“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.

Another Department of Homeland Security shutdown would hamper the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s ability to respond to threats, offer services, develop new capabilities and finish writing a key regulation, its acting director told Congress Wednesday.

Some of those activities would continue on a limited basis, while others would halt entirely, acting CISA leader Madhu Gottumukkala testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

“A lapse in funding would impede CISA’s ability to perform … good work,” he told the panel. “When the government shuts down, our adversaries do not.”

As lawmakers held the hearing, DHS was hurtling toward another potential shutdown as Democrats and Republicans clashed over Trump administration immigration policies and enforcement, with a focus most recently on the massive influx of DHS officers in Minneapolis, where those officers have killed multiple U.S. citizens.

Republicans said at the hearing the testimony should persuade Democrats to fund DHS, since its border operations are largely funded by last year’s budget reconciliation law and a shutdown would mainly harm DHS’s other agencies. Democrats said the hearing was “for show,” as they have put forward proposals to fund the rest of DHS as the immigration debate continues — and as 90% of DHS would continue operating under a shutdown, as the panel’s top Democrat, Henry Cuellar of Texas, asserted.

Gottumukkala said CISA planned to designate 888 of its 2,341 employees as “excepted,” meaning they could continue to work during a shutdown, albeit without pay.

“We will do everything we can to meet our mission during the shutdown,” he said. “Uncertainty and those missed paychecks are a serious hardship.”

CISA has reduced its personnel by a third under the second presidency of Donald Trump.

A shutdown “would delay deploying cybersecurity services and capabilities to federal agencies, leaving significant gaps in security programs,” Gottumukkala said in his written testimony. “CISA’s capacity to provide timely and actionable guidance to help partners defend their networks would be degraded.”

There’s a divide between activities CISA could continue in some capacity versus those they would have to shutter entirely during a funding lapse, he said.

“Limited activities include responding to imminent threats, sharing timely vulnerability and incident information, maintaining our 24/7 operations center, and operating cybersecurity shared services,” Gottumukkala said. “However, CISA would not perform any strategic planning, development of cybersecurity advice and guidance, or development of new technical capabilities.”

There would likely be delays in activities like issuing binding operational directives to federal agencies or completing the already-delayed regulations stemming from the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA), the latter of which would require critical infrastructure operators to report major cyber incidents to CISA and would be paused during a shutdown, he said.

Gottumukkala’s testimony is the latest before Congress to focus on personnel at CISA. The chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., chided Gottumukkala for what he said were delays in CISA providing a reorganization plan to the panel.

“We’ve been professional. We’ve been respectful,” Amodei said. “We expect exactly the same thing in return.”

The post Acting CISA chief says DHS funding lapse would limit, halt some agency work appeared first on CyberScoop.

The federal cybersecurity system is weathering a series of crises that couldn’t have arrived at a worse time. The F5 security breach from Oct. 15, the proposed elimination of more than 1,000 jobs at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the ongoing federal government shutdown have created a perfect storm that is not only leaving critical vulnerabilities exposed across the nation’s digital infrastructure, but it’s also weakening the workforce meant to defend it.

On its own, each of these events is serious, but when combined, they are threatening to push an already strained federal cyber defense posture to its breaking point.

The F5 incident was not another routine software breach. Security researchers and federal officials have called it a nation-state–level compromise that could have a cascading impact. In this incident, a China-linked espionage group  accessed F5 source code and undisclosed vulnerabilities, gaining access to a detailed blueprint for crafting custom exploits capable of bypassing traditional defenses. Because the company’s BIG‑IP software is used by many of the world’s largest enterprises, including federal agencies, defense contractors, hospitals, and utilities, the breach has national implications.

CISA’s emergency directive ordering agencies to patch affected systems reflects the severity of the threat. It also highlights a deeper issue—federal cyber defense relies too heavily on reactive approaches that are no longer effective in battling adversaries who are moving faster, hiding deeper, and automating their attacks.

Or under normal conditions, this reactive approach would be an uphill battle. But, as most of us now know, CISA is facing potential cuts of more than 1,000 positions and funding cuts totaling nearly half a billion dollars. This includes jobs directly tied to incident response, stakeholder engagement, regional operations, and election security—the very jobs that ensure resilience across the federal, state, and local cyber ecosystem. 

The timing could not be worse. Since 2018, CISA has been the connective tissue of our national cyber defense. It links intelligence from federal agencies with state governments and private-sector partners. These massive cuts will jeopardize the entire framework that coordinates national response during cyber crises.

One area to keep an eye on is election security. The proposed cuts include 14 positions responsible for protecting election systems. These jobs are specifically focused on helping state and local officials manage ransomware threats, disinformation, and potential interference. Now, as a contentious election year looms, these risks are escalating due to the growth in AI-driven misinformation and deepfake-based social engineering campaigns. Reducing federal support now creates a serious national security vulnerability.

By furloughing employees, halting procurement, and delaying guidance, agencies are operating with skeleton crews and depleted morale. For nation-state operators, this expanding attack surface and declining oversight are creating a huge window of opportunity.

The personal toll on federal cybersecurity professionals cannot be overstated.

Federal cybersecurity professionals already face high burnout due to intense operational demands. The ongoing exodus during the shutdown means that valuable institutional knowledge is being lost as experienced experts depart. This comes at a time when there is already a severe shortage of cybersecurity workers in the government sector. Recruiting them back will be difficult, especially as many are likely to pursue more stable opportunities elsewhere.

The time to react is now

These overlapping crises reveal a fundamental problem: the United States relies on a reactive cybersecurity approach built for a slower, more predictable past—not today’s rapidly evolving threat landscape. With sophisticated attacks now driven by persistent nation-states, supply chain vulnerabilities, and automated exploits, we need to prioritize prevention over mere response. While patching vulnerabilities and conducting forensic investigations after incidents remain important, they can no longer be the foundation of our national cyber defense.

 A prevention-first strategy focuses on reducing the initial attack surface, spotting anomalies before they escalate into breaches, and designing resilience directly into our systems. This shift also requires treating cyber readiness as a critical workforce and policy issue—not just a technical one. Federal defenders need stable resources, ongoing training, and consistent policies to stay effective. Cybersecurity cannot be managed as a discretionary budget line that fluctuates with political cycles.

For policymakers, the key lesson is that true cyber resilience requires both sustained capacity and continuity—not just the latest technology. An understaffed or demoralized cyber workforce cannot defend an expanding digital landscape. Meanwhile, the private sector must prepare to operate more independently, especially during government shutdowns. This means investing in preventative security measures, strengthening identity and supply chain protections, and ensuring communication channels remain open even if federal support is temporarily reduced.

As private organizations become more proactive, the federal government must also move beyond outdated cybersecurity practices, fragmented funding, and inconsistent standards. The recent F5 incident highlighted that when crucial parts of our digital infrastructure are compromised, no single agency can manage the consequences alone.

The perfect time to reset

The convergence of the F5 breach, CISA workforce cuts, and the ongoing shutdown exposes the fragility of the country’s cybersecurity approach. But let’s pause and look at the positive side of things. These events offer an opportunity to reset our defenses by moving beyond post-incident response and toward strengthening prevention, stabilizing the workforce, and ensuring interagency collaboration can continue even under fiscal strain.

Resilience must start before the breach, not after. To withstand the next wave of nation-state and supply chain attacks, the U.S. must treat cybersecurity as a readiness discipline built on prevention, continuity, and people. The perfect storm is still avoidable—but only if action replaces complacency. Time is running out.

Brad LaPorte is the Chief Marketing Officer at Morphisec.

The post How the F5 breach, CISA job cuts, and a government shutdown are eroding U.S. cyber readiness appeared first on CyberScoop.