John K. Costello
Cyber governance remains a persistent challenge for every administration. As cyber threats evolve, agency missions mature, and technology advances, governance models must responsive in adapting while ensuring long-term sustainability and coordination. Cybersecurity’s unique positioning as a multi-agency, cross-sectoral issue further complicates governance, as agencies may hold conflicting equities—whether through their enterprise cybersecurity responsibilities, primary cyber missions (CISA, NSA, CYBERCOM), adjacent functions (FDA, DOE), or occasional involvement in cyberrelated national security efforts (OFAC sanctions, law enforcement investigations). This ever-changing threat landscape, quickly evolving technology ecosystem, lack of centralized planning and role assignments, and the resulting dispersion of responsibility has led to duplicative efforts, regulatory inconsistencies, and inefficiencies in both policy and operations.
Despite numerous legislative and executive measures aimed at improving interagency alignment, efforts to centralize authorities and streamline coordination have often exacerbated fragmentation—adding additional coordinating bodies rather than consolidating existing functions. This challenge is rooted in both the executive branch, where agencies resist ceding authority, and in Congress, where jurisdictional divisions favor narrow, incremental legislative changes over broader restructuring efforts. It is further exacerbated by the Constitutional bias for firewalls between private and public sector activities (e.g., the private sector is expected to pursue its aims with minimal disruption from the public sector and no expectation of continuous collaboration in framing and executing sector initiatives). Discord in governance is a result of a steady expansion of authorities and budgets without a corresponding improvement in strategic unity or operational efficiency. Cyber governance in the United States has thus evolved not from a central plan but through an incremental, additive process—layering new authorities, structures, and initiatives atop existing ones rather than undertaking comprehensive reform. This approach while adaptive often lacks coherence and efficiency.
No comments:
Post a Comment