A year after the beginning of the second Trump administration, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) finds itself facing uncertain terrain. With an environment marked by significant departures and internal challenges, the agency’s capacity to execute many of its core cybersecurity functions has been weakened. As a result, both private and public stakeholders are expressing concerns about the nation’s ability to respond to evolving cyber threats. The federal cybersecurity workforce now operates with an acute awareness that its own institutional stability is under pressure, further intensifying anxieties across sectors reliant on its expertise.
Reports from prior years frequently described CISA as a rapidly growing and influential presence, especially after 2018 when it ramped up federal coordination on cybersecurity threats. Earlier assessments painted a picture of robust partnerships with industry, ambitious programs targeting emerging risks, and an expanding legislative foundation. However, the most recent developments, including high-profile dismissals and cutbacks, signal an inflection point where program continuity and experienced personnel have been severely tested. Many observers now see a departure from that era of optimism, noting today’s diminished engagement and operational hurdles.
How Has Staffing and Program Loss Impacted CISA?
The agency has lost approximately a third of its staff over the last year, according to sources within and outside CISA. Several divisions have closed, with entire teams devoted to election security and industry collaboration folding. This downsizing comes as Congress fails to approve the administration’s nominee, Sean Plankey, for permanent agency leadership, creating a protracted period of uncertainty. With the absence of senior personnel and reduction in programs like secure-by-design and threat-hunting, stakeholders describe a void in federal cyber response.
Who Bears Responsibility for CISA’s Current Difficulties?
Blame is divided between the administration and Congress. The Trump administration’s cool stance toward the agency, especially after CISA contradicted election fraud claims, has resulted in lower prioritization and limited resources. Congressional inaction in confirming new leadership and funding key initiatives has only magnified these problems. Some current and former officials argue the agency’s internal reorganization has been haphazard, with neither Congress nor executive leadership providing the direction required to stabilize operations.
Can CISA Still Deliver Its Mandate Effectively?
Industry partners and government entities report eroded trust and less consistent engagement with CISA. Many critical infrastructure partners now turn to external consultants or other agencies instead of the federal agency once seen as the primary coordinator for cybersecurity. As one senior official stated in the context of regional partnerships, “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.” Questions persist about CISA’s readiness to respond to major incidents, especially without sufficient manpower or clear leadership.
Despite the turbulence, CISA maintains that its mission endures. In an official statement, Acting Director Madhu Gottumukkala asserted,
“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.”
Further emphasizing future priorities, he added,
“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.”
Nevertheless, multiple observers point out that the volume and effectiveness of CISA’s outputs are not on par with earlier years, even as the agency highlights continued incident reporting and ongoing federal network defense.
Going forward, CISA’s ability to restore morale, fill staffing gaps, and regain stakeholder trust appears to depend fundamentally on securing confirmed leadership and dedicated resources. A Senate-confirmed director and a targeted hiring strategy in key technical domains may help reverse the loss of capacity. For industry and government partners, clear points of contact and streamlined collaboration channels are vital for restoring the agency’s coordinating function. The broader context of a competitive labor market and frequent administrative shifts will continue to shape CISA’s prospects. Agency resilience in the face of leadership disruptions is critical, particularly as evolving digital risks demand robust, centralized coordination. For professionals in the field and organizations relying on federal cybersecurity guidance, monitoring CISA’s structural recovery and future engagement will be important for anticipating shifts in cyber risk management at the national level.
