Muslim World Report

U.S. Cybersecurity Erodes as Internal Strife Grows in Pentagon

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 23, 2025 9:36 PM | 6 min read | 1214 words

TL;DR: U.S. cybersecurity is eroding due to neglect and internal dissent within the Pentagon. The fragility of digital infrastructures poses risks both domestically and internationally. Immediate action is necessary to revitalize cybersecurity frameworks, hold leaders accountable, and ensure national and global security.

Inside Job: The Dismantling of U.S. Cybersecurity Under Trump’s Administration

In recent months, the fragility of U.S. cybersecurity has come under intense scrutiny, raising significant concerns about the integrity and security of the digital infrastructures that underpin both national and global systems. Jen Easterly, former Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), has sounded alarms regarding the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database—a crucial resource for identifying security flaws (Easterly, 2022).

The challenges faced by the CVE system since the Trump administration reflect a broader trend of willful neglect of cybersecurity, exacerbated by drastic budget cuts and staffing reductions. Under the misguided leadership of Trump and his tech-savvy advisers, including those from Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the foundational structures safeguarding digital security for the past 25 years are being dismantled from within.

Global Ramifications of Internal Neglect

The ramifications of these decisions extend far beyond U.S. borders, impacting global cybersecurity standards and practices. Key points include:

  • Adversaries like Russia and China are poised to exploit these vulnerabilities.
  • Delays in renewing the MITRE CVE contract exemplify a troubling trend where political expediency consistently trumps urgent cybersecurity needs (Kello, 2013).
  • The withdrawal of essential security measures, including multi-factor authentication and proactive monitoring tools, leaves federal agencies increasingly susceptible to cyber intrusions.

The decision to disable monitoring and logging tools at agencies, ostensibly to avoid tracking, is particularly alarming. This leaves the government vulnerable not only to external attacks but also to internal mismanagement, representing a clear dereliction of duty in national security.

The Profound Implications of Cyber Lapses

The implications of these lapses are profound:

  • Cyberattacks can disrupt essential services, lead to the compromise of sensitive data, and jeopardize national security.
  • Public awareness and action are paramount to counter these vulnerabilities, as they threaten the integrity of U.S. institutions and create an environment where adversarial states operate with impunity.

The Urgency of Preparedness: Analyzing ‘What If’ Scenarios

What If the U.S. Suffers a Major Cyberattack?

A significant cyberattack on U.S. infrastructure could lead to catastrophic consequences. Possible fallout includes:

  • Widespread chaos impacting critical sectors such as government operations, healthcare, transportation, and finance.
  • Compromised personal and public data, leading to rapid erosion of trust in government institutions.
  • Potential emergency measures infringing on civil liberties, such as heightened surveillance (Bhusal et al., 2020).

Additionally, the economic toll could be staggering. Financial market disruptions could result in billions of dollars in losses, undermining global confidence in U.S. economic stability. The specter of retaliation looms large; if the U.S. were to respond militarily, it would navigate a treacherous path of potential escalation.

What If Internal Dissent Within the Pentagon Escalates?

The ongoing tensions within the Pentagon pose another critical concern. Recent threats from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth towards military officials who criticize his leadership create a volatile atmosphere. Should this internal dissent escalate, it could precipitate a leadership crisis at the highest levels of the Department of Defense (DoD). Key implications include:

  • Impaired decision-making processes and hindered military operational capabilities.
  • Significant undermining of the credibility of the U.S. military.
  • Potential legal actions against dissenting military officials could exacerbate the situation, stifling constructive criticism.

What If Global Cybersecurity Standards Evolve Without U.S. Leadership?

The current trajectory of U.S. cybersecurity policies raises the alarming possibility that global cybersecurity standards could evolve in a manner marginalizing U.S. influence. As the U.S. steps back from its role as a cyber leader, other nations may seek alternative frameworks and alliances, contributing to:

  • A fragmented global cybersecurity landscape.
  • Increased vulnerabilities and cyberattacks as countries establish norms not aligned with U.S. standards (Zhang, 2004).

Maintaining a leadership role in cybersecurity is essential for the United States. Engaging in multilateral discussions and strengthening alliances should be prioritized to mitigate risks associated with this fragmentation.

The State of Cybersecurity and Internal Governance

The challenges faced by the U.S. cybersecurity framework are exacerbated by internal governance issues, specifically within the Pentagon. Disruptions and dissent within military leadership complicate operational readiness and foster a resistance to innovation and improvement.

Leadership and Accountability Challenges

The troubling trend of internal dissent within the Pentagon raises questions about leadership effectiveness. Secretary Hegseth’s alarming rhetoric towards military officials who voice concerns trains a narrative of control rather than collaboration. This risk stifles honest feedback and accountability, resulting in strategic blind spots regarding emerging threats.

Should military officials feel compelled to suppress their concerns for fear of retribution, critical issues may remain unaddressed, ultimately compromising operational effectiveness. The ramifications of escalating dissent extend beyond the military itself, impacting national security policy and the U.S.’s ability to project power globally.

Revitalizing Cybersecurity Infrastructure

Given the alarming prospects outlined above, immediate attention must be directed toward revitalizing U.S. cybersecurity infrastructure. Prioritizing funding and staffing for CISA and the CVE database is crucial. To achieve this revitalization, the U.S. must:

  • Empower agencies to implement rigorous cybersecurity measures, including:
    • Multi-factor authentication
    • Advanced threat detection systems
    • Comprehensive risk assessment protocols

Public-private partnerships should also be strengthened to enhance overall cybersecurity posture collectively, fostering a culture of shared responsibility.

Internally, the Pentagon must address discord among military leadership. Leaders like Secretary Hegseth should work toward rebuilding trust and open channels of communication with military officials. Establishing independent oversight committees can ensure that checks and balances are upheld.

Engaging Internationally

International collaboration is a cornerstone of effective cybersecurity. The U.S. must engage with allies and global partners to forge a unified approach to cybersecurity challenges, which involves:

  • Active participation in multilateral discussions.
  • Proactive involvement in shaping global standards.

By collaborating with allies, the U.S. can bolster collective security measures and effectively deter potential cyber threats.

Conclusion: The Call to Action

The current landscape of U.S. cybersecurity and military leadership necessitates immediate and strategic attention. Stakeholders must take decisive actions to safeguard national security interests and reinforce the foundational principles of trust and accountability. The time for robust cybersecurity measures and accountability within the government is now; the stakes are too high, and the implications too far-reaching to ignore.

References

  • Ashok, A., Govindarasu, M., & Wang, J. (2017). Cyber-Physical Attack-Resilient Wide-Area Monitoring, Protection, and Control for the Power Grid. Proceedings of the IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/jproc.2017.2686394
  • Bhusal, N., Abdelmalak, M., Kamruzzaman, M., & Benidris, M. (2020). Power System Resilience: Current Practices, Challenges, and Future Directions. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2968586
  • Easterly, J. (2022). Testimony on Cybersecurity Challenges Facing America. Cybersecurity & Infrastructural Security Agency.
  • Gangadharan, S. P. (2015). The downside of digital inclusion: Expectations and experiences of privacy and surveillance among marginal Internet users. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815614053
  • Kamisetty, A. (2024). The Role of Cybersecurity in Safeguarding Cross-Border E-Commerce and Economic Growth. Asian Business Review. https://doi.org/10.18034/abr.v14i2.739
  • Kello, L. (2013). The Meaning of the Cyber Revolution: Perils to Theory and Statecraft. International Security. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00138
  • Lindsay, J. R. (2015). The Impact of China on Cybersecurity: Fiction and Friction. International Security. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00189
  • Peña Gangadharan, S. (2015). The downside of digital inclusion: Expectations and experiences of privacy and surveillance among marginal Internet users. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815614053
  • Zhang, J. (2004). Application and Research on CVE Vulnerability Database. Harbin Ligong Daxue xuebao.
← Prev Next →