Trump Still Hasn’t Gotten Around to Appointing Someone to Protect Our Elections From Cyberattacks

The National Protection and Programs Directorate remains leaderless 10 months after Trump promised to get cybersecurity personnel in place.

Chip Somodevilla/CNP/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On January 6, after intelligence agencies briefed Donald Trump on cyberattacks against the United States during the election, he pledged to “appoint a team to give [him] a plan within 90 days of taking office.” Ten months later, Trump not only lacks that cybersecurity plan, he doesn’t even have the team.

The president has still not nominated anyone for arguably the most important cybersecurity job in the government, Homeland Security undersecretary running the department’s National Protection and Programs Directorate, which oversees private and public networks in the United States. Trump has also failed to nominate a new chief for the entire department since former DHS Secretary John Kelly left to become White House chief of staff. Kelly’s former job is among nine out of 14 top DHS posts that currently are filled by acting officials or remain vacant.

Trumps refusal to accept the conclusion of American intelligence agencies that Russia used cyberattacks to help him win the presidential election has of course gained wide notice. But critics say his head-in the-sand stance has more quietly hamstrung his entire his entire administration, impeding government-wide efforts to prepare for expected meddling by Russian hackers and others in the 2018 midterm elections. 

On Wednesday, Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, will hold a news conference where they’re expected to lambast the White House for its refusal to prepare for intrusions in upcoming elections. A Warner aide says the senator “plans to highlight the urgency of the threat to state elections systems and the administration’s failure to lead.”

Homeland Security veterans say the lack of senior staff at DHS leaves the department hard-pressed to keep up with daily cyberattacks on federal agencies and businesses, let alone beef up cyber defenses. “When you’re pushing out new policies, not having people in place really slows it down,” James Norton, a former deputy assistant secretary at DHS under President George W. Bush and head of cybersecurity consulting firm Play-Action Strategies, tells Mother Jones.

Former DHS officials describe Trump’s failure to pick a head of National Protection and Programs Directorate as particularly problematic for efforts to combat electoral intrusions. “The dynamic nature of the cyber threat requires an agile defense able to quickly move in a new direction,” Suzanne Spaulding, who headed the office under President Obama, says in an email. “The administration needs to name a nominee to head the directorate at DHS responsible for protecting critical infrastructure like elections from cyber and physical threats.”

Trump in May did issue executive orders related to cybersecurity, but those mostly amounted to continuing Obama-era policies and requiring that DHS, along with other departments, produce reports on a dozen cybersecurity-related matters. For instance, DHS and the Energy Department were supposed to report within 90 days on the “resilience of the electric grid” against cyberattacks. DHS declined to say how many of the reports are done. None have been made public.

In August, members of National Infrastructure Advisory Council, which is supposed to advise DHS on issues including cybersecurity, quit, citing among their concerns Trump’s failure to take that issue seriously. “You have given insufficient attention to the growing threats to the cybersecurity of the critical systems upon which all Americans depend, including those impacting the systems supporting our democratic election process,” the members wrote in a joint resignation letter posted by NextGov.

DHS relations with state officials who oversee local election processes have become strained over the election hacking issue. Some secretaries of state bristled at the department’s “critical infrastructure” designation for local voting systems, which includes enhanced federal oversight of the voting facilities. Some conservative state officials have accused the agency of attempting to take over local voting processes. States and members of Congress also blasted the agency last month for waiting 10 months to officially inform 21 states that hackers targeted their election systems in 2016. Senior, Senate-confirmed leaders that the department now lacks would be crucial players in helping navigate touchy political issues like these, department veterans say.

Noah Kroloff, a partner at security consulting firm GSIS who previously served as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff, says that notices like the October 7, 2016, statement DHS and the National Intelligence Director released warning of Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election—a key example of how DHS deals with foreign interference—would be far harder without a permanent undersecretary overseeing cybersecurity. “It’s tremendously important,” he says. “It’s critical to have leadership there.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate