A top Senate Democrat introduced legislation Thursday to extend and rename an expired information-sharing law, and make it retroactive to cover the lapse that began Oct. 1.

Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, introduced the Protecting America from Cyber Threats (PACT) Act, to replace the expired Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA 2015) that has provided liability protections for organizations that share cyber threat data with each other and the federal government. Industry groups and cyber professionals have called those protections vital, sometimes describing the 2015 law as the most successful cyber legislation ever passed.

The 2015 law shares an acronym with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which some Republicans — including the chairman of Peters’ panel, Rand Paul of Kentucky — have accused of engaging in social media censorship. As CISA 2015 has lapsed and Peters has tried to renew it, “some people think that’s a reauthorization of the agency,” Peters told reporters Thursday in explaining the new bill name.

“There are some of my Republican colleagues who have concerns about CISA as the agency, and I remind them, this is not about the agency,” he said. “It’s about … cybersecurity protections and the ability to have liability protections and to be able to share information. I’ve often heard the chair conflate the two, and I have to continually remind him.”

A House bill also would establish a different name.

Paul has objected to Peters’ attempts on the floor to extend CISA 2015. A shorter-term extension of the law was included in the House-passed continuing resolution to keep the government open, but that bill didn’t advance in the Senate, prompting a shutdown.

Peters’ latest bill, like earlier legislation he co-sponsored with Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., would extend CISA 2015 for 10 years. He rejected the idea of trying to get a shorter-term extension until a longer-term extension could be passed.

“One thing that is very clear from all of the stakeholders is that they need long-term certainty when it comes to these protections, that you can’t operate with just a few-week-patch and then another few-week–patch,” Peters said. “That’s no way to run a business. That’s no way to run a sophisticated cybersecurity operation.”

Michael Daniel, leader of the Cyber Threat Alliance made up of cybersecurity companies, told CyberScoop that his organization hasn’t been affected by the lapse yet, but that’s partially because it’s an organization that was set up with the long term in mind, with a formalized structure that included information-sharing requirements  for members.

The lapse might also not immediately affect other organizations, he said, comparing it to the risks of the government shutdown underway.

“An hour-long lapse doesn’t really do very much, but the longer it goes on, the more you have time for organizations to say, ‘Well, maybe we need to reconsider what we’re doing, maybe we need to think about it differently,’” Daniel said. “The longer it goes on, you start having questions about, ‘Maybe this thing won’t get reauthorized down the road.’ And once you start questioning the long-term prospects, that’s when people start making changes in their behavior.”

Peters said he’s heard from organizations becoming increasingly nervous about the expiration, but didn’t want to comment on whether any had stopped sharing because that’s “sensitive information, important information, and our adversaries should know as little about what’s happening as possible.”

Peters said he wouldn’t comment on his deliberations with Paul, or comment on Paul’s motives for objecting to his floor maneuvers. Paul cancelled a planned markup of his own version of CISA 2015 renewal legislation in September that included language on free-speech guarantees under CISA the agency, with a spokesperson saying Democrats had requested more time and were “not negotiating in good faith.”

Peters told reporters that claim was “absolutely false … the problem is not on our end.”

The revised Peters legislation doesn’t touch on the topic of free speech. Democrats and Republicans have blamed one another for the government shutdown.

“Firstly, this authority will be turned back on when Democrats, including the bill sponsor, vote to reopen the government,” said Gabrielle Lipsky, a spokesperson for Paul. “The Senator has made it clear that a longer-term reauthorization will need robust free speech protections included.”

Peters said he had spoken to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., about getting the bill through Senate procedures. He and Rounds have both been speaking with colleagues to gain backing. The Trump administration also has been lobbying senators to support a CISA 2015 reauthorization.

“I’m confident that if this bill gets to the floor for a vote, it will not only pass, it will pass overwhelmingly,” he said. “And that’s what we’re working to do.”

The post Sen. Peters tries another approach to extend expired cyber threat information-sharing law appeared first on CyberScoop.

Department of Government Efficiency practices at three federal agencies “violate statutory requirements, creating unprecedented privacy and cybersecurity risks,” according to a report that Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Democrats published Thursday.

The report — drawn from a mix of media reports, legal filings, whistleblower disclosures to the committee and staff visits to the agencies — concludes that the Elon Musk-created DOGE is “operating outside federal law, with unchecked access to Americans’ personal data.” It focuses on DOGE activity at the General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Social Security Administration (SSA).

One previously unreported whistleblower claim is that at the SSA, a June internal risk assessment found that the chance of a data breach with “catastrophic adverse effect” stood between 35% and 65% after DOGE uploaded a computer database file known as Numident, containing personal sensitive information without additional protections against unauthorized access. The potential implications included “widespread PII [personally identifiable information] disclosure or loss of data” and “catastrophic damage to or loss of agency facilities and infrastructure with fatalities to individuals,” according to the assessment.

“DOGE isn’t making government more efficient — it’s putting Americans’ sensitive information in the hands of completely unqualified and untrustworthy individuals,” Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a news release. “They are bypassing cybersecurity protections, evading oversight, and putting Americans’ personal data at risk. We cannot allow this shadow operation to continue operating unchecked while millions of people face the threat of identity theft, economic disruption, and permanent harm. The Trump Administration and agency leadership must immediately put a stop to these reckless actions that risk causing unprecedented chaos in Americans’ daily lives.”

The report recommends stripping all DOGE access to sensitive personal information until agencies certify that the initiative is in compliance with federal security and privacy laws such as the Federal Information Security Management Act, and recommends that DOGE employees complete the same kind of cybersecurity training as other federal employees.

It describes the three agencies blocking access to specific offices or otherwise obstructing access. For example, it says that DOGE installed a Starlink network at GSA, but wouldn’t let staff view it. Starlink is the Musk-owned satellite internet service, and the report concludes that Starlink might have allowed DOGE staffers to circumvent agency IT oversight. Data sent over the network “could be an easy target for foreign adversaries,” the report states.

The report also expands upon an alleged attempt at SSA to create a “master database” that would pool data from multiple federal agencies. According to whistleblower disclosures, former SSA DOGE employee John Koval inquired about uploading agency data into a cloud environment to share with the Department of Homeland Security. He was “rebuffed,” the report states, but later worked at DHS and the Justice Department, where SSA data surfaced in some projects, raising further privacy concerns. 

It revisits concerns about DOGE staffer Edward “Big Balls” Coristine having access to sensitive agency data despite reports that he had been fired from an internship at a cybersecurity company for leaking company information to a competitor, and arrives at further conclusions about the risk posed by the ability of Coristine and others “to move highly sensitive SSA data into an unmonitored cloud environment.”

“It is highly likely that foreign adversaries, such as Russia, China, and Iran, who regularly attempt cyber attacks on the U.S. government and critical infrastructure, are already aware of this new DOGE cloud environment,” the report states.

Two of the agencies that were the subject of the report took issue with its conclusions.

“OPM takes its responsibility to safeguard federal personnel records seriously,” said a spokeswoman for the office, McLaurine Pinover. “This report recycles unfounded claims about so-called ‘DOGE teams’ that simply have never existed at OPM. Federal employees at OPM conduct their work in line with longstanding law, security, and compliance requirements.

“Instead of rehashing baseless allegations, Senate Democrats should focus their efforts on the real challenges facing the federal workforce,” she continued. “OPM remains committed to transparency, accountability, and delivering for the American people.”

The SSA pointed to Commissioner Frank Bisignano’s letter to Congress responding to questions about Numident security concerns. 

“Based on the agency’s thorough review, the Numident data and database — stored in a longstanding secure environment used by SSA — have not been accessed, leaked, hacked, or shared in any unauthorized fashion,” a SSA spokesperson wrote, adding, “The location referred to in the whistleblower allegation is actually a secured server in the agency’s cloud infrastructure which historically has housed this data and is continuously monitored and overseen — SSA’s standard practice.”

The SSA spokesperson emphasized there are no DOGE employees at SSA, only agency employees. 

The GSA did not immediately respond to Scoop News Group requests for comment on the Democratic report.

Miranda Nazzaro contributed reporting to this story.

The post Dem report concludes Department of Government Efficiency violates cybersecurity, privacy rules appeared first on CyberScoop.

Pessimism is mounting about the chances that Congress will reauthorize a cyber threat information-sharing law before it’s set to expire at the end of this month — with no clear path for either a temporary or long-term extension.

Industry groups and the Trump administration have put a lot of muscle into renewing the 2015 Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA 2015), which they say is a vital tool in the fight against malicious hackers because of the legal protections it provides for organizations to share cyber threat data with each other and the government.

But in recent weeks, multiple efforts to re-up the law have failed or been brushed aside:

• The House inserted a two-month extension of CISA 2015 into a continuing resolution to avert a government shutdown, but after the House passed the bill, the Senate voted against the continuing resolution last week. Negotiations about continuing to fund the federal government past the end of this month appear to be at a standstill.
• The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee had scheduled a markup of legislation last week introduced by Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., to extend the law with significant changes that drew bipartisan and industry criticism. The panel then abruptly canceled the markup.
• The top Democrat on Paul’s panel, Gary Peters of Michigan, tried to get an unaltered or “clean” 10-year reauthorization of the expiring law passed on the Senate floor with a unanimous consent motion, but Paul objected without explanation, preventing it from advancing.
• House Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., sought earlier this month to offer his legislation to extend and alter CISA 2015 as an amendment to the House version of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), but the Rules Committee prohibited the amendment from receiving a vote. (A Senate intelligence policy bill had included a 10-year extension, but when senators folded the intelligence authorization bill into that chamber’s version of the NDAA, Paul objected and got it removed.)

All of that leaves an extension of CISA 2015 without a home, and with a key senator, Paul, likely to stand in the way of swift renewal anytime soon. Under the circumstances, “I bet it does” expire, one industry source said of CISA 2015. 

“I’d be pleasantly surprised if it is continued given Paul’s objection,” the source said.

And that could be a big problem for both lawmakers and private-sector organizations.

While it’s unclear exactly how even a temporary lapse in the law might affect cyber information sharing, some have offered dire predictions about how bad it will be. In the legal community, “if you’re giving people a reason not to do something, they won’t do it,” said another industry source. 

If there’s a big breach during a time when the law has expired, the political risks increase, because cyberattack victims are likely to blame the lapse for what happens, said the source, who has extensive cybersecurity policy experience.

Best hopes (until recently)

Advocates had long pinned their hopes that a temporary two-year CISA 2015 renewal would be included in the continuing resolution (CR), given the urgency to avoid a government shutdown and the fact that the law was sent to expire when the fiscal year ends gave Congress a perfect opportunity. The House GOP’s inclusion of that short-term extension language in the CR — and Democrats’ support for it in their own proposal — indicated widespread support for the idea. The CR passed 217-212.

Senate leaders have a tradition of honoring objections on policy matters from the heads of the committees with jurisdiction over those topics when they are up for consideration in other bills. But multiple observers told CyberScoop that they interpreted the inclusion of the CISA 2015 law extension in the House CR as a sign that Senate leaders were prepared to ignore objections from Paul in this case. 

Besides lawmakers and private-sector groups, the Trump administration has been pressing for renewal. Industry and Senate sources say that new National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross has been especially focused on selling lawmakers on the need for action on CISA 2015.

But temporary renewal is now a casualty of the broader fight over a government shutdown, with the Senate voting 44-48 against the CR.

Paul complications

Earlier this month, the House Homeland Security Committee approved Garbarino’s bill to renew CISA 2015 for 10 years by a vote of 25-0. While Democrats questioned whether the legislation should’ve included any changes to the law rather than a “clean” reauthorization, Garbarino’s changes themselves garnered no significant opposition.

That wasn’t the case for the version Paul sponsored and that was scheduled for vote in his committee last week, which would have provided a two-year reauthorization. Industry groups objected to the Paul legislation striking provisions of the 2015 law that provided protections related to cyber threat data sharing with the federal government against disclosure from Freedom of Information Act requests. They opposed a section that would get rid of the law’s section on federal preemption, under which the law supersedes state laws and regulations.

Democrats also raised concerns about several key definitions in the law, including those related to the rules for  how companies can use defensive measures. According to Senate aides who spoke with CyberScoop, these changes could leave small- and medium-sized businesses particularly vulnerable. Combined with the other industry objections, the aides said, Paul’s bill would have functionally ended private sector information sharing with the government.

Industry is wary of major changes to CISA 2015 in general.

“The fact is that over the last 10 years, it’s been an effective way for the private sector to share information, which is a key ingredient in improving cybersecurity, and we should just be very careful while making changes to something that is working pretty well,” said Henry Young, senior director of policy for Business Software Alliance.

A section of the legislation that Paul wrote on free speech protections also created questions.  Five Senate and industry sources told CyberScoop that Paul canceled the markup because Senate Republican panel members planned amendments that would have, with somewhat different approaches, stripped Paul’s changes in favor of a “clean” reauthorization. 

Spokespeople for senators that sources said were behind those amendments, Joni Ernst of Iowa and Bernie Moreno of Ohio, did not respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for Paul disputed what the sources told CyberScoop about the reason for the cancellation.

“The characterization of the cancellation of the markup is false,” said the spokesperson, Gabrielle Lipsky. “The Democrats, who are not negotiating in good faith, asked for more time.”

Peters said in a Senate floor speech Friday that it was “disappointing” that Paul canceled the markup, and that “we were blocked from even having a discussion about the policy or draft legislation.”

Constituents in Paul’s home state have lobbied him on the importance of a “clean” reauthorization of CISA 2015; Paul’s public remarks about extension of the law have largely focused on passing a bill that includes additional guarantees on free speech.

“We make this request respecting your determination to protect Americans’ privacy and freedom of speech from censorship and intimidation by federal government employees, and we share those concerns,” a number of Kentucky business groups wrote to Paul in a Sept. 17 letter advocating for a “clean” extension. “We would welcome the opportunity to work with you to increase privacy and censorship protections in other legislation.” 

Peters asked for unanimous consent Friday for the Senate to advance a 10-year reauthorization. Paul said only, “I object,” thus blocking the renewal effort from Peters.

“Congress must pass an extension of these cybersecurity protections and prevent a lapse that would completely undercut our cybersecurity defenses and expose critical sectors to preventable attacks,” Peters said in a statement to CyberScoop. “These liability protections ensure trusted, rapid information sharing between the private sector and government to quickly detect, prevent, and respond to cybersecurity threats. I’m continuing to work toward a bipartisan, bicameral deal that will renew these protections for the long-term, but we cannot afford to let these critical cybersecurity protections expire at the end of the month.”

Other avenues

A common hope among advocates was that after a short-term extension became law as part of the CR, a longer-term extension would be included in the NDAA, which often passes toward the end of each calendar year or the start of the next.

But hopes for that diminished after actions in both the House and Senate. In the Senate, the Intelligence Committee had included a 10-year renewal in its annual intelligence authorization bill. That legislation was then included in the Senate version of the NDAA, but sources on and off the Hill told CyberScoop that Paul objected to inclusion of the CISA 2015 extension, so it was removed.

And the Rules Committee decided on Sept. 9 that Garbarino’s CISA 2015 renewal amendment wasn’t germane, thus preventing him from offering it during debate on the House floor about the NDAA. One day later, the House passed its version of the NDAA, 231-196.

The next steps for CISA 2015 reauthorization are unclear. Paul’s office did not respond to a question about his future plans for renewing CISA 2015.

Options for a short-term renewal are limited for now to whatever congressional leaders do to try to revive or replace a CR, but the timeline for doing so before CISA 2015 expires is exceptionally tight. Options for a long-term renewal might include an amendments package for the Senate version of the NDAA, since the full Senate has yet to take up its bill.

CISA 2015 “must not lapse on September 30, 2025. Allowing it to expire will create a significantly more hostile security environment for the U.S.,” Matthew Eggers, vice president of cybersecurity policy in the cyber, intelligence, and security division at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told CyberScoop in a written statement. “The Chamber advocates for a multi-year reauthorization of this vital law. Short-term extensions are counterproductive. Both the private sector and the government need certainty, including the ability to allocate resources for long-term cybersecurity planning and implementation. House and Senate leaders and the Trump administration have expressed strong support for reauthorizing CISA 2015.”

The post Cyber threat information law hurtles toward expiration, with poor prospects for renewal appeared first on CyberScoop.

A bipartisan pair of senators are introducing legislation Thursday that would direct a White House office to develop a strategy for reckoning with the cybersecurity ramifications of quantum computers, and require agencies to begin pilot programs on quantum-safe encryption.

Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., say the National Quantum Cybersecurity Migration Strategy Act is meant to get ahead of rapidly advancing quantum computers that could bypass modern encryption standards and leave important data unprotected.

“It’s critical that the federal government be prepared for any threat posed by quantum computing technology, especially when it concerns our national security,” said Peters, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “My bill would help keep Americans safe by ensuring we have a quantum cybersecurity migration strategy to stay ahead of our adversaries and protect Americans’ personal data.”  

Blackburn added that “the National Quantum Cybersecurity Migration Strategy Act would ensure the federal government creates a road map to protect sensitive data and national security from emerging data security threats fueled by quantum computing.”

It’s a follow-up to two quantum computing laws passed in recent years: one devoted to developing U.S. quantum research and another devoted to pushing agencies to acquire IT systems with post-quantum cryptography. 

The latest legislation, which CyberScoop is first to report, would lean on the expertise of the Subcommittee on the Economic and Security Implications of Quantum Science (ESIX) — which is a part of the National Science and Technology Council that coordinates federal government technology policy — to develop the strategy. 

The strategy would recommend standards for federal agencies to define “a cryptographically relevant quantum computer,” to include characteristics such as “the particular point at which such computers are capable of attacking real world cryptographic systems that classical computers are unable to attack.”

The strategy would include an assessment of the need to migrate to post-quantum cryptography for each agency, and measurements for evaluating that migration.

ESIX would also establish a post-quantum pilot program that would require each sector risk management agency responsible for protecting the 16 federally designated critical infrastructure sectors to upgrade at least one high-impact system to post-quantum cryptography by the start of 2027.

“Because stolen data can be stored and decrypted later, experts warn that action must be taken now to secure systems with stronger, quantum-proof protections,” a forthcoming news release on the bill states. “This bill responds to that urgency by requiring federal agencies to begin migrating critical systems before it’s too late.”

Quantum industry leaders at a May hearing urged Congress to expand support for U.S. quantum initiatives. Experts and U.S. government officials are particularly worried about falling behind China on quantum computing.

Peters and Blackburn are introducing their bill the day after the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee took action on its first slate of bills in 2025.

The post Senate legislation would direct federal agencies to fortify against quantum computing cyber threats appeared first on CyberScoop.

President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency told senators Thursday that he would prioritize evicting China from the U.S. supply chain, and wouldn’t hesitate to ask for more money for the shrunken agency if he thought it needed it.

“If confirmed it will be a priority of mine to remove all Chinese intrusions, exploitations or infestation into the American supply chain,” Sean Plankey told Rick Scott, R-Fla., at his confirmation hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Scott had asked Plankey about reports of Chinese infiltration of U.S. energy infrastructure.

Should he be confirmed for the role, Plankey is set to arrive at an agency that has had its personnel and budget slashed significantly under Trump, a topic of concern for Democratic senators including the ranking member on the panel vetting him, Gary Peters of Michigan. Peters asked how he’d handle the smaller CISA he’s inherited while still having a range of legal obligations to fulfill.

“One of the ways I’ve found most effective when you come in to lead an organization is to allow the operators to operate,” Plankey said. “If that means we have to reorganize in some form or fashion, that’s what we’ll do, I’ll lead that charge. If that means we need a different level of funding than we currently have now, then I will approach [Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem], ask for that funding, ask for that support.”

Under questioning from Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., about whether he believed the 2020 election was rigged or stolen, Plankey, like other past Trump nominees, avoided answering “yes” or “no.” 

At first he said he hadn’t reviewed any cybersecurity around the 2020 election. He then said, “My opinion on the election as an American private citizen probably isn’t relevant, but the Electoral College did confirm President Joe Biden.” 

Blumenthal pressed him, saying his office was supposed to be above politics, and asked what Plankey would do if Trump came to him and falsely told him the 2026 or 2028 elections were rigged. 

“That’s like a doctor who’s diagnosing someone over the television because they saw them on the news,” Plankey answered.

Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., rebutted Blumenthal, saying “CISA has nothing to do with the elections.” But Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., later asked Plankey about CISA’s “important” role in protecting election infrastructure, and asked how he would make the line “clear” between past CISA disinformation work that Republicans have called censorship and cybersecurity protections.

Plankey answered that Trump has issued guidance on the protection of election security infrastructure like electronic voting machines, and it’s DHS’s job “to ensure that it is assessed prior to an election to make sure there are no adversarial actions or vulnerabilities in it,” something he’d focus on if Noem tasked CISA with the job.

Plankey said he would not engage in censorship — something his predecessors staunchly denied doing — because “cybersecurity is a big enough problem.” His focus would be on defending federal networks and critical infrastructure, he said. To improve federal cybersecurity, he said he favored “wholesale” revamps of federal IT rather than smaller fixes.

The Center for Democracy and Technology said after Plankey’s hearing it was concerned about how CISA would approach election security.

“CISA has refused to say what its plans are for the next election, and election officials across the country are flying blind,” said Tim Harper, senior policy analyst on elections and democracy for the group. “If CISA is abandoning them, election officials deserve to know so they can make plans to protect their cyber and physical infrastructure from nation-state hackers. Keeping them in the dark only helps bad actors.”

Plankey indicated support for the expiring State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program, as well as the expiring 2015 Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Act, both of which are due to sunset in September.

Paul told reporters after the hearing that he planned to have a markup of a renewal of the 2015 information sharing law before the September deadline, with language added to explicitly prohibit the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency from any censorship.

Plankey’s nomination next moves to a committee vote, following an 11-1 vote last month to advance the nomination of Sean Cairncross to become national cyber director. Plankey’s nomination would have another hurdle to overcome before a Senate floor vote, as Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has placed a hold on the Plankey pick in a bid to force the administration to release an unclassified report on U.S. phone network security.

“The Trump administration might not have been paying attention, so I’ll say it again: I will not lift my hold on Mr. Plankey’s nomination until this report is public. It’s ridiculous that CISA seems more concerned with covering up phone companies’ negligent cybersecurity than it is with protecting Americans from Chinese hackers,” Wyden said in a statement to CyberScoop. “Trump’s administration won’t act to shore up our dangerously insecure telecom system, it hasn’t gotten to the bottom of the Salt Typhoon hack, and it won’t even let Americans see an unclassified report on why it’s so important to put mandatory security rules in place for phone companies.”

The post Plankey vows to boot China from U.S. supply chain, advocate for CISA budget appeared first on CyberScoop.