaches of the nation's power grid, pipelines and water system – installing sensors across critical infrastructure designed to detect insider threats and foreign adversaries like China, Russia and Iran.
"It was all about the information we can get within networks to find the bad guys – any indicators of compromise, evidence of the adversary, moving through a network and attempting to do bad things. That's what we did," Shaw said, pausing. "Well, that's what some will still do."
The former manager for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency's " CyberSentry" program, Shaw was also among the 130 probationary CISA workers mass fired in the "Valentine's Day Massacre" during the holiday weekend last month.
That weekend, the form letter termination notices arrived for over 4% of CISA's workforce, telling them they were "not fit for continued employment because your ability, knowledge and skills do not fit the Agency's current needs." Among them were the nation's threat hunters, incident response team members, disabled veterans and employees who'd already signed onto the federal government's deferred resignation program.
Others were former private sector workers who left lucrative jobs making seven-figure salaries to join the federal government and officials recruited into DHS' innovative hiring program — dubbed the " Cyber Talent Management System" — and analysts with top secret security clearances.
"I waited literally 13 months from the moment I got my offer letter to the moment I started this job," said former cybersecurity specialist Paula Davis, recounting her arduous security clearance process. Before her termination letter arrived in her email inbox, Davis said she was required to send agency leadership an email justifying her position, but she never received a response.
Davis spent her days analyzing code for state and local municipalities, identifying risks or abnormalities across the nation's aging critical infrastructure.
"We're being targeted daily, hourly and every single minute," Davis said, citing suspected cybercriminals' attempts to infiltrate water systems and the power grid. She called her role fighting those intrusions her "dream job."
"I didn't take an oath to the Constitution just to start getting a paycheck," Davis said, "Or else I would have just gone back into the private sector. I would have stayed at a big corporation."
Since last month, the rapid-fire firings have shaken lawmakers and high-ranking officials, leaving many current and former employees dumbfounded. CBS News has spoken with over a dozen current and former CISA employees, including several who were granted anonymity in interviews, due to fear of reprisal.
"These are the people that are the first line of defense in responding to incidents like Volt Typhoon and Salt Typhoon, and if we go even further back, SolarWinds," said one former CISA employee, referencing a string of foreign cyber espionage campaigns dating back to President Trump's first administration.
"These are elite hunters that look across critical infrastructure and government networks to figure out if these bad actors are active in these networks," the former employee continued. "The people who find how deeply they've penetrated and 'how do we get them out of there?'"
Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, warned at a hearing Wednesday that lawmakers are hearing that "significant cuts are coming for the remaining workforce" at CISA.
"That kind of talent, you just don't find it every day," Thompson told CBS News. "You have to convince many of those individuals to leave lucrative private sector employment and come and accept the public mission of securing our cyber security systems and protecting our country."
In a post on LinkedIn, last month, Former CISA Director Jen Easterly wrote that the agency had hired over 2,000 new employees during her more than three-year tenure.
Since 2021, CISA's "strategic recruitment" program – congressionally mandated and more than seven years in the making – has competed with the private sector to attract and retain world-class talent to execute a core mission of the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees CISA. Cyber Talent Management System or "CTMS" hires were by law employees with " measurable or observable" attributes including "knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviors."
A former human resources employee for CISA who was among those fired told CBS News that before his termination, he was tasked with compiling a list of probationary employees, and among them were over 100 CTMS staff members.
"Everybody in CTMS is automatically in a three-year probation, so it's easier to get rid of them," the former HR employee told CBS News. "Close to 99% of our CTMS employees were probationary."
"You are extinguishing the best and brightest in one fell swoop," a current CISA employee said.
A CISA spokesperson told CBS News in a statement that the agency had 142 employees as part of its talent recruitment program, but did not disclose the number of employees fired.
Shaw was among the first recruits to the "CTMS" program, entering with 12 years of government service, two master degrees in electrical engineering and cybersecurity, plus at least nine different specialized cyber certifications.
"I had such confidence," Shaw said. "With all my prior experience. I just completed my doctorate in May of last year. So I thought I was well positioned to stay at CISA….But when I saw that executive order come through about probationary employees, I kind of panicked."
In a statement to CBS News, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said the Trump administration is "making sweeping cuts and reform across the federal government to eliminate egregious waste and incompetence that has been happening for decades at the expense of the American taxpayer."
"To me, knowing how sleek and how well organized of an engine we had at CISA, that's a lie," Shaw said of the effort to slash federal spending by eliminating federal workers. "I don't know who else is going to be cut loose from our nation's cyber defense organizations. But I'm worried about that. I'm worried about that. This should be the last place that we should be cutting this expertise."
Along with firing scores of probationary workers, over the last month, CISA has put on leave at least a dozen employees who are tasked with stopping foreign interference in U.S. elections, part of a wider trend of dismantling U.S. efforts to fight foreign meddling in elections.
But concerns stemming from cybersecurity workforce cuts extend beyond the CISA workforce.
Former NSA cybersecurity director Rob Joyce raised "grave concerns" that aggressive threats to cuts of U.S. government probationary employees will have a "devastating impact on the cybersecurity and our national security."
"At my former agency, remarkable technical talent was recruited into developmental programs that provided intensive unique training and hands-on experience to cultivate vital skills," Joyce said. "Eliminating probationary employees will destroy a pipeline of top talent responsible for hunting and eradicating [Chinese] threats."
To help assist fired employers at her former agency, Easterly has created a matching website to connect former CISA alumni and prospective employers.
For his part, Thompson has started a hotline to encourage fired employees at the Department of Homeland Security and its components to share their stories.
After the Trump administration tapped the Office of Personnel Management to fire federal employees en masse, a federal judge temporarily blocked it, citing OPM's lack of authority to fire employees at other agencies. This week, OPM updated its guidance to reflect that firing decisions are made by individual departments and agencies, spurring the rehiring or reinstatement of batches of fired workers in the weeks since. CISA has yet to follow suit.
Asked if she'd return to the agency, Shaw paused. "I would have to go back," she finally said, citing CISA's essential mission and a regular paycheck. "I mean, they'd have to earn my trust back. But I don't know how you do that."
Colby Hochmuth contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
13 minutes ago
- Forbes
To Survive A China Fight, U.S. Navy Must Boost West Coast Shipbuilding
The Navy's dream of using small, autonomous ships to deter China's massive conventional naval force is inspiring. The only problem is these Navy strategies depend upon the operational status of the Panama Canal. Without the canal—a shortcut between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans—the Navy's high-tech dreams quickly become a logistical nightmare. If Navy battle plans depend on fielding lots and lots of expendable craft throughout the Pacific, then the Navy had better get serious about building small craft on the west coast, at scale. After years of drumming small craft from the fleet, it is good to see the Navy begin to change course. Dispatching lots of small, expendable ships into the Pacific is not a new concept. Take the tiny World War II-era Patrol Torpedo (PT) Boat. Between 77 and 80 feet long, fleets of these small, lightweight PT Boats fought all over the world. In the Pacific, by the end of World War II, at least 212 PT boats had gotten into the fight. To forward-deploy these vessels, the little ships had to wind their way from shipyards on the eastern side of America, transit the Panama Canal, and fan out into the Pacific. For small craft, America's game plan for the Pacific is the same today as it was 85 years ago. Virtually every surface combatant and Coast Guard Cutter counts on the Panama Canal to pivot between the Atlantic and the Pacific. As an always-reliable asset, few Navy operators alive today waste time mulling canal contingencies. As an unquestioned component of American battle plans since 1914, far too many of America's high-tech warfighters take this global choke point for granted. That is a mistake. Logistics and infrastructure defense specialists know that Panama's strategic short-cut between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean is under threat. The Navy must address the ugly fact that, despite all the security America can provide, a diverse array of enemies, rivals and criminals can shut the Panama Canal down at virtually any time. In modern 'hybrid' conflict, no complex piece of infrastructure is totally secure. The only way to fully mitigate the risk of a strategically significant Panama Canal closure is for the Navy to quickly mobilize America's few remaining shipbuilding-ready sites on the West Coast. If America's national security strategy is based upon a safe and secure Pacific, then America had better prepare to build lots of ships—particularly expendable ones—on the West Coast. U.S. Navy Must Boost West Coast Shipbuilding Real warfighters know that any fight in the Pacific is about managing distance. Without the Panama Canal, the 4,500 nautical mile transit from the Gulf Coast to the Navy's West Coast headquarters in San Diego gets a whole lot longer. Aside from adding 10,000 nautical miles to the trip, the detour south forces ships to travel around Cape Horn and through some of the roughest waters in the world. America's Navy is unready for this kind of grinding logistical endeavor. U.S. Southern Command logisticians know that supporting destroyers and Littoral Combat Ships in the southern hemisphere is hard enough. Managing fleets of America's next-generation autonomous ships, and getting them fuel and maintenance support during a forced months-long detour around South America is a far harder task. Given America's withered afloat support capabilities, shepherding fleets of small craft around Cape Horn is an almost insurmountable logistical challenge. To limit logistical burdens and reduce wear and tear on transiting small craft, the Navy could take a page from World War II-era tactics, and put their small autonomous ships aboard larger shuttle vessels. In World War II, freighters and tankers often ferried PT boats into action, but still, even with a functional Panama Canal, the Navy needed to allocate a month and a half for larger ships to shuttle PT boats from Panama to the contested waters off Guadalcanal. And, even then, the transit wasn't entirely risk free. Cranes would drop boats, or the sea would damage vessels sitting topside. The ferrying cargo ships became high-value targets themselves. In 1943, a submarine sank the SS Stanvac Manila as it was ferrying six PT boats to Noumea, at the South Pacific island of New Caledonia. Modern Naval planners forget that, for small ships, the transit to the World War II battle line was usually an awkward and often grinding mix of travel. Aleutian-bound PT boats, sailing on their own bottoms, needed about twenty days to get from New Orleans to the Panama Canal. After that, they'd be loaded aboard ships for a month-long transit to Seattle, and then, traveling on their own again, they took another month to travel to Adak, Alaska, where they were needed for battle. The strain of the journey took a toll, and, of the first PT Boats in the region, only 75% arrived on time, ready for battle. America's Navy is not ready for this. Put bluntly, the Navy has no plan to manage a long-term closure of the Panama Canal, nor does it have a plan to manage the logistics of getting small ships into the fight. All the tankers, maintainers and escorts needed to support a large-scale autonomous small-ship transit around Cape Horn, are absent. Few heavy lift ships are available to ferry autonomous craft into battle. And nobody in the Navy is anticipating the need to build upwards of 125% of the minimum small ship 'requirement' just to mitigate transit-related losses. The only real solution is to build the smaller craft we will need for a Pacific fight on the West Coast—and prepare to build them at scale. The math works. In the months it would take to get small autonomous ships from East and Gulf Coast shipyards and into a Pacific fight, a modern West Coast shipyard could simply build several of them. Rather than wonder how to manage a three month transit, the Navy must follow Henry Kaiser's example and focus on managing all the new ships a modern West Coast shipyard could build in three months. The Navy may forget, but, in the toughest days of World War II, west coast shipyards could produce a Liberty Ship in ten days. The logistics of pushing autonomous vessels out into the deep Pacific is tough. Helping deter China from preying on Taiwan, the Philippines and beyond is even harder. If the Navy fails to move quickly and boost ship production capabilities along the West Coast, Pacific security will be tied to the operational status of the Panama Canal--and that is simply no longer an acceptable Navy strategy.
New York Times
3 hours ago
- New York Times
America's New Segregation
America's democracy is under threat. President Trump smashes alliances, upends norms and tramples the Constitution. So it's normal to ask: What can one citizen do to help put America on a healthier course? I have some hard experience with this question. Back in the early part of the first Trump term, I asked myself that question and decided to try to do more. I accepted a 50 percent pay cut from The Times and, among other things, helped start a nonprofit called Weave: The Social Fabric Project. Those of us who launched it figured that social distrust is the underlying problem ripping society apart, but that trust is being rebuilt on the local level by people serving their own communities, people we call Weavers. We wanted to support them in every way. The work was humbling. I learned that my life as a writer did not prepare me to run an organization — I'm not good at management. I made some boneheaded decisions that led to some public humiliation. Eventually The Times sensibly decided that I couldn't work as a journalist as well as at a nonprofit that was funded by foundations and rich donors. So I stepped back from the day-to-day at Weave and now serve in a nonpaying role as chair. But these painful experiences did have some upsides. First, under the leadership of Fred Riley and the current team, Weave is thriving. We have plans to be operating in 75 communities within three years. Second, Weave reminded me why I went into journalism. My job there was to travel around the country, interview Weavers in Nebraska, Louisiana, North Carolina and beyond and tell their stories. I was immersed in the life of every nook and cranny of this country, and I've tried to keep that going to this day. I still spend more than half the year in hotel rooms somewhere. This experience has produced in me one central conviction about what ails America: segregation. Not just racial segregation — which at least in schools is actually getting worse — but also class segregation. I'm constantly traveling between places where college grads dominate and places where high school grads dominate, and it's a bit like traveling between different planets. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Vox
4 hours ago
- Vox
Justice Kavanaugh just revealed an unfortunate truth about the Supreme Court
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court handed down a very brief order on Thursday, which allows a Mississippi law restricting children's access to social media to remain in place — for now. It is far from clear, however, whether the Mississippi law at issue in Netchoice v. Fitch will remain in place for very long. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is ideologically at the center of this very conservative Supreme Court, wrote a concurring opinion explaining that he thinks the law 'would likely violate [social media companies'] First Amendment rights under this Court's precedents.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. But he joined the Court's decision nonetheless because the plaintiff in this case, a trade group that represents internet companies, 'has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time.' What is the 'shadow docket'? Kavanaugh's reference to 'the balance of harms and equities' refers to the rule the Supreme Court used to apply in its 'shadow docket' cases, a mix of emergency motions and other matters that the justices decide on an expedited basis. Typically, when the Court grants shadow docket relief, it issues a temporary order that blocks a lower court decision until the case is fully litigated in federal appeals courts and, in some cases, the Supreme Court. In Nken v. Holder (2009), the Court held that, when a litigant asks an appellate court to block a lower court's decision while the case is still ongoing, it is not enough for that litigant to show they are likely to prevail on appeal. To receive shadow docket relief, the litigant must also show that they 'will be irreparably injured absent a stay.' Often, appeals courts must also ask whether blocking the lower court's decision would 'substantially injure' any third parties, or otherwise harm 'the public interest.' Kavanaugh is probably right that the Mississippi law at issue in Netchoice does not irreparably injure anyone. Though the law purports to prevent minors from signing up for social media accounts without their parents' permission, it is fairly toothless. And it is far from clear whether any actual child or teenager has not been able to use a social media site because of the law. (If you want to read more about the law and why it violates the First Amendment, I wrote that piece here.) A special set of rules for Trump Kavanaugh's decision to apply Nken to the Netchoice case is odd, because the Court appears to have abandoned Nken in many of its shadow docket cases. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained in a pair of dissenting opinions earlier this year, when President Donald Trump seeks a shadow docket order, the Court typically ignores Nken and rules in favor of Trump, regardless of whether he or his administration would be irreparably injured. In Social Security Administration v. AFSCME (2025), for example, the Republican justices ruled that DOGE, the White House office once led by billionaire Elon Musk, may have immediate access to sensitive information kept by the Social Security Administration. Notably, however, when a judge asked one of Trump's lawyers what harm the government would experience if DOGE's access to this information were delayed, the lawyer did not name any such harm — saying instead that the Trump administration would 'stand on the record in its current form.' In the Trump administration's brief to the justices in AFSCME, Trump's lawyers did not even attempt to argue that the administration faced irreparable injury without shadow docket relief. That brief devoted only one paragraph to the question of irreparable harm, and it did not identify any injury to the government that could not be unraveled by a future court order. Instead, it complained that the lower court order blocking DOGE's access 'impinges on the President's broad authority.' The First Amendment is (probably) safe Kavanaugh's Fitch opinion is clarifying for two reasons. Last June, the Supreme Court slightly rolled back First Amendment rights, holding that states may require pornographic websites to verify that their users are over age 18. It was unclear after that decision, known as Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, whether the Court planned to further weaken the First Amendment, or whether Free Speech Coalition was a one-off decision applying solely to porn. Kavanaugh's Fitch concurrence suggests that the First Amendment is safe. To his credit, Kavanaugh has generally voted in favor of free speech, including in cases where Republican lawmakers sought to restrict it.
