Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez is taking over as the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security panel’s cybersecurity subcommittee, replacing former Rep. Eric Swalwell after his resignation.

Committee Democrats approved the change Tuesday at a meeting prior to a “shadow hearing” without the GOP majority, focused on protecting elections from Trump administration interference.

Ramirez first won election to Congress in 2022 and was reelected in 2024. She has served as the vice ranking member of the committee since 2023. She is now the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection.

She has leveled criticisms during committee hearings about the Trump administration’s personnel cutbacks at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and was critical of how data was secured under the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative led by Elon Musk.

“Under a Musk and Trump presidency, it’s clear that the security of Americans’ information is not a priority. I mean, a private civilian with no security clearance bullied his way into the Treasury, set up private servers, and stole sensitive information from an agency. If that isn’t a national security crisis, a cybersecurity  crisis –then I don’t know what is,” Ramirez said at an early 2025 hearing. “The true threat to our homeland security is ‘fElon’ Musk, Trump, and their blatant misuse of power to steal information and coerce employees to leave agencies.”

She cosponsored legislation last year meant to strengthen the cybersecurity workforce by promoting measures to help workers from underrepresented and disadvantaged communities to join the field.

But she also had criticisms of U.S. cybersecurity under the Biden administration, including of Microsoft’s role in the SolarWinds breach.

In a statement about her appointment Tuesday, Ramirez took aim at at Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and White House homeland security adviser Stephen Miller.

“It’s clear that the security of our communities’ information, federal networks, and critical infrastructure have not been priorities” under them, she said. “Between the security failures of DOGE, the abuses of immigrant families’ data, and the decimation of CISA’s workforce and resources, Republicans have demonstrated a lack of interest in safeguarding our nation’s cybersecurity and our residents’ civil rights and privacy. In neglecting necessary oversight, Republicans have deregulated emerging technologies, allowed bad actors to profit from violations of our civil rights, and consented to the weaponization of government systems. It is more critical than ever that we assert our Congressional authority and disrupt the blatant corruption making us all less safe.”

Swalwell left the position following his resignation from Congress as a representative from California amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

Her ascension completes a full leadership turnover for the subcommittee. Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., took over the gavel late last year after former chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., took over as chairman of the full committee.

The subcommittee is set to hold a hearing Wednesday on CISA and its role as the sector risk management agency for a number of critical infrastructure sectors.

Updated 4/28/26: to include comment from Ramirez.

The post Rep. Delia Ramirez takes over as top House cybersecurity Dem appeared first on CyberScoop.

A year-long effort to strengthen cybersecurity and modernize tech at U.S. intelligence agencies has led to policy standards for using AI to bolster cyber defenses, a shared repository of all apps that have undergone a cybersecurity review and more, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced Thursday.

An unclassified summary of cyber and tech modernization work under the first year of DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s stewardship states that the office has expanded the automation of threat hunting across intelligence community networks. (The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency conducts threat hunting across federal civilian agencies.)

The ODNI also has developed a zero-trust strategy that shifts “to a data-centric security model that protects information regardless of location or network,” according to the summary.

“Over the past year, we have taken meaningful steps to begin fulfilling that responsibility through the largest IC-wide technology investment and modernization effort in history,” Gabbard said in a news release. “President Trump’s Intelligence Community is moving faster and more decisively on cybersecurity modernization and investments in IT than ever before, delivering stronger defenses, greater efficiency, and real cost savings for the American people.”   

It constitutes the first significant cybersecurity announcement out of the office under Gabbard and the second Trump administration.

While the year-long effort began before the recent release of a national cyber strategy, the ODNI initiatives reflect many of its goals, including better protection of federal networks, advancing artificial intelligence for defensive purposes and going on offense against cyber adversaries.

The ODNI directed its National Counterintelligence and Security Center “to proactively combat foreign intelligence actors seeking to engage in cyber-attacks against U.S. interests,” according to the summary. 

The idea of an intelligence community repository of cybersecurity authorizations is to save both time and money, as it would allow agencies to capitalize on the testing of apps that other agencies have done without having to repeat them. 

On AI, the ODNI is “developing the policy framework, governance, and standards necessary to accelerate AI adoption for cybersecurity and other critical technology,” the summary states.

“Protecting our nation’s most sensitive information from those who seek to exploit it, while making sure our intelligence professionals have the tools and access they need to do their jobs, is not optional. It is essential to our national security,” Gabbard said. 

Gabbard’s appearance earlier this year during an FBI search of an elections office in Georgia has drawn congressional scrutiny, an appearance she has defended in part by citing her office’s role in coordinating and analyzing intelligence related to cybersecurity. Gabbard’s own personal cybersecurity practices prior to taking the job of DNI have also raised questions.

The post ODNI tackles AI, threat hunting, app cybersecurity in year-one tech review appeared first on CyberScoop.

Leaked iOS spyware has some cybersecurity professionals raising urgent alarms about potential mass iPhone compromises, a development that pairs ominously with the recent discovery of two sophisticated iOS exploit kits.

At the same time, some other experts say Apple’s defensive features for iPhones remain elite. But several factors have created unprecedented circumstances: the public accessibility of a version of DarkSword, shortly after the discovery of the original version of DarkSword and the earlier discovery of a similar kit known as  Coruna, and a  growing market for iPhone exploits driven by their high value as targets.

Allan Liska, field chief information security officer at Recorded Future, said he was worried about what the leaked DarkSword version could do to “democratize” iPhone exploits.

“Right now, iPhone exploitations are among the most expensive to research/implement so they have been, largely, the realm of nation-states,” he said. “If anyone can exploit an iPhone, suddenly something that has managed to be relatively secure now is a much bigger attack surface.”

Google, iVerify and Lookout released research last week on DarkSword’s discovery, centered on Ukraine. Google also said it saw targeting in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Malaysia. And that was before a version turned up on GitHub, a development TechCrunch first reported and Google and iVerify have analyzed. (The week before, iVerify and Google uncovered Coruna. Google declined to comment further for this story.)

“It’s extremely alarming that this leaked out on GitHub,” said Rocky Cole, co-founder of iVerify. “I would assume that it’s being used all around the world, and including here in the United States.”

Hundreds of millions of iPhones running iOS 18 could be vulnerable to DarkSword.

“I think that the top line issues here are pretty clear: people who have devices that are vulnerable should upgrade ASAP,” said Eva Galperin, director of cybersecurity at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “It is very likely that these vulnerabilities are being used right now to exploit vulnerable devices at scale, which is unusual for Apple products.”

The propagation problem

Coruna was concerning enough for Apple that it took the rare step of backporting security updates to still older versions of iOS, Cole said. The fear, he said, was that it might be wormable — capable of spreading from one device via text message to everyone in a phone’s contact list.

But Cole said Apple hasn’t released similar security-focused updates to iOS 18, for reasons he doesn’t know.

Apple has emphasized the patches it has issued, urged users to update their phones and touted Lockdown Mode as a defense against spyware.

“Apple devices are designed with multiple layers of security in order to protect against a wide range of potential threats, and every day Apple’s security teams around the world work tirelessly to protect users’ devices and data,” said Apple spokesperson Sarah O’Rourke. “Keeping your software up to date is the single most important thing you can do to maintain the security of your Apple products, and devices with updated software were not at risk from these reported attacks.”

IPhones’ widespread use makes them high-value targets, fueling a thriving market for exploits. Coruna and DarkSword are indicators of this growing demand. 

“It’s time for organizations to start thinking of mobile security the way they think about desktop security, which is to say everyone knows how to secure their laptop,” Cole said. And for iPhone exploit hunting in particular, “you’re starting to see people do it at a mass level.” Furthermore, the resale market is such that exploits that once were exclusive are no longer, and AI makes it even easier to customize them in the code, he said. 

DarkSword has drawn federal attention: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency this week added vulnerabilities that DarkSword exploits to the list that federal agencies must patch.

The number of people still using iOS 18 is large, up to 25% of all iPhones. Cole said several factors are contributing to that, such as users being leery of iOS 26’s onboard artificial intelligence or the Liquid Glass interface.

Said Galperin: “There are many reasons why people do not keep their devices up to date, so when I tell people ‘just patch your stuff’ I think it is important to realize that there are circumstances under which this is easier said than done.”

Proven defenses despite expanding risks

Despite the concerns, Cole credited iPhone for its high security standards, in particular for its app store.

For Natalia Krapiva, senior tech-legal counsel at Access Now, a key takeaway is the worrisome proliferation of commercial spyware and cyber intrusion capabilities.

“This is exactly what human rights activists and digital security researchers have been warning governments and companies about: In the absence of effective regulation for the industry, these exploits will get out and end up in the hands of adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, or, as in the case of DarkSword, leaked online for any criminal to use,” she said.

On the other hand, Apple’s Lockdown Mode and Memory Integrity Enforcement are top-notch defensive measures, Krapiva said. We’ve yet to see a Lockdown Mode-enabled iPhone being infected with spyware, she said.

“I think we’ll keep seeing more attempts to exploit both Apple and Android devices as they improve their software and hardware security,” she said. “It’s the old cat-and-mouse game.”

Adam Boynton, senior enterprise strategy manager at Jamf, said what’s happened with Coruna and DarkSword is evidence of Apple’s success.

“What’s encouraging here is that Apple’s security model works,” he said. “Coruna skips devices running the latest iOS versions and avoids those with Lockdown Mode enabled entirely. That’s a strong validation of the defences Apple has built.

“DarkSword reinforces the same principle,” he continued. “Where Coruna targeted older iOS versions, DarkSword demonstrates that even relatively current releases can be targeted by determined actors. Apple moved quickly to patch the vulnerabilities involved, and devices running the latest iOS are protected.”

The post DarkSword’s GitHub leak threatens to turn elite iPhone hacking into a tool for the masses appeared first on CyberScoop.

President Donald Trump released his administration’s cyber strategy Friday, promoting offense operations in cyberspace, securing federal networks and critical infrastructure, streamlining regulations, leveraging emerging technologies and strengthening the cybersecurity workforce.

Trump also signed an executive order Friday directing agencies to take action to combat cybercrime and fraud.

A little more than half of the five pages of strategy text of the long-anticipated document is preamble, and two of its seven pages are title and ending pages. Administration officials have said the strategy is deliberately high-level, and the White House promised more detailed guidance in the future.

The strategy “calls for unprecedented coordination across government and the private sector to invest in the best technologies and continue world-class innovation, and to make the most of America’s cyber capabilities for both offensive and defensive missions,” the White House said in a statement accompanying its release.

Each of the six “pillars” of the strategy offer some prescriptions.

“Shaping adversary behavior” calls for using U.S. government offensive and defensive capabilities in cyberspace, as well as incentivizing the private sector to disrupt adversary networks.

It also says Trump will “counter the spread of the surveillance state and authoritarian technologies that monitor and repress citizens,” even as administration critics argue that his administration has fostered surveillance and repression against U.S. citizens.

The shortest pillar, “promote common sense regulation,” decries rules that are only “costly checklists.” The Biden administration expanded cyber regulations, spurring some industry resistance. But the Trump pillar does talk about addressing liability, a point of emphasis for the prior administration as well.

“Modernize and secure federal networks” talks about using concepts and technologies like post-quantum cryptography, artificial intelligence, zero-trust and lowering barriers for vendors to sell tech to the government to meet those goals.

To “secure critical infrastructure,” the strategy calls for fortifying not just owners and operators but also the supply chain, in part by focusing on U.S.-made rather than adversary-made products.

“We will deny our adversaries initial access, and in the event of an incident, we must be able to recover quickly,” the strategy reads. “We will galvanize the role of state, local, Tribal, and territorial authorities as a complement to— not a substitute for — our national cybersecurity efforts.” Some critics of the administration’s cybersecurity actions have contended that it has shifted the burden to state and local governments too much.

AI usage makes up the bulk of the pillar entitled “sustain superiority in critical and emerging technologies,” in addition to reflecting earlier parts of the strategy on the topics of quantum cryptography and privacy protection. That includes the protection of data centers, the subject of localized fights across the country over their location and resource costs.

The final pillar says the United States must “build talent and capability,” after a year of the administration cutting a significant number of cyber positions in the federal government. “We will eliminate roadblocks that prevent industry, academia, government, and the military from aligning incentives and building a highly skilled cyber workforce,” it states.

Some positive reviews rolled in about the strategy despite the late-Friday afternoon release, traditionally the time of week when an administration looks to publish news it hopes will garner little attention.

“As new and more sophisticated threats emerge, America needed a new national cyber strategy that captures the urgency of this moment,” USTelecom President and CEO Jonathan Spalter said in a news release. “The President’s strategy rightly recognizes that harnessing America’s unique mix of private-sector innovation with public-sector capacity is the best deterrence.”

Frank Cilluffo, Director of the McCrary Institute for Cyber and Critical Infrastructure Security at Auburn University, was struck by the focus on deterrence: “This unified strategy determining a direction on offensive and defensive cyber operations and collaboration couldn’t be more timely.”

The Business Software Alliance cheered the call for streamlining cyber regulations, in particular.

A number of cyber vendors took note of the passages on AI. “Redirecting resources from paperwork to AI-powered security capabilities is the only way to keep pace with modern threats and adversaries who operate at great speed,” said Bill Wright, global head of government affairs at Elastic. “This strategy appears to recognize that fundamental truth.”

Not all the reviews were flattering, however, including from the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson, who said the strategy’s “underachieving” was the only thing impressive about it.

“What little ‘substance’ does exist in this pamphlet is a mishmash of vague platitudes, a long catalogue of ‘we will’ statements that may or may not match the Administration’s current behavior, and, mercifully, an apparent extension of some Biden-era policies,” he said. “Completely lacking is even the most basic blueprint for how the Administration will go about achieving any of its cybersecurity goals — an objective possibly hamstrung by the hemorrhage in cyber talent across all Federal agencies since Trump took office.”

The executive order Trump signed Friday coincides with the release of the strategy but there’s little overlap between the subject matter; the strategy makes one mention of cybercrime.

The order directs the attorney general to prioritize prosecution of cybercrime and fraud, orders agencies to review tools that they could use to counter international criminal organizations and  gives the Department of Homeland Security marching orders to improve training, in addition to other steps, according to a fact sheet.

“President Trump is unleashing every available tool to stop foreign-backed criminal networks that exploit vulnerable Americans through cyber-enabled fraud and extortion,” the fact sheet states.

The post The long-awaited Trump cyber strategy has arrived appeared first on CyberScoop.

The FBI found evidence that its networks had been targeted in a suspected cybersecurity incident, the bureau confirmed on Thursday, without sharing any further details.

“The FBI identified and addressed suspicious activities on FBI networks, and we have leveraged all technical capabilities to respond,” the agency said in a statement. “We have nothing additional to provide.”

CNN and CBS reported that the suspicious activity targeted a digital system the FBI uses to manage and conduct surveillance, including work related to foreign surveillance warrants, wiretaps and pen registers, which are used to trace phone and computer data like IP addresses and dialed phone numbers.

News broke in 2024 that the Chinese hacking group Salt Typhoon had exploited the U.S. wiretapping system under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act that law enforcement and intelligence agencies rely upon, but CNN reported that it wasn’t clear if there was a connection between the 2024 and recent suspected incidents.

It also wasn’t clear when the incident occurred, or who was responsible.

The FBI, like virtually every federal agency, is no stranger to being targeted or infiltrated by hackers.

In 2023, the FBI said it had isolated and contained a cyber intrusion in its New York Field Office. In 2021, hackers exploited a misconfigured FBI server to send hoax emails, although the bureau said its own systems weren’t affected.

Congress, former agents and others have raised concerns about the FBI’s cyber capabilities among budget cuts and the loss of personnel under the second Trump administration. Brett Leatherman, leader of the bureau’s cyber division, told CyberScoop recently that it has suffered no diminishment of its ability to respond to threats and incidents.

The post FBI targeted with ‘suspicious’ activity on its networks appeared first on CyberScoop.

The chief information officer at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency announced his departure Tuesday, ending his nearly five-year run at CISA.

Robert Costello, an 18-year veteran of the Department of Homeland Security, posted about the move on LinkedIn.

“Serving as CIO at CISA has been one of the greatest privileges of my career,” he said. “Together, we strengthened our cybersecurity posture, modernized critical systems, and built capabilities that will endure. I am incredibly proud of what we accomplished as a team.”

Costello’s tenure had recently grown turbulent, with conflicting accounts of whether the since-departed acting director of CISA, Madhu Gottumukkala, had tried to force him out. Costello last week received transfer orders for possible reassignment to another agency.

Costello had supporters on the Hill and elsewhere, with House Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., saying as recently as last month that it was good that an earlier reported attempt to move Costello out of the CISA CIO job had fallen short.

As CIO at the agency, Costello advocated for top-notch tech as a recruiting boon. He has been involved in efforts to respond to vulnerabilities within CISA. He has sometimes served as a public face for the agency at events, has touted new tools designed to enhance CISA services and has argued for greater use of artificial intelligence in his role.

“Throughout my career at CISA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and in the United States Air Force, I have been guided by a commitment to protecting our nation and advancing the greater good,” Costello said. “It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside public servants whose integrity and professionalism set the standard.”

Costello did not indicate his future plans beyond leaving the federal government and a “commitment to service and to this nation.”

Costello’s move isn’t the only recent shakeup at the agency. CISA recently got a new acting director, Nick Andersen, to replace Gottumukkala after the former acting director left for a DHS headquarters post, as the nomination of Sean Plankey to lead CISA continues to stall. The acting chief human resources officer, Kevin Diana, also reportedly received transfer orders.

The post CISA CIO Robert Costello exits agency appeared first on CyberScoop.

“Decimated.” 

“Amateur hour.”

“Pretty much fallen apart.”

“It’s really hard to find something positive to say right now.”

It’s been a little more than one year into the second Trump administration, and there’s a large consensus, if not total unanimity, among those who have worked with and for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency: It has suffered significantly during that time. 

CISA has lost roughly a third of its personnel and shuttered entire divisions. Observers across the political spectrum told CyberScoop for this story that even on its core missions, like coordinating with industry and protecting federal networks, the agency is significantly diminished.

Many sources that spoke with CyberScoop did so under the condition of anonymity, in order to be more candid or avoid retribution. They told CyberScoop that CISA’s biggest problems, and their consequences, include:

• Trump’s ire over the 2020 election results has led to the agency being deprioritized within the administration. Congress has yet to approve the administration’s permanent pick to lead the agency, Sean Plankey, and lawmakers have failed to do other things to strengthen it. 
• CISA’s capabilities have been significantly diminished by the loss of personnel, expertise and programs. 
• In the absence of a permanent leader, Acting Director Madhu Gottumukkala has struggled to lead the agency. “I don’t think anybody would argue he’s doing a great job,” one industry source said.
• Organizations that previously turned to CISA for help now seek alternatives, like industry alliances, outside consultants or government-to-government partnerships.

Where to assign blame varied from source to source. Most criticized both the administration and Congress, though some faulted one more than the other.

Some see bright spots in CISA under the current administration. And while many are pessimistic about the agency’s future, others expressed optimism.

But the first year reviews are not glowing.

“Year one was a tough year for the agency,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y. He noted that a “lot of the best and brightest have left the agency,” though he expressed optimism about Plankey’s ability to turn CISA around. “The amount of cyberattacks that our nation is seeing every day, both on the private side and on the federal government side — you want your best people there fighting against it, and if they’re somewhere else, it definitely leaves us all vulnerable.”

Said Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on Garbarino’s panel: “It’s tough to have a robust entity when you cut the money…we are weaker because of CISA’s lack of manpower.”

When priorities shifted

Trump has harbored animosity toward CISA since 2020, when it contradicted his false claims related to widespread electoral fraud. He and his allies built on that animosity, recommending in Project 2025 that the agency be dismantled, divided by its core responsibilities, and farmed out to other federal agencies. 

“There was uniquely a target on its back,” said one CISA official who left in 2025. That hostility came from some Republicans in Congress, especially Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Said Thompson: “CISA wasn’t politicized for the most part, until the Trump administration came along and accused them of somehow contributing to his [election] loss.”

CISA has lost substantial personnel, including veterans and whole teams. Some employees were transferred to other divisions in the Department of Homeland Security. Election security was quickly cut. Two information sharing and analysis centers (ISACs) that serve state and local governments lost funding. A division coordinating with foreign governments, businesses and state and local governments was effectively closed.

The agency has lost senior leaders in programs like counter-ransomware initiatives, threat hunting and secure software development. Contracts for things like detecting threats in critical infrastructure networks, tracking vulnerabilities and collaborating with industry teetered, albeit sometimes only temporarily. 

DHS has unraveled multiple programs in which CISA plays a key role, such as by dismissing members of the Cyber Safety Review Board and disbanding the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council. Congress has lurched between letting both a key state and local cyber grant program and a cyber threat information sharing law lapse and temporarily re-upping them.

The departures and program changes likely haven’t ended, either. 

“It’s not a very harmonious place right now,” said one industry source. “I hear from people that are looking to leave.” Former CISA employees say those who remain either believe strongly in the mission, or are simply keeping their heads down until retirement from federal service.

“People I talk to say the morale is really low,” said James Lewis, distinguished fellow with the tech policy program at the Center for European Policy Analysis think tank.

CISA and DHS officials routinely say the changes are designed to get the agency “back on mission.” Lewis, industry officials and others say CISA probably never needed to get involved in combatting misinformation and disinformation, roles that rankled some conservatives, but the agency largely halted that work prior to Trump returning to office.

Some saw duplication and redundancy at CISA as legitimate problems. “I did see overlap between who was actually doing policy and who was actually doing the operational work,” said Ari Schwartz, managing director of cybersecurity services at the law firm Venable and a former Obama administration cybersecurity official.

It was not that long ago when CISA experienced quick budget growth, particularly after its establishment in 2018.

“As with any organization, the first few years are growth years and after a while, the agency needed to reevaluate how it was operating and meeting its statutory authorities,” said Kate DiEmidio, who formerly served as the agency’s director of legislative affairs and acting chief external affairs officer. “There was a need for the agency to refocus.”

Even among those who saw the need for change at CISA, though, many saw the Trump administration as going way too far. “CISA needed surgery,” Lewis said, but “what it needed was surgery with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.” He added, “Not only is the White House hostile to CISA, but cybersecurity isn’t a priority for them.”

A question of capacity

The cuts have created real-world consequences for cybersecurity coordination. Former officials and industry partners describe broken relationships, unanswered requests for help and serious questions about whether CISA can handle a major crisis. The coordination and engagement that defined the agency’s approach have largely diminished.

The end result is that “they’ve dismantled all of those capabilities in units within government,” said Caitlin Durkovich, a former DHS official in the Obama administration and White House official in the Biden administration. She recently started a firm with former top CISA official Jeff Greene that offers services CISA has scaled back, such as security assessments.

“It’s been really hard to watch,” Greene said, how CISA has been working with the private sector and local governments on “developing a level of trust that is weakening or gone.”

One industry source said they used to meet regularly with top officials, but now can’t get a response. “We’ve got really good engagement elsewhere in government. We really would like the opportunity to do the same thing with CISA,” they said. “Some of the trust that had been built up has been eroded.”

Thompson said the biggest losses have been in election security and secure-by-design, areas where his staff says personnel has been “decimated.”

Said another industry source: “I do feel like that when people, if organizations, want to reach out to CISA, it’s not clear who’s there… If we got into a major conflict, let’s say, with China, and they start triggering Volt Typhoon-related malware, are we organized and ready to roll? I don’t think so.”

Another former CISA official described the current situation as a “lack of capacity,” especially when it comes to coordinating with state and local governments and others on a regional basis.

“A bunch of regions are really grappling with the loss of really key personnel who were the ones that were establishing and maintaining these relationships, and really trying to build the trust between the agency and the private sector, and especially in critical infrastructure,” they said. “Not having as many people to help do that national coordinating function that CISA is supposed to do is a real issue.”

They also said there are fewer people working in “flagship programs” like secure-by-design and developing regulations for the landmark Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (CIRCIA). “People are overstretched,” they said. “They’re not doing all the things that they could or should be doing, or want to be doing, and I think that you see evidence of that with talk from the private sector and their inability to to reach people and to get help “

Schwartz said he worries about when “an incident happens, do they have the people to go in, go to the states, go locally, and really do the work that’s needed, as they did in the past? Because they’ve lost some of that ability.”

Lewis said that “overall, the impression is it’s a much weaker entity than it was a year ago.”

“Their power was in their ability to act as a focal point, to coordinate, to bring people together, and just the publication of vulnerabilities and some of the things they were starting to get into in the previous administration were big steps forward that’s been diminished because they don’t have the people now,” he said. “So a smaller organization, that’s just not going to be as powerful.”

State and local governments say they’ve lost critical connections with CISA, saying they’ve had to turn to one another to fill the gaps.

“We’re asking states to do a job they’re not resourced to do, while weakening the one federal agency designed to help them,” said Errol Weiss, chief security officer at the Health-ISAC. “This is precisely where you do need a strong, centralized federal security function. We already have a national shortage of cybersecurity experts, and you can’t just replicate that expertise 50 times over.”

Overall, Weiss said industry partners have felt the lack of outreach from the agency. “Fewer touchpoints, fewer briefings, fewer problem‑solving calls,” he told CyberScoop, adding that there’s “a growing perception that CISA is being hollowed out where it matters most to industry: stakeholder engagement, collaborative forums, and operational support during incidents.”

Rob Knake, a former top Biden administration official, recently said that “CISA as an organization has pretty much fallen apart.”

Leadership in limbo

One near-universal sentiment is that as Sean Plankey’s leadership nomination drags in the Senate, the agency is worse off.

“We need to start this year off right, and we’re already in February and can’t get Plankey confirmed,” Garbarino said. “There’s nothing better than having a Senate-confirmed person running the show.”

The acting director has also faced criticism beyond the operational issues. Gottumukkala, who served as South Dakota’s chief information officer under Kristi Noem before she became DHS secretary, has faced fire from both parties for his stewardship.

A string of embarrassing stories have emerged about Gottumukkala, from the tale of him failing a polygraph test and seeking to oust those who administered it; to his reported attempted ouster of veteran agency CIO Robert Costello; to his reported uploading of sensitive contract data to ChatGPT. DHS has defended Gottumukkala amid those revelations.

Reading stories like that, “It just sounds like amateur hour,” said one former CISA employee.

“I don’t think he’s up to the task. I believe that he’s not the best person, and I think he is just somebody the secretary likes, because they both are from South Dakota.” Thompson said. “I don’t know anybody before this administration who would be in sensitive areas and not have passed minimal standards like the polygraph.”

The ChatGPT story drew concern from the right by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, as well as from conservative figure Laura Loomer (the latter of whose remarks were racially tinged). Others were more perturbed by the lie detector story.

“When you have security issues with someone in a leadership position, you should find another place for them to go,” said a former Trump administration national security official. “There are plenty of competent people in DHS, in CISA, who could hold things together until Sean Plankey gets there. There are lots of serious things CISA needs to be working on right now. This is a drag on that. It’s not a place where you want any type of friction at the top.”

Garbarino was more generous, noting Gottumukkala’s technical background. DiEmidio also noted Gottumukkala’s technical skills. But Garbarino and Nevada Rep. Mark Amodei, the GOP chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, have been seeking CISA’s organizational plans to no avail.

“I don’t think he’s intentionally lying to us by saying there’s no reorg plan,” Garbarino said. “But there’s got to be some reasoning behind all these moves, moving the people around, or layoffs or whatever. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is the technical guy that has been given a non-technical job to do.”

Schwartz and some others largely blame Congress for CISA’s current woes, since they haven’t approved Plankey as a full-time, permanent leader. “A lot of the issue is the fact that just doesn’t have the leadership to be able to participate in senior-level discussions,” he said.

What’s left to build on

Despite myriad complaints, many observers still see value in the current iteration of CISA. Some are hopeful about its ability to rebound, too.

CISA says it’s still devoted to its missions. The agency published a 2025 year-in-review about its accomplishments.

“CISA remains steadfast in its mission to safeguard the systems Americans rely on by strengthening federal network defenses, empowering businesses, and fortifying critical infrastructure nationwide,” Gottumukkala said in a statement to CyberScoop.

Moving forward, “we will deepen collaboration with trusted partners, prioritize highly skilled technical professionals, and direct resources for maximum impact—accelerating innovation, operational coordination, and workforce right-sizing to reduce long-term risks while maintaining strong industry partnerships and cost efficiency,” he said. “The CISA leadership and workforce remains committed to this mission despite a small minority who are upset that accountability and reform have come to the agency.”

It’s a message Gottumukkala recently delivered to Congress. “He tried to give the impression that we haven’t lost any capacity,” Thompson said. “I wasn’t impressed.”

Others said CISA is still carrying out many of its old tasks, such as issuing public alerts on vulnerabilities and threats.

“There’s still some good reporting coming out,” Greene said. “But what I can’t know is the volume of what they can put out versus what they used to be able to put out.”

Weiss said “CISA still has tremendous value in areas only the federal government can truly provide: national‑level visibility, cross‑sector coordination and the ability to marshal resources across agencies in a crisis.” But it’s not clear whether CISA can rise to the occasion like it did during the 2024 Change Healthcare crisis.

“All of this means it’s more important than ever for the private sector to take the initiative,” he said. “Critical infrastructure owners and operators cannot assume the federal government will have the capacity to step in the way it once did.”

Weiss and others also said that CISA has refocused on federal networks, but others, such as Lewis, said it’s also diminished there. “That’s their primary mission, and they don’t have the policies or the bodies to do that,” Lewis said.

Garbarino and a number of industry sources say they’re encouraged by the idea that the Trump administration could write less onerous regulations for CIRCIA, with an earlier draft drawing bipartisan and industry criticism.

A Senate-confirmed leader could further brighten the agency’s prospects, many agree. “They still have some good talent there. It’s not totally that we’ve lost everything there,” Schwartz said. “If you have leadership in there, then you can build it up.”

DiEmidio said some of the staff changes have made sense. Election security had more people than other sectors that needed the help, she said. 

“In some ways, I think the external attention to CISA’s mission in the media and with Congress was completely focused on one or two things, and the focus on the things that really matter, and the good work that CISA is doing got overshadowed,” she said. For the agency’s cybersecurity division and other cyber teams, “there were several incidents over the summer where those teams were incredible. They were working evenings, weekends.”

But many agree that rebuilding CISA’s workforce will be difficult.

The Trump administration has deliberately made working for the federal government challenging as a matter of policy. Russell Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget, said before the election that the goal was to put federal workers “in trauma.” Morale at CISA has been particularly bad, they say. Periodic DHS shutdowns haven’t helped.

On the plus side for CISA, it’s a bad labor market, Lewis said.

Some of what CISA needs to do going forward is about managing expectations, said DiEmidio.

“What I would want to make sure is that CISA has a hiring plan in place to start hiring, especially in those key technical positions at all levels,” she said. “ I think you have to have an understanding that people are going to rotate in and out of government. Not everyone wants to stay in government long term and that’s okay.”

But there are some worries about CISA recruiting going forward. “Just the way they handle the departures, for a lot of folks, I don’t think it gives a lot of encouragement to individuals that ‘Hey, this is a great place to work,’” said one former DHS official.

The post Across party lines and industry, the verdict is the same: CISA is in trouble appeared first on CyberScoop.

A Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency order published Thursday directs federal agencies to stop using “edge devices” like firewalls and routers that their manufacturers no longer support.

It’s a stab at tackling one of the most persistent and difficult-to-manage avenues of attack for hackers, a vector that has factored into some of the most consequential and most common types of exploits in recent years. New edge-device vulnerabilities surface frequently.

Under the binding operational directive CISA released Thursday, federal civilian executive branch (FCEB) agencies must inventory edge devices in their systems that vendors no longer support within three months, and replace those on a dedicated list with supported devices within one year.

“Unsupported devices pose a serious risk to federal systems and should never remain on enterprise networks,” said CISA Acting Director Madhu Gottumukkala. “When the threat landscape demands decisive action, CISA will direct FCEB agencies to strengthen cyber resilience and build a stronger, safer digital infrastructure for America’s future. CISA strongly encourages non-federal organizations to adopt similar actions to strengthen the security of their edge devices.”

To aid agencies in following the directive, CISA is producing a list of end-of-service edge devices. CISA developed the directive in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget, and puts a bit more muscle behind a decade-old OMB circular on agencies phasing out unsupported technologies.

Despite being called “binding operational directives,” CISA has no authority to mandate that agencies carry out the orders — although agencies have demonstrated they usually seek to follow them, and there are ways that CISA can work to ensure compliance. The private sector pays attention to CISA’s directives even though they don’t apply to companies.

Nick Andersen, executive assistant director for cybersecurity at CISA, told reporters Thursday that the directive wasn’t about “forcing” agencies to comply so much as working with them to find a resolution. That includes circumstances such as for operational technology that is difficult to update and replace, he said.

The directive identifies the threat to federal information systems posed by unsupported edge devices as “substantial and constant,” given the access they can provide to hackers and how they are “especially vulnerable” to freshly-discovered and unpatched flaws.

“The United States faces persistent cyber campaigns that threaten both public and private sectors, directly impacting the security and privacy of the American people,” the directive reads. “These campaigns are often enabled by unsupported devices that physically reside on the edge of an organization’s network perimeter.”

The directive cites unnamed “recent public reports of campaigns targeting certain vendors highlight actors’ attempts to use these devices as a means to pivot into FCEB information system networks.” Andersen declined to name which reports the directive refers to, but said the order “isn’t a response to any one incident or compromise.”

Under the order, agencies are also told they must develop a process within two years for regularly identifying edge devices that have become unsupported or soon will.

The one-year timeframe to decommission listed devices is to give agencies time to invest in new technology as needed, Andersen said. He said CISA did not plan to make the list public.

CISA is publishing Tuesday’s directive almost one year to the day after the agency, with other federal and international agencies, released guidance on protecting edge devices.

Updated 2/5/26: to include additional remarks from Andersen.

The post CISA tells agencies to stop using unsupported edge devices appeared first on CyberScoop.

The U.S. government wants the rest of the world to adopt its artificial intelligence cybersecurity standards, a top official with the Office of the National Cyber Director said Thursday.

As part of an effort to advance American AI, the administration will be “undertaking diplomacy efforts to promote American AI cybersecurity standards and norms, establishing industry best practices for secure AI deployment and harnessing the full potential of AI tools,” said Alexandra Seymour, principal deputy assistant national cyber director for policy.

Seymour’s comments at the 2026 Identity, Authentication, and the Road Ahead Policy Forum in Washington, D.C. partially reflect the  Trump administration’s AI Action Plan released last summer, which said the departments of Commerce and State would “vigorously advocate for international AI governance approaches that promote innovation, reflect American values, and counter authoritarian influence,” but doesn’t explicitly mention international promotion of cybersecurity standards.

Some of that effort has already materialized, with internationally oriented guides released in both May and December. The United States also isn’t the only one looking to influence international standards for AI security.

AI also figures into the yet-to-be-released national cybersecurity strategy that Seymour’s office has been developing. And it dovetails with a pillar of the strategy focused on defending federal networks.

“While AI is already helping industries enhance security and address the challenge of escalating cyberattacks, this administration will promote the rapid implementation of AI-enabled cyber defensive tools to detect, divert and deceive threat actors who continue targeting our vital systems and sectors on our federal systems,” Seymour said. “We must get our house in order. They need rapid modernization, and we’re working on policies to harden our networks, update our technologies and ensure we’re prepared for a post-quantum future.”

The post US wants to push its view of AI cybersecurity standards to the rest of the world appeared first on CyberScoop.

Amid budding sentiment in the Trump administration and Congress to expand offensive cyber operations, some lawmakers and experts are warning that the United States needs to get its defenses in order before going too far down that road.

A House Homeland Security subcommittee on Tuesday examined how to deter foreign cyberattacks, with an emphasis on the role U.S. attacks could play in countering them. One long-running concern about improving U.S. offense is how it might provoke further attacks.

“I’m concerned we’re putting the cart before the horse, when we have not had a hearing on why the [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security] Agency has lost one-third of its workforce in the last year,” the top Democrat on the full committee, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said. “We ought to be cautious about pursuing an approach involving the use of offensive cyber tools that could result in retaliation or escalation if we’re not in a position to help defend U.S. networks.”

Other panel Democrats invoked a sentiment from sports about the importance of defense over offense. “Both are still important,” Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va., said during the hearing of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee.

Emily Harding with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a D.C.-based think tank, testified that as the United States takes steps toward a more aggressive posture in cyberspace, it also needs to fund important defensive upgrades for federal government networks.

The chair of the subcommittee, Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., said that while defense was important, “defense alone is not sufficient,” and that “deterrence in cyberspace doesn’t exist without operational cyber offensive capabilities.”

The private sector could have a bigger role to play in boosting the country’s offense, since cybersecurity companies, tech providers and other businesses often have the best vantage point on attacks as both victims and investigators, Ogles said.

But much of the kind of things companies could do to bolster offense “exists in legal and policy gray space,” he said. “Companies face uncertainty about liability, retaliation and regulatory risk.”

A hybrid approach with private sector companies supporting government offensive operations rather than directly carrying them out generated the broadest support at the hearing. Harding said Congress could provide legal protections to companies in those circumstances.

CISA should play a key role in coordinating any public and private sector offensive activity, said Drew Bagley, chief privacy officer at CrowdStrike.

“This committee can ensure that CISA is properly focused and resourced to perform this mission,” he said in written remarks. “From an oversight perspective, you can ensure it has authorities, talent and capabilities to maximize its impact.”

The post Hill warning: Don’t put cyber offense before defense appeared first on CyberScoop.