Connect with us

Politics

Cyber Command adapts to realities of constant digital conflict

Published

3 months ago

on

What: The creation of U.S. Cyber Command
When: CYBERCOM was created as a sub-unified command in 2009, but its origins can be traced back to the 1980s.
Why it matters: CYBERCOM is in charge of protecting DoD’s information systems and supporting the nation’s efforts to defend critical infrastructure from major cyber threats — its creation allowed the Defense Department to unify cyber operations and strengthen its cyber capabilities.
To celebrate our 25th anniversary in 2025, we’re spotlighting 25 pivotal moments that reshaped the way the government operates. Visit our anniversary page each week as we look back on these defining moments.

The story of U.S. Cyber Command doesn’t start in 2009 when it was formally established as a sub–unified command in 2009. The story really starts in the late 1980s when the first documented cases of cyber-espionage occurred during the early days of the internet.

In 1986, a systems administrator at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory named Clifford Stoll uncovered a Soviet-backed hacking campaign targeting U.S military and research networks — a case he famously documented in The Cuckoo’s Egg. Two years later, the Morris Worm swept through the internet, but it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the Defense Department began to reckon with the strategic implications of the emerging threat environment.

In 1997, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ran an exercise called Eligible Receiver 97, in which NSA red team hackers demonstrated they could easily disrupt military systems and civilian infrastructure. Months later, the DoD created the Joint Task Force–Computer Network Defense (JTF-CND), laying the groundwork for what would eventually result in the establishment of Cyber Command a decade later.

“We’ve been grappling with the insecurity of cyberspace since we’ve been leveraging cyberspace,  but we got to a point in the late 2000s where we recognized that the operational reality was sort of constant, or what we call persistent engagement now,” Richard Harknett, director of the center for cyber strategy and policy at the University of Cincinnati, told Federal News Network. “There was also this sort of perceptual reality that emerged, which was, ‘Oh, you could do big things in cyber.’ What happens if we mess around with electric grids and big critical infrastructure? So there was this operational reality, which was more about day-to-day exploitation. And then there was this perception of the reality that something really bad could happen and we need to get ourselves organized for this.”

The early days of Cyber Command were shaped by the perception that a massive, devastating digital attack could occur. 

The natural inclination early on was to think about cyberspace and cyber deterrence just like the U.S. thought about the nuclear strategic environment and nuclear deterrence. 

“We were thinking about it in a war context and so there was this default to how do we deal with war? We try to deter it,” Harknett said.

This perception was reinforced by the organizational structure of Cyber Command, which was placed under U.S. Strategic Command, the country’s nuclear command. So much of the early thinking about cyber operations revolved around how to deter war, rather than how to operate effectively in a constantly contested digital environment. But the threat wasn’t a “Cyber Pearl Harbor” as much as a persistent campaign of probing and exploiting networks across the federal government, defense industrial base, and critical infrastructure.

“We had a gap early on between the strategic view of cyber and the operational reality that Cyber Command and its capabilities were having to deal with,” Harknett said. “We have to actually, in my view, stop talking about cyber offense, cyber defense, and talk about cyber operations and cyber campaigns. They have both effects. They can have defensive effects, they can have offensive effects.”

The shift came with the “defend forward” and “persistent engagement” concepts, which were publicly announced in 2018 as part of a broader shift in U.S. cyber strategy. That meant moving Cyber Command from a reactive force right to a persistent force. 

“To be persistent is to be, as [Gen. Paul Nakasone] noted, not reactive. It is about being proactive, but being proactive is not ipso facto offense. You don’t have to disrupt and destroy in order to set and reset this cyber architecture in a way that favors you and disfavors your opponents. That’s the whole notion of cyber campaigning. This is the cyber part of the fight, that you’re in continuous motion, and you’re going to move laterally, you’re going to move back and forward. It’s a better way of thinking about this space than this legacy, ‘Let’s go on the offense,’” Harknett said.

Recognizing that cyberspace had become vital to national security, Cyber Command was elevated to a unified combatant command in 2018. Between 2018 and 2020 the command received expanded presidential authorities to allow it to operate more proactively and persistently in cyberspace. 

But having the legal authority to act and fully using those authorities are not the same, Harknett said. The Biden administration embraced the “defend forward” and “persistent engagement” notions, sometimes referring to them as “disruption campaigns.” Still, an open question remains around how rigorously these strategies have been implemented, how many bureaucratic or legal hurdles remain in place, and whether the operational tempo matches the intent behind the strategy.

One sign of progress is the increasing regularization of “hunt forward” operations, where Cyber Command deploys teams to allied nations to detect, expose and disrupt adversary malware on partner networks. 

“We’re early in this and only a few years operating under authorities that are less reactive and more proactive. I think it’s a matter of understanding that we’re evolving to the space, in part my own view is that we’re catching up to some of our cyber adversaries who have been operating in this manner a lot longer than we have. I think the trend line is that operational reality and that strict perception of the strategy — that gap is closing. We’re starting to understand why our adversaries are below the threshold of armed conflict is because they can strategically gain in that space,” Harknett said.

Cyber Command 2.0

With the strategy in place, the command now needs to align its organizational structure, capabilities and partnerships to that “constant fight.”

“Cyber, you just can’t quit. You don’t have any time. You don’t have any day that you can take off. And so we have legacy organizational artifacts that need to evolve. That’s partly the relationships with the services. It’s partly in terms of how you develop capabilities, and how you fund,” Harknett said.

That’s what is expected to come from an extensive examination dubbed “Cyber Command 2.0” — the review is meant to address the command’s longstanding readiness and personnel challenges.

For now, the initiative’s four main efforts include a new force generation model for how each service provides cyber forces to CYBERCOM, an advanced training and education center to ensure forces have the training needed when arriving to their units, a talent management model, and a cyber innovation warfare center.

Separate Cyber Force?

Meanwhile, the debate over establishing a separate Cyber Force continues  — the fiscal 2025 defense bill requires the Defense Department conduct an “evaluation of alternative organizational models for the cyber forces of the Armed Forces.” The bill, however, does not include a due date for the study.

Pentagon leaders have largely rejected the idea of a separate cyber branch, but proponents of the idea argue that fixing the nation’s cyber force generation system “demands nothing less than the establishment of an independent cyber service.”

“The inefficient division of labor between the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps prevents the generation of a cyber force ready to carry out its mission. Recruitment suffers because cyber operations are not a top priority for any of the services, and incentives for new recruits vary wildly. The services do not coordinate to ensure that trainees acquire a consistent set of skills or that their skills correspond to the roles they will ultimately fulfill at CYBERCOM,” the Foundation for Defense of Democracies report report reads. 

“Resolving these issues requires the creation of a new independent armed service — a U.S. Cyber Force — alongside the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force,” Mark Montgomery, a retired Navy rear admiral, and Erica Lonergan, an assistant professor at Columbia University, said in the report.

The post Cyber Command adapts to realities of constant digital conflict first appeared on Federal News Network.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

RFK Jr. Drops a Mega Bombshell on mRNA Vaccine Technology (VIDEO)

Published

8 hours ago

on

August 6, 2025

By

This article originally appeared on vigilantfox.com and was republished with permission.

In a move that many were hoping for but were not expecting, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy just announced that BARDA will be CANCELING 22 mRNA vaccine development contracts, saving taxpayers about $500 million in the process.

This move delivered a major blow to the biomedical industrial complex, which was hoping to make an mRNA vaccine for just about every disease imaginable.


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/foxs-video-aug-5-2025-veed-3.mp4

The reason for this move is grounded in what happened during the COVID debacle, which Kennedy explained in detail.

First, he shared how “mRNA vaccines don’t perform well against viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract.”

“mRNA only codes for a small part of the viral proteins, usually a single antigen. One mutation, and the vaccine becomes INEFFECTIVE,” Kennedy said.

The next revelation was a big surprise.

Kennedy confirmed that the COVID shots could have CAUSED the mutations and EXTENDED the pandemic altogether.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/foxs-video-aug-5-2025-veed-3.mp4

He explained:

“The [mRNA] vaccine [platform] paradoxically encourages new mutations and can actually prolong pandemics. As the virus constantly mutates to escape the protective effects of the vaccine, millions of people, maybe even you or someone you know, caught the Omicron variant despite being vaccinated. That’s because a single mutation can make mRNA vaccines ineffective.”

Kennedy’s comments echo what vaccinologist Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche and the “conspiracy theorists” have been saying for the better part of four years now.

He warned, “You are generating a breeding ground for even more infectious variants to replicate” when you vaccinate DURING a pandemic.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/video_2025-08-05_18-40-51.mp4

With the conclusion that mRNA shots are ineffective against respiratory viruses, prolong pandemics, and encourage mutations, Kennedy declared:

“mRNA technology poses MORE risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses.”

As such, Kennedy announced that BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) will be CANCELING 22 mRNA vaccine contracts, saving taxpayers “just under $500 million” in the process.

He clarified that this isn’t a complete indictment of mRNA technology across the board, but when it comes to respiratory diseases, he believes it offers no benefit to humanity.

“That’s why we’re moving beyond the limitations of mRNA for respiratory viruses and investing in better solutions,” Kennedy said.

Thanks for reading! I hope this brought you the good news you needed today.

I was banned from Twitter 1.0 three times for sharing information that Kennedy just confirmed.

Like many others, I was labeled a “conspiracy theorist.” Turns out, we were right all along.

File:TinFoilHat002.jpg - Wikimedia CommonsImage: Wikipedia Commons

Find more stories like this at VigilantFox.com

The post RFK Jr. Drops a Mega Bombshell on mRNA Vaccine Technology (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Continue Reading

Politics

Marjorie Taylor Greene Unloads on the GOP, H1B Immigration, Foreign Aid to Ukraine, Israel

Published

8 hours ago

on

August 6, 2025

By

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has publicly criticized President Donald Trump over immigration policy and foreign aid.

Greene responded to Trump’s tariff announcement on India by urging an end to H1-B visas that she claims replace American jobs. Greene also called for stopping funding and weapons to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.

Greene stated that continued U.S. funding for Kiev betrays the majority of Americans who voted to end foreign wars.

She highlighted Trump’s 2024 election win as a mandate against such involvement. The congresswoman warned that supporting these policies risks losing younger voters permanently.

On the Israel-Gaza conflict, Greene described Israel’s actions as a “genocide” and condemned the starvation in Gaza. She became the first Republican lawmaker to use this term publicly.

Greene emphasized that innocent Palestinian lives, including children and Christians, should not be devalued compared to Israeli ones.

Greene expressed surprise that more conservative colleagues have not spoken out against U.S. support for Israel’s offensive operations.

She argued that funding such wars contradicts a biblical mandate and America’s interests.

The congresswoman clarified her support for Israel’s existence while opposing involvement in its conflicts.

Trump has acknowledged the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, noting visible starvation among children despite Netanyahu’s denials.

He mentioned his wife Melania’s distress over images from the region. This marks a softening in Trump’s stance amid ongoing hostilities nearing two years.

Greene’s positions reflect broader shifts in U.S. opinion, with approval of Israel’s Gaza actions dropping to 32 percent per Gallup polls.

Republicans under 50 now view Israel more negatively than positively, according to Pew surveys.

Figures like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson have also criticized Netanyahu’s government.

The congresswoman has voiced growing frustration with the Republican Party’s direction. She questioned whether the GOP is leaving her or if she no longer relates to it.

Greene stated she does not want involvement in the party’s current course on foreign policy and spending.

3Greene warned Trump about delivering on promises like Epstein file transparency to retain base support. She referenced past divergences, including on AI policy in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” Despite these splits, Greene affirmed her commitment to America First principles.

Greene suggested her political future may not rely on party establishment backing. She expressed confidence in winning support from Georgia voters independently. However, the congresswoman indicated no plans for higher office in 2026.

The post Marjorie Taylor Greene Unloads on the GOP, H1B Immigration, Foreign Aid to Ukraine, Israel appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Continue Reading

Politics

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Files Emergency Petition with Supreme Court to REMOVE Democrat Ringleader Who Fled State to Obstruct Redistricting Vote

Published

8 hours ago

on

August 6, 2025

By

State Rep. Gene Wu

Governor Greg Abbott has officially filed an emergency writ of quo warranto with the Texas Supreme Court, seeking the removal of far-left Democrat State Representative Gene Wu from office for abandoning his constitutional duties and fleeing the state in a premeditated scheme to block a GOP-led vote.

According to the explosive 70-page filing, Rep. Wu—Chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus—was the ringleader of a carefully orchestrated plan that saw dozens of Democrat lawmakers hop aboard a 76-seat private jet, funded in part by Beto O’Rourke’s political action committee, to escape to Chicago rather than perform their duty during a constitutionally mandated special legislative session.

The petition alleges that Wu and his fellow Democrats deliberately broke quorum to sabotage redistricting reforms and kill flood relief, property tax relief, and school reform legislation, critical priorities for Texans.

“If representatives are free not to show up whenever they choose, then Texans simply do not have a representative government,” the petition reads.

“In fact, they don’t have a functioning government at all. This Court should make clear that a legislator who does not wish to perform his duties will be stripped of them.”

The petition reveals that Wu not only left the state, but actively solicited donations online to help cover fines and expenses—funding his absence with cash from liberal donors.

The document accuses him of potentially violating Texas bribery laws and the state constitution, citing provisions that require forfeiture of office if an official accepts anything of value to withhold their vote.

Wu posted pictures boarding the jet on X, while simultaneously asking followers to “Support Texas House Democrats as we deny quorum.” One image was immediately followed by a donation link.

According to the petition, Beto O’Rourke’s PAC offered to cover the cost of the trip and committed all future donations to lawmakers who fled the state.

The petition concludes:

This case is not a political dispute; it is a constitutional crisis. The current Special Session is set to expire in just two weeks. But Wu apparently has no intention of returning. Instead, he claims the “special session is over.” Permitting him to continue occupying his office so that he can abdicate the duties of that office will only enable future legislators to grind state government to a halt.

Perhaps these absent members expect—someday—to return to Texas and be hailed as heroes who “fought” by fleeing. But in the meantime, they are preventing the Texas Legislature, duly called by the Governor, from addressing the acute needs of Texans across the State.

Every day, their continued absence wastes taxpayer dollars and imperils urgent policy needs, ranging from improved flood response tools to the judicial omnibus bill governing the day-to-day workings of the state courts.

And, in the future, whenever the Governor adds an item on the special session agenda that they find offensive, they may feel empowered to once again flee the State and deny the Article III, Section 5 constitutional mandate. Absent quo warranto, there is no end in sight to this piracy.

The Constitution nowhere envisions Texans signing onto that kind of suicide pact. Legislators may, of course, disagree on specific pieces of legislation.

But our Constitution conceives of deliberation and debate as the official way to process official disagreements. That is why, in addition to laying out general principles for the order of business, the Constitution imposes mandatory duties on members to ensure they will be present to conduct business.

Representative government cannot function if elected officials may monetize their absence, abandon their obligations, and paralyze the Legislature without consequence.

The writ of quo warranto exists precisely to remedy such abuses. And there is still time for this Court to use it here. Ordering Wu’s removal from office would ensure that public office remains a trust exercised in good faith, as opposed to a platform for private gain and governmental sabotage.

It could also begin to make it easier to establish a quorum while the Special Session is still under way. Above all, however, it promises to restrain future abuses. Refusing to address the problem now may simply invite it to recur, always in the final days of a session.

The integrity of Texas’s constitutional order demands this Court’s urgent intervention, and Texas voters are counting on it.

The post Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Files Emergency Petition with Supreme Court to REMOVE Democrat Ringleader Who Fled State to Obstruct Redistricting Vote appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Continue Reading

Trending