State Department cyber, tech cuts deeper than previously known
'They have lost people with genuine expertise … in cyber, in 5G, in quantum, a whole group of people who had really exquisite skills,' Coons said. Asked to quantify the extent of cuts to the cybersecurity workforce, Coons said: 'My impression is: significant.'
The cuts to cyber and tech roles at State have gone beyond the CDP. Also laid off have been staff involved in ensuring the use of secure telecommunications infrastructure by allies; and those that worked to fix problems Cyber Command identifies in the networks of U.S. allies, said Annie Fixler, director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, who has been in contact with a number those laid off.
The congressional aide said that 'around half a dozen' of the staff from the Office of the Special Envoy for Critical and Emerging Technologies — which works on topics including AI and quantum computing — were given RIF notices, representing a 'sizeable proportion' of the small office. This aide said this office is now being merged into the CDP.
It has become increasingly clear over the past few days that the reorganized State Department will have very few cybersecurity positions.
The Washington Post first reported earlier this week that CDP personnel had been among those laid off, in particular those on teams that focus on global data policy.
The former official confirmed that Liesyl Franz, the CDP's deputy assistant secretary for International Cyberspace Security was among those laid off. Her departure was previously reported by NextGov. Franz did not respond to a request for comment.
The entire Office of Science and Technology Cooperation has also been shut down, according to a laid-off employee. Felicia Fullilove-Cashwell, a foreign affairs officer at the State Department, wrote on LinkedIn that her reduction in force letter included the words 'office abolished.'
Fullilove-Cashwell said in an interview that 'it has been suggested that regional offices may take over a lot of the functions of eliminated offices,' though she argued that eliminating OSTC still hurts the relationships between civil servants and foreign officials. The elimination of OSTC was previously reported by FedScoop.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
an hour ago
- News24
US diplomats asked if non-whites qualify for Trump refugee programme for South Africans
In early July, the top official at the US embassy in South Africa reached out to Washington, asking for clarification on a contentious US policy: could non-whites apply for a refugee programme geared toward white South Africans if they met other requirements? President Donald Trump's February executive order establishing the programme specified that it was for 'Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination', referring to an ethnic group descended mostly from Dutch settlers. In a diplomatic cable sent on 8 July, embassy Charge d'Affairs David Greene asked whether the embassy could process claims from other minority groups claiming race-based discrimination, such as 'coloured' South Africans who speak Afrikaans. In South Africa, the term coloured refers to mixed-race people, a classification created by the apartheid regime still in use today. The answer came back days later in an email from Spencer Chretien, the highest-ranking official in the State Department's refugee and migration bureau, saying the programme is intended for white people. Reuters was unable to independently verify the precise language in the email, which was described to the news agency by three sources familiar with its contents. The State Department, responding to a request for comment on 18 July, did not specifically comment on the email or the cable but described the scope of the policy as wider than the guidance in Chretien's email. READ | Unexplained change of US-Afrikaner refugee eligibility is a legally 'significant shift' The department said US policy is to consider both Afrikaners and other racial minorities for resettlement, echoing guidance posted on its website in May saying that applicants 'must be of Afrikaner ethnicity or be a member of a racial minority in South Africa'. Chretien declined to comment through a State Department spokesperson. Greene did not respond to Reuters requests for comment. The internal back-and-forth between the embassy and the State Department - which hasn't been previously reported - illustrates the confusion in how to implement a policy designed to help white Afrikaners in a racially diverse country that includes mixed-race people who speak Afrikaans, as well as whites who speak English. So far, the State Department has resettled 88 South Africans under the programme, including the initial group of 59 who arrived in May. Another 15 are expected to arrive by the end of August, one of the sources said. Trump, a Republican who recaptured the White House pledging a wide-ranging immigration crackdown, placed an indefinite freeze on refugee admissions from around the world after taking office, saying the US would only admit refugees who 'can fully and appropriately assimilate'. READ | Two US citizens applied for asylum in South Africa between 2019 and 2024 Weeks later, he issued an executive order that called for the US to resettle Afrikaners, describing them as victims of 'violence against racially disfavoured landowners', allegations that echoed far-right claims but which have been contested by South Africa's government. Since the executive order, US diplomats working to implement the programme have been deliberating internally about which racial groups could be considered eligible, one of the sources said. In the 8 July cable, Greene laid out a summary of the different ethnic and racial groups in the country before seeking guidance on eligibility. In addition to Afrikaners and mixed-race South Africans, Greene mentioned indigenous South Africans known as the Khoisan people. He said that members of the Jewish community had also expressed interest, but that in South Africa, they are considered a religious minority and not a racial group. 'In the absence of other guidance, [the US embassy] intends to give consideration to well-founded claims of persecution based on race for other racial minorities,' Greene wrote. At least one family identified as coloured has already travelled to the US as refugees, two people familiar with the matter said. The cable forced the administration to clarify its position on whether the policy is for whites only, and if it does include other aggrieved minorities, who would qualify, two of the people familiar with the matter a conservative who wrote op-eds promoting the Heritage Foundation's 'Project 2025' plan to overhaul the federal government, is the senior official at the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. During the apartheid era, which ended with the first democratic elections in 1994, South Africa maintained a racially segregated society with separate schools, neighbourhoods and public facilities for people classified as black, coloured, white or Asian. Blacks make up 81% of South Africa's population, according to 2022 census data. Coloured South Africans make up 8%, and Indians 3%. Afrikaners and other white South Africans constitute 7% of the population but own three-quarters of the privately held land in the country. When asked about the programme in May, Trump said he was not giving Afrikaners preferential treatment because they are white. He said: They happen to be white, but whether they are white or black makes no difference to me. In response to a request for comment, a White House official said the administration's policy reflected Trump's executive order. 'We will prioritise refugee admissions for South African citizens, including Afrikaners and other racial minorities in South Africa, who have been targeted by the discriminatory laws of the South African government,' the official said. The assertion that minority white South Africans face discrimination from the black majority has spread in far-right circles for years and been echoed by white South African-born Elon Musk, a US citizen who served as a top White House aide during the first four months of Trump's administration. The South African government has rejected the allegations of persecution and a 'white genocide'. There is no evidence to back up claims of widespread, race-based attacks in the country. During a combative Oval Office meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in May, Trump showed a printed image of a Reuters video taken in the Democratic Republic of Congo as part of what he falsely presented as evidence of mass killings of white South Africans. The South African Chamber of Commerce said earlier this year that 67 000 people were interested in the programme.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
What Happened When Hitler Took On Germany's Central Banker
Adolf Hitler's first weeks as chancellor were filled with so many excesses and outrages—crushing states' rights, curtailing civil liberties, intimidating opponents, rewriting election laws, raising tariffs—that it was easy to overlook one of his prime targets: the German central bank. The Reichsbank president was a man named Hans Luther, a fiscal conservative who subscribed to the 'golden rule' of banking, which stipulated that a country's indebtedness should never exceed its obligations. In his adherence to protocol and policy, Luther could be 'holier than the Pope,' according to Lutz Schwerin von Krosigk, who served as the German finance minister from 1932 to 1945. On the afternoon of Monday, January 30, 1933, just hours after Hitler's appointment as chancellor, Luther stood in Hitler's office with a complaint. Nazi storm troopers, known as the SA, had forced their way into the Reichsbank building in central Berlin, despite what Luther described as 'emphatic protests' by bank personnel, and hoisted a swastika flag over the bank. 'I pointed out to Hitler that the SA actions were against the law,' Luther recalled, 'to which Hitler immediately answered that this was a revolution.' Luther informed Hitler in no uncertain terms that the Reichsbank was not part of his revolution. It was an independent fiscal entity with an international board of directors. If any flag were to be flying over the bank, it would be the national colors, not the banner of his political party. The next morning, the swastika flag was gone. On Hitler's first full day in office, rumors circulated that he wanted Luther gone. Alfred Kliefoth, the chargé d'affaires at the United States embassy in Berlin, dispatched a memorandum to the State Department: 'I have been informed, in confidence, by Dr. Ritter, the Chief Economist in the Foreign Office, that the new Government intends to exert pressure on Dr. Luther to resign.' Hitler's rumored plans to oust the Reichsbank chief came amid a massive purge of the Weimar Republic's civil service. Senior officials who had served for decades were fired. Hitler assigned his chief lieutenant, Hermann Göring, to clean house in Prussia, the largest of Germany's 17 federated states. When Göring entered the Prussian government offices in central Berlin, he told Rudolf Diels, the head of the Prussian political police, 'I want nothing to do with the scoundrels sitting here in this building.' When Diels tried to defend one senior colleague, Göring responded by firing the colleague on the spot. Timothy W. Ryback: How Hitler dismantled a democracy in 53 days A memorandum was circulated to all state civil servants demanding blind loyalty to the Hitler government. Anyone who did not feel they could support Hitler and his policies, Göring added, should do the 'honorable' thing and resign. The Berliner Morgenpost observed that Hitler was clearly working to 'transform the state bureaucracy from the most senior positions down to the administrative levels to align with his political positions.' In a speech on March 11, Göring compared the Nazi's draconian measures to cutting wood: 'When you chop, chips fly.' Despite Hitler's heavy-handed assault on the government bureaucracy, he could not touch Hans Luther. According to a 1924 law, the Reichsbank was independent of the elected government; the Reichsbank president served at the discretion of a 14-member board, which included seven international bankers and economists. Even Reich President Paul von Hindenburg, the ultimate constitutional authority, possessed the power only to confirm the appointment of the Reichsbank president, not to dismiss him. The Reich president headed the state and commanded the military, and the Reich chancellor ran the government, but the Reichsbank controlled the currency and the economy. Luther brandished his independence and power with confidence and control. He had already served as finance minister and had also done a stint as chancellor. He understood both politics and economics. In 1923, Luther had designed the rescue plan that saved Germany from the inflation crisis that saw Germans pushing wheelbarrows full of cash through the streets to buy a loaf of bread. After the global market crash of 1929, he had guided Germany back to employment stability and production growth by the spring of 1932. Great Britain emerged from the crisis with twice the national debt of Germany. France's was fourfold. The New York Times reported that Luther had 'stood like a rock' amid the global financial turmoil. The newspaper Vossische Zeitung described Luther as 'equal to any storm.' Finance Minister Krosigk attributed the Reichsbank president's success in stabilizing the economy to Luther's 'intelligence, his clear-sightedness, his extraordinary work ethic, his common sense and his energy.' Luther was firm in his principles and policies, and he believed in meeting international obligations. But he was cautious with his pronouncements. As a central banker, Luther knew that a single word, or even a smirk or smile, could send markets tumbling. On Wednesday, November 23, 1932, Luther had been invited to address a group of industrialists and businessmen in the city of Düsseldorf, in the country's industrial heartland, along with the jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt. Schmitt was already renowned as the the most eloquent political theorist and advocate of authoritarianism in Germany. (Known as the 'crown jurist of the Third Reich,' Schmitt would later supply legal justification for Hitler's Night of the Long Knives, in 1934, and for the anti-Semitic Nürnberg Laws of 1935.) On that November Wednesday in 1932, Luther listened in dismay as Schmitt laid out his arguments for the 'Hitler system' of authoritarian rule, which included ending representative government and parliamentary rule, as well as the eradication of political parties, press freedoms, due process, and rule of law in favor of ' totale Diktatur.' Luther was appalled. For the first and only time in his career as Reichsbank president, Luther took a public political stance. Speaking after Schmitt, he argued that a functioning economy required democratic structures and processes, and that industrialists and businessmen were duty bound to support constitutional democracy. 'We all bear the responsibility,' Luther said, arguing that it was in everyone's interest—financial, social, and political—to support the Weimar Republic's constitutional democracy and the rule of law. 'I believe that the private sector in particular has a tremendous interest in emphasizing the necessity of legal security across the board,' Luther said, 'because legal stability is the foundation of all economic life.' Timothy W. Ryback: The oligarchs who came to regret supporting Hitler That same month, Luther cautioned Chancellor Franz von Papen against 'experiments' with the recovering German economy. 'I told Dr. Luther that if he was not prepared to accept the risks involved,' Papen later recalled, 'the government would be obliged to disregard his advice.' Within a month, Papen was out as chancellor. Papen's successor, Kurt von Schleicher, encountered similar resistance. When Schleicher informed his cabinet that his government would seek a 2.7 billion reichsmark credit line, he received a chastening reply, as recorded in the cabinet minutes: 'The Reich Minister of Economics, who had also participated in the meeting with the President of the Reichsbank, declared that, based on all experiences in negotiations with the Reichsbank, further commitments would probably not be possible.' Schleicher's government fell within the month. By the time Hitler assumed the chancellorship, Luther had already outlasted three chancellors, and there was reason to believe that Hitler could be the fourth. However much Hitler might want to remove Luther from his post, Vossische Zeitung reported, 'existing legal frameworks make this hardly possible.' But that still left extralegal frameworks. Luther knew all too well about these. Months earlier, on the evening of April 9, 1932, Luther had been shot by two assailants in the Potsdam Train Station in central Berlin. According to the court record, the attackers intended to 'slightly wound' Luther—which they succeeded in doing—as a 'protest' against currency policies they believed 'were wrong and damaging to the German people.' Although the court said it could not rule on Luther's currency policies, it did sentence the two assailants to 10 months in prison for their 'choice of means' in expressing their policy objections. Following the meeting about the swastika banner on his first day as chancellor, Hitler did not see Luther for six weeks. Instead, Hitler turned for economic guidance to Luther's predecessor at the Reichsbank, Hjalmar Schacht. The former central banker had become a key Hitler ally in the financial world, seeking to rally bankers and industrialists behind the Nazi government. Kliefoth, the U.S. embassy chargé, dined with Schacht shortly after Hitler ascended to the chancellorship. 'Schacht took pains to impress me with the fact that he is Hitler's financial and economic adviser and that he is constantly in consultation with the new chancellor,' Kliefoth reported. Kliefoth further noted that Schacht had told him German industrialists were backing Hitler and his program. 'I have good reason to believe, however, that this statement is an exaggeration,' Kliefoth reported in a subsequent memo to the State Department. 'A leading executive official of the Reichsverband der Deutschen Industrie told me only this morning that the four-year plan announced by Hitler last night was an absurdity and that this organization viewed the latest political developments with skepticism and reserve.' Only after national elections on March 5, when National Socialists secured 44 percent of the electorate and a mandate to move forward with a major rearmament program, did Hitler again summon Luther to the chancellery. Hitler admitted that he'd been compelled to meet with Luther because, given that the government was already running significant budget deficits, it would have been 'completely impossible to begin the work of rearmament' without substantial funds from the Reichsbank. After spending two hours explaining to Luther the need for expanded military capacities, Hitler asked him how much financing the Reichsbank would be able to make available. In response, Luther assured Hitler that, as a 'nationally minded man,' he appreciated Hitler's intentions, and would be willing to provide 100 million reichsmarks—not even one-20th of the billions Hitler had requested. Hitler was stunned. He thought he had misheard, so he repeated his question. Luther gave the same answer. He later observed that, beyond the gross violation of Germany's international debt obligations the chancellor was calling for, Hitler's preparations for the 'mass-murderous poison of war' were not in Luther's medicine cabinet of remedies for the German economy. Hitler informed President Hindenburg that he wanted Luther removed as head of the Reichsbank. Hindenburg reminded Hitler that the Reichsbank was an internationally governed institution and thus beyond the reach of German authority. So once again, Hitler summoned Luther to the Reich chancellery. At his first meeting with Hitler, back in January, Luther had been struck by Hitler's apparent moderation. The chancellor was not the ranting, raging fanatic—'the abnormal man'—depicted in press accounts. Six weeks later, that moderation was gone. Although it was becoming ever clearer to Luther that Hitler was going to make it impossible for him to carry out his fiduciary duties to the government, Luther used the occasion to remind Hitler of the Reichsbank's independence and his own immunity from dismissal. Hitler acknowledged that, as chancellor, he did not have the legal power to remove Luther as central banker. But, he told Luther bluntly, as the new 'boss' of the country, he had access to considerable alternative sources of power that he would not hesitate to employ 'ruthlessly' against Luther 'if the interest of the state demanded it.' The nature of Hitler's threats was unmistakable. Luther—who had already been shot once before in protest of his monetary policies—did not need to be warned again. On March 16, Luther submitted his resignation to the Reichsbank board. In an extended letter to Hindenburg, Luther explained his reasons for stepping down. Luther reminded Hindenburg 'that the leadership of the Reichsbank must be stable and independent of partisan political currents, that a change in political parties, directions, and majorities must not in itself result in a change in the leadership of the Reichsbank.' Luther also reminded Hindenburg that he had served as Reichsbank president alongside three previous governments. Nevertheless, Luther continued, it had become clear to him that the strained relationship between the Reichsbank and the current government was not sustainable and would only damage the country and its economy. But Luther insisted to Hindenburg that his resignation was contingent on the assurance that 'an independent Reichsbank be preserved for the sake of the German state, its people and its economy.' Timothy W. Ryback: What the press got wrong about Hitler The Berliner Morgenpost, like many mainstream newspapers, lamented the departure of the man whose 'strict fiscal policy' had twice rescued Germany from economic ruin. The New York Times observed that regulatory safeguards designed to secure the independence of the Reichsbank proved to be 'wholly illusory' with the current administration. 'Under the pressure of the kind in which the National Socialists are adept at applying,' the Times wrote, 'even high government officials in Germany do not now try to retain their posts.' Amid the turmoil of his wrangling with Luther, Hitler had summoned Hjalmar Schacht to the Reich chancellery, where he posed to Schacht the same question he had asked Luther: How much did Schacht think the Reichsbank could provide in helping finance the Hitler government's plans? Schacht dodged the question. Giving a precise amount was impossible, Schacht said. 'You must be able to tell me to what degree the Reichsbank can or should provide assistance,' Hitler pressed. 'Herr Reich Chancellor,' Schacht said, 'I really cannot give you a specific amount.' Too many factors existed when it came to a massive rearmament program. But Schacht assured Hitler of one thing: that the Reichsbank would provide Hitler with as much money as he needed. Hitler paused. He studied Schacht in silence, then asked, 'Would you be willing to resume the leadership of the Reichsbank?'
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
NASAMS Order Egypt's Latest Step To Diversify Air Defense
A NASAMS surface-to-air missile launcher is seen during production at the assembly line of the ... More Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace weapons factory in Kongsberg, Norway on January 30, 2023. (Photo by Petter BERNTSEN / AFP) (Photo by PETTER BERNTSEN/AFP via Getty Images) In another significant acquisition, Egypt has requested a foreign military sale of the medium-range National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System from the United States, in a deal with an estimated value of $4.67 billion. Coming shortly after it reportedly received the strategic HQ-9B system from China, the order is the latest example of Egypt building a highly diverse air defense arsenal. The State Department's Defense Security Cooperation Agency revealed the order in a press release on Thursday. The statement noted that the package includes four AN/MPQ-64F1 Sentinel radar systems and hundreds of surface-launched AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles that the system fires. The provision of these particular missiles is noteworthy, as Egypt had attempted for decades to acquire the AIM-120 for its F-16 fighter jets. The lack of AIM-120s severely curtailed the air defense capability of those aircraft, which is why Egypt sought fighter jets elsewhere, including the Su-35 from Russia. Thursday's DSCA release also noted that the NASAMS 'will improve Egypt's capability to meet current and future threats by improving its ability to detect various air threats.' NASAMS would reinforce the mid-tier of Egypt's air defense. The proposed sale comes less than a year after Cairo displayed the IRIS-T, specifically IRIS-T SL and IRIS-T SLEX, systems it acquired from Germany for the first time. These systems could significantly enhance Egypt's capability to detect and intercept various short- to medium-range aerial threats. Another significant aspect of the NASAMS sale is its timing, as it may mark the first significant air defense acquisition Cairo requested from the United States in approximately 15 years. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's extensive arms transfers database, the last air defense systems Cairo received from Washington were short-range AN/TWQ-1 Avenger systems, which fire FIM-92 Stinger missiles, in 2008. Valued at $50 million, that deal was insignificant compared to the estimated $4.67 billion Egypt is expected to pay for these much more sophisticated NASAMS. In the past, the U.S. also sold Egypt secondhand, modernized medium-range MIM-23 Hawks, also known as the I-HAWK 'Improved HAWK' system, and short-range M48 Chaparrals, which fire a surface-launched variant of the short-range AIM-9 Sidewinder known as the MIM-72. Notably, these provisions all consisted of short- to medium-range systems and lacked any strategic systems. Interestingly, in 1999, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen announced several multi-billion-dollar arms deals to the Middle East, which included a Patriot PAC-3 missile system, then still under development, for Egypt. There's no indication Cairo received that advanced variant of the Patriot, which incorporates hit-to-kill technology against ballistic missiles. Three years after Cohen's announcement, the U.S. reportedly reached an understanding with Israel not to supply Egypt with F-15 fighter jets to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge wasn't challenged. Therefore, Patriot systems, especially the cutting-edge PAC-3s, were probably off the table by then as well. Following the July 2013 coup against a short-lived Muslim Brotherhood government and the rise to power of incumbent President Abdel Fatah el-Sisi, the U.S. occasionally withheld military aid and arms sales over human rights violations in Egypt. Consequently, in the 2010s, Egypt turned to other suppliers for weapons, purchasing Dassault Rafale fighter jets from France and MiG-29M/M2s from Russia. During the 2010s, Egypt also received more Russian air defense systems than at any other time since it was a major Soviet arms buyer from the 1950s until the early 1970s, including strategic air defenses. It began with orders for short-range S-125 Pechora-2M, Tor-M1, and Buk-M2 systems, all of which Cairo received by the middle of the decade. Then, in 2014-15, Cairo went a step further with a multi-million-dollar deal for three advanced long-range Russian S-300VM strategic air defense missile systems, the Russian equivalent of the Patriot. While the 2010s arguably marked a brief honeymoon period for Russia-Egypt arms sales, the 2020s already look a lot different. Egypt is widely believed to have recently purchased the HQ-9B or FD-2000B as its export variant is known, from China. The system is Beijing's equivalent of the S-300. Coupled with the S-300VM, the reported acquisition of the HQ-9B/FD-2000B gives Egypt two air defense systems that are among the most advanced non-Western strategic systems currently available on the global arms export market. However, unlike the Patriot PAC-3 and S-300, the latter of which recently suffered devastating losses during Israeli airstrikes on Iran, that Chinese system hasn't been combat-tested. Such an acquisition is consistent with Cairo's tradition of diversifying its military arsenal. And air defenses are certainly no exception to that tradition. If anything, ordering NASAMS so soon after the HQ-9B/FD-2000B could signal Egypt seeks to remain an American arms client, once that doesn't preclude it buying weapons elsewhere. After all, aside from fulfilling its diversification policy, one reason Egypt has turned to China and Russia was to acquire the types of systems Washington refuses to sell it. Egypt's growing military ties with China have already raised eyebrows in Washington, particularly the unprecedented joint air force exercise hosted on Egyptian soil in April and May 2025. Consequently, there have been renewed calls to reassess annual American military aid to Cairo. It's conceivable that Cairo may have requested NASAMS now in an attempt to mitigate growing concerns over its military ties with Beijing. Of course, whether or not that will work is anybody's guess.
