The Trump administration guts cyber security, favors Russia, endangering national defense,update 5/14/2025

 One of the most puzzling effects of Musk and Trump is the damage they are doing to national security in defending us against cyber attacks from our adversaries in national defense issues. The administration has gutted the cybersecurity agencies charged with protecting us and favored Russia.  Why? There are some theories, but leaving those aside, the practical impact is setting off alarm bells.Update 5/14/2025 And while they are at it, the Trump administration just fired its top CIA analysts because they reported findings Trump did not want to hear: Tulsi Gabbard fires top officials citing intelligence politicization

 From a recent Politico newsletter:

“This administration is unilaterally disarming in the midst of an attack,” argued Sen. ANGUS KING (I-Maine), a member of both the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services panels."

 "There’s no national cyber director or CISA director in place, and oversight of cybersecurity on the National Security Council has been downgraded to a senior director position from a deputy national security advisor under the Biden administration. In addition, the Trump administration directed Cyber Command to stand down operations against Russia — traditionally one of the key adversaries to the U.S. in cyberspace.  https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2025/04/10/cyber-threats-abound-as-trump-guts-cyber-agencies-00284735

Cybersecurity as a national security issue raised by politicians has mostly focused on Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's disregard for it as he used hackable, commercially available Signal to disclose what should be secret plans or immediate attacks on the Houthis to a reporter and family members. That is not the worst of it; the entire destruction of national security interests has a far greater impact on the United States.  The media is focusing on one tree while the forest around it is on fire. 

Two critical agencies supporting cyber national security have received funding cuts and demotions in importance. CSIS and CISA.  Per Google AI: The key difference between CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) and CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) lies in their roles and objectives. CISA is a US government agency focused on cybersecurity and infrastructure protection. CSIS is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization providing insights and analysis on national security and international affairs.

 https://www.wired.com/story/cve-program-cisa-funding-chaos/CSIS  Both suffer cuts in funding. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/03/11/trump-administration-halts-funding-for-two-cybersecurity-efforts-including-one-for-elections

https://www.wired.com/story/cve-program-cisa-funding-chaos/

 One example of a role cybersecurity can play as a weapon adversaries can use  in undermining security:https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/inside-new-security-threats-in-the-skies?srsltid=AfmBOopl8MNRLZ6KJK-GNvESr0K49TMGpfn8Ox2bs5MH71IX9EgytXxZ

Another example of how cybersecurity and space warfare can harm national security from , one of the agencies getting gutted in the first 100 days of the Trump regime. https://www.csis.org/analysis/space-and-cyber-warfare-

For an excellent example of how cyber security works and hacks can be detected, a whistleblower detailed in his agency of how the DOGE kids may have done it. Whistleblower details how DOGE may have taken sensitive NLRB data : NPR

What is wrong with "America First" and isolationism? It depends; updated 9/9/23

Updated 9 6 2023 Reopening the issue: Bracing for Trump 2.0: His Possible Return Inspires Fear in America’s Allies—and Hope in Its Rivals (foreignaffairs.com)

Continuing with the original post but updated 9/9/2023 

So what's wrong with "America first" and isolationism.  It depends if we are talking about national defense or economic interests.  Sometimes, they cannot be separated.  Trade and military might have been partners throughout history,  with the military either used to preserve trade routes or to expand them. When it comes to national defense and security, isolationist policies shoot us in our own feet by making America alone, not first, with defense all on our own dime and blood. Acting isolationist does not make us isolated; it makes us a target, naive and unprepared in a very interconnected world with predators ready to fill vacuums left by those who withdraw. The power-hungry love vacuums. It is low-hanging fruit for them, and China and Russia are prepared, ready, and able to fill that vacuum America gifts them. The ability to look out after US national interests in a world in which there are powerful adversaries depends upon having a seat at the table and, better still, serving as the chairman of a powerful caucus of like-minded allies.  Isolationists would leave these seats vacant to be filled by those who have no interest in supporting US national interests. Biden attending the G20 and meeting with Modi of India in advance exemplify how involvement serves US national security interests. G-20 Summit: US says India is disappointed Xi and Putin aren't attending G-20, but Biden sees it as an opportunity | CNN Politics

 History is full of examples of how isolationism as a defense strategy failed. The most famous and instructive happened within the lifetime of some of us still living. For us, it is not history but an experience. It has shaped my view of the value of strong alliances and a disdain for isolationism. More than that: I consider those who embrace isolationism to be fools.   If America was not an isolated island at the beginning of World War II, it is even more interconnected now. Even then, eventually even in 1941, we realized isolationism was no longer in our national security interests. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Fortress America did not make America great, but it made us vulnerable because our national interests extended way beyond our shores.  If we have seen that movie before, a replay will certainly be even more likely in this current era where we are now far more entwined economically and nationally security-wise in the rest of the world than in 1938-1941. This is true both in trade and in defense where alliances give us more boots on the ground. ships at sea and airpower above. Giving that up or crippling it by empowering these isolationists puts us in grave danger of losing control to determine our own destiny. We would be confirming our weakness and lack of resolve to influence events. We would be left to defend our own borders, and we know how difficult that is, don't we? We would then be at the mercy of both China or a reinvigorated Russian empire to be the pipers calling the tune to which we must dance. They are not our friends, and they will continue to build their empires until they cannot.  Always the threat of nuclear blackmail would be used to continue to keep us in line. Like the days before nuclear arms agreements (now trashed by Putin and the Iran version trashed by Trump)), the only brake on who pulls the nuclear trigger first is the fear of mutually assured self-destruction.  I do not want to even think about how that movie ends.

On the other hand, there is an advantage to decreasing dependence on manufacturing abroad, both positive impacts: increasing domestic job creation and in sectors related to national defense.  From the consumer viewpoint, we have benefitted from cheap imports from China. There is a balancing act there, and it is sometimes difficult to separate consumer advantages from national security in trade issues. Protecting trade routes and markets has always been a national security goal. We are beginning to tackle the problem by banning Tic Toc as a popular internet app that also benefits Chinese national security interests while damaging ours. Computer chips are fundamental to the operating armaments of both militaries, and we had given our domestic production to China. Cybersecurity is now a top security and economic worry, affecting both the private and national security sectors.  While we are already so entwined with China and trade in our economies, there is strong bi-partisan agreement that we should become less dependent on China for manufacturing. Trump's answer: raise trade barriers by imposing duties. That never worked partially due to Covid, but Biden's build-back better plan is just getting off the ground, and the chips act was the first initiative. The horse has already escaped from the barn when it comes to China stealing US trade secrets and academic research.  Closing the barn door in the future is problematic since industrial espionage is an international sport.

We are on the brink of conflict with China which is more adversarial than just trade and economic competition. China is threatening to supply Russia with weapons and military equipment to help them with their invasion of Ukraine.  This complicates our trade policies since we are so tied to China that sanctions to deter them could hurt us more than it hurts them.  US leverage on China over stopping an unholy alliance with Russia has been a thorny problem, sometimes successful and sometimes not, from the beginning of the Cold War until the current era.  Biden's wisdom and experience will count as never before in shaping US policy in this newest crisis.

America First Political Action Conference - Wikipedia