Cyber Sessions: Shift in national strategy is becoming troublesome

To read this article and get more critically important news and information, check out our other security-focused posts  and subscribe to Providence Business News on their website, www.pbn.com

As a cybersecurity and technology executive, I spend my days analyzing the complex dance between cyber attackers and defenders. I’ve also spent years weighing in on these shifts on my podcast, Business Security Weekly, with some of the best professionals in the world. In that time, I’ve seen the landscape shift at an unbelievable speed.

But lately, our national cyber strategy seems to be changing in a direction that is beginning to concern me.

And while change isn’t inherently bad, the nature of these changes warrants a clear-eyed evaluation that is nonpartisan and balances potential upsides against some deeply troubling risks. Our collective cyber resilience depends on an understanding of the dynamics.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Cybercrime isn’t a theoretical concept; it’s a clear and present danger projected to cost our global economy $10.5 trillion annually this year. Any disruptive government policy shift can have immediate consequences for our businesses, our critical infrastructure and our national security.

Possibly the most troublesome news is the proposed overhaul and significant budget cuts at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA. Recent reports indicated potential job cuts as high as 1,300. CISA faces a 17% budget cut and this follows the removal of key leaders at the U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency.  

CISA has become the central hub for public-private collaboration, threat information sharing and operational guidance for critical infrastructure. The Trump administration frames the changes as necessary streamlining, aiming to keep CISA laser-focused on its core cybersecurity and infrastructure security missions. In theory, a more-focused agency could be more agile. But the overwhelming consensus among seasoned experts is one of concern. Will these changes make it more difficult for CISA to carry out its missions? Could the cuts destabilize critical infrastructure and businesses?

In March, an executive order on the national resilience strategy represents a significant philosophical shift, moving responsibility for cyber defense to state and local governments. The administration argues that this empowers communities to address specific risks with “common sense” and localized investments. But cybersecurity is rarely a purely local problem. Nation-state actors and sophisticated criminal syndicates don’t see state borders. A strong defense depends on centralized intelligence gathering, resource pooling and coordinated responses. These are functions that have been led by federal agencies such as CISA and the FBI. Picture a small Rhode Island town being left on its own to navigate the complexity of cyber risk. While there’s an appealing logic to local control, we know the challenges that local communities face with budgets and staffing.

Not every decision lacks potential merit on paper. In late March, the administration extended the longstanding national emergency concerning malicious cyber-enabled activities. And some initiatives aim to modernize and streamline the notoriously burdensome processes for cloud vendors seeking federal authorization. If implemented carefully, this could streamline the adoption of secure cloud technologies in government. The emphasis on a “risk-informed” approach for infrastructure could lead to more focused investments as long as the risk assessments are robust, objective and adequately resourced.  

But do these potential efficiencies outweigh the risks created elsewhere?

While the stated goals of efficiency, local empowerment and a strong defense posture resonate with many, the unintended consequences risk undermining the resilience they claim to support.

As a nation, we cannot afford inconsistency or fragmentation in our cyber defenses. Resilience is built on collaboration, trust, transparency, adequate resources, and a clear, steady national strategy that empowers all levels of government and the private sector.

The front line of the digital warzone is constantly shifting, and the threats are evolving rapidly. We must ensure our national strategy evolves intelligently, strengthening our collective resilience rather than inadvertently weakening it.