The growth of data centers — and adversaries’ targeting of them — left lawmakers at a hearing Wednesday contemplating whether the federal government has the right setup for defending them.

Some industry witnesses and experts at the hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection testified that the answer might be to give data centers their own standalone designation as a critical infrastructure sector.

The question of how to secure data centers against cyber and physical attacks coincides with artificial intelligence fuelling a boom in the building of such facilities across the United States. Last month, Iranian drones targeted two Amazon data centers in response to the U.S.-Israel bombing campaign on Iran, and a third data center in Bahrain was struck as well.

“If a major data center is attacked, disrupted, or taken offline, the consequences can reach far beyond one company or one sector,” Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., said in prepared opening remarks. “Yet our current framework does not provide a clear, unified approach to data center security. It does not clearly answer which federal agency is responsible for understanding the risk, coordinating with industry, or leading the response when this infrastructure is targeted.”

Three providers account for 63 percent of the market share of data centers: Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform. 

The United Kingdom already has deemed data centers as a standalone critical infrastructure sector. Reps. Vince Fong, R-Calif., and LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., asked panel witnesses Wednesday about federal protection of them.

“Given the scrutiny that is required to make sure that those data centers are secure, there would be a benefit in having them work together as a unique coordinating council,” said Robert Mayer, senior vice president for cybersecurity and innovation at USTelecom, an industry group.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Mark Montgomery suggested a sector that combines data centers and cloud providers, given the overlap in ownership. The 2024 rewrite of a White House national security memo left some experts disappointed that it didn’t designate cloud computing as a critical infrastructure sector. 

Samuel Visner, chair of the board of directors of the Space Information Sharing and Analysis Center, said he agreed, given the role data centers are playing in the U.S. economy, military and other dependencies. “Finding a way to regard them as part of our critical infrastructure and protect them accordingly is sine qua non, absolutely necessary,” he said.

A fourth witness didn’t weigh in on the need for a separate critical infrastructure designation. But Scott Algeier, executive director of Information Technology Information Sharing and Analysis Center, said his organization had created a “special interest group” for data center providers.

“The data centers are integrated already into the critical infrastructure discussions,” he told the panel.

The post Congress, industry ponder government posture for protecting data centers appeared first on CyberScoop.

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.

The acting head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency faced pointed questions from lawmakers Wednesday over CISA personnel decisions and staffing levels.

Members of the House Homeland Security Committee asked Madhu Gottumukkala about a reported attempt to fire the agency’s chief information officer, efforts to push out a large number of staff and whether CISA had enough people to do the job.

Gottumukkala at times sidestepped the questions, with the probing coming from both sides of the aisle. However,  Democrats exhibited deeper worries about the agency’s workforce and its ability to do its job.

Cutbacks at CISA after employees were “bullied into quitting” — among other methods of reducing CISA’s size — have “weakened our defenses and left our critical systems and infrastructure more exposed, and the American people more vulnerable,” said Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va.

Said Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y.: “This committee supports the administration’s goal of aligning department [of Homeland Security] resources towards urgent homeland security priorities. At the same time, workforce continuity, clear leadership and mission readiness are essential to effective cyber defenses.”

The extent of those CISA personnel reductions was something lawmakers wanted Gottumukkala to be exact about in his answers.

The top Democrat on the panel, Mississippi’s Bennie Thompson, entered a chart into the hearing record that showed the number of personnel had fallen from 3,387 before President Donald Trump’s inauguration to 2,389 by the middle of December, or a loss of 998 people. Those figures aligned closely with the numbers Gottumukkala gave in testimony.

Under questioning from Thompson, Gottumukkala said CISA’s attrition rate was 7.5% last year, a figure he said was lower than most agencies. Gottumukkala said the agency has “the required staff” to do its work, but Thompson said he was still awaiting an expected letter from Gottumukkala on workforce needs and wanted a more precise number on current vacancies.

Gottumukkala also wouldn’t say whether the agency had carried out a study to determine whether its staffing was sufficient. In response to questions from Garbarino, Gottumukkala said there were no further planned organizational changes at CISA.

“We recognize that a disciplined mission requires the right workforce — not a larger one, but a more capable and skilled one,” Gottumukkala said in his opening remarks.

Democrats pressed Gottumukkala repeatedly on whether any CISA personnel had been reassigned to working on immigration enforcement, something he said hadn’t happened during his time at the agency, contradicting published reports to the country and a claim from Gottumukkala that Democrats said was false. The chart Thompson referenced showed 65 employees being reassigned out of CISA.

At times, GOP lawmakers gave Gottumukkala backing on CISA personnel numbers. Rep. Andy Ogles, who chairs the panel’s cybersecurity subcommittee, said, “You’re doing more with less, and you’re doing it more efficiently.” Republican appropriators recently released a homeland security funding bill that would cut CISA’s budget from nearly $3 billion to $2.6 billion.

Responding to a report that Gottumukkala had tried to force out Robert Costello, the agency’s CIO, Gottumukkala said individual agency personnel “decisions are not made in vacuum. It is a leadership-level [decision] at the highest levels, and we work according to how we see the roles fit.” 

Garbarino told reporters after the hearing that “ I don’t know whose decision it is making that personnel [move], but it was stopped, which is probably a good thing.”

Asked about a news story that he failed a counterintelligence polygraph test, Gottumukkala said that “I do not accept the premise of that characterization,” and any answer would have to be discussed in a closed hearing. Garbarino said he hoped an investigation into the polygraph incident would be settled soon.

Democrats repeatedly expressed frustration about Gottumukkala’s testimony. “You’ve managed to answer none of my questions,” Walkinshaw said.

Gottumukkala wouldn’t take questions from reporters after the hearing.

The post Lawmakers probe CISA leader over staffing decisions 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.