Federal Cybersecurity Is Just Security Theater With a Bigger Budget
The government shutdown proved something uncomfortable: our federal cybersecurity apparatus resembles nothing so much as TSA security lines at airports. Lots of visible activity, impressive-sounding procedures, and massive budgets that create the illusion of protection while the real vulnerabilities remain wide open.
The recent CISA staffing cuts,losing over 1,000 people, more than a third of its workforce,have triggered predictable hand-wringing about weakened defenses. But here's the uncomfortable truth: CISA's pre-cut staffing levels weren't actually making us meaningfully more secure. We've been playing cybersecurity theater on a federal scale, and the current crisis just makes it impossible to ignore.
The Compliance Charade
For over a decade, federal cybersecurity has operated under the delusion that more frameworks, more audits, and more compliance checkboxes equal better security. The Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM),all impressive-sounding programs that generate mountains of paperwork while adversaries walk through the front door.
Take the 2020 SolarWinds breach that compromised multiple federal agencies. The affected organizations weren't non-compliant rogues operating outside the framework. They were following the rules. They had their FISMA assessments, their Authority to Operate certificates, their incident response plans filed neatly in triplicate. The breach succeeded precisely because it exploited the gap between compliance theater and actual security.
The attackers didn't need to find some exotic zero-day vulnerability or conduct elaborate social engineering campaigns. They compromised a trusted software vendor and let the federal government's own procurement and update processes distribute their malware. The very systems designed to ensure "secure" software delivery became the attack vector.
This pattern repeats constantly. The Office of Personnel Management breach exposed 22 million federal employees' personal data,not because OPM was ignoring security guidance, but because they were focused on the wrong metrics entirely. They were measuring compliance with frameworks rather than actual defensive capability.
Why More Staff Won't Fix This
The current narrative suggests that CISA's staffing cuts will leave us vulnerable because fewer people means less capability. This assumes that what CISA was doing with those 1,000+ people was actually making us more secure. The evidence suggests otherwise.
CISA's core function has become bureaucratic coordination, not operational defense. Most of their workforce doesn't hunt threats or respond to incidents,they coordinate with other agencies, publish advisories, and manage compliance programs. When the Log4j vulnerability emerged, CISA's contribution was largely issuing guidance documents telling agencies to patch systems. The actual patching work happened at individual agencies, often by overworked contractors who were already stretched thin.
This is security theater in its purest form: visible activity that creates the impression of comprehensive defense while the fundamental problems remain unchanged. Federal agencies still run ancient systems because upgrading would disrupt compliance processes. They still rely on the same vulnerable software supply chains because approved vendor lists move at bureaucratic speed. They still treat cybersecurity as a compliance exercise rather than an operational imperative.
Adding more staff to coordinate more compliance activities won't change these dynamics. It will just create more elaborate theater.
The Real Vulnerabilities Are Structural
The federal government's cybersecurity problems aren't about headcount or budgets,they're about incentive structures that reward the appearance of security over actual defensive capability.
Consider how federal IT procurement works. Agencies can't just adopt the most secure solution available. They must follow acquisition regulations that prioritize process over outcomes. A vendor can win a cybersecurity contract not by demonstrating superior defensive capability, but by navigating the proposal process most effectively and offering the lowest price for a compliant solution.
This creates perverse incentives. The winning vendor delivers exactly what the contract specifies,no more, no less,even if the specifications are outdated or inadequate. Meanwhile, agencies can't quickly adopt new defensive tools or techniques because doing so would require new procurement cycles, new compliance assessments, and new authorities to operate.
The result is a federal cybersecurity posture that's always fighting the last war with yesterday's tools, but doing so in full compliance with this year's framework.
Where the Theater Breaks Down
The most damaging aspect of federal cybersecurity theater isn't what it fails to prevent,it's what it actively prevents from happening. Real cybersecurity requires rapid adaptation, assumption of breach, and continuous evolution of defensive techniques. Federal compliance frameworks demand the opposite: predictable processes, documented procedures, and stability over agility.
This tension becomes acute during actual incidents. When the Colonial Pipeline was shut down by ransomware, the federal response involved multiple agencies coordinating through established channels and following predetermined procedures. Meanwhile, the company paid the ransom and restored operations using methods that would never pass a FISMA audit but actually worked.
The private sector increasingly operates under an assumption of breach model,accepting that intrusions will occur and focusing on rapid detection, containment, and recovery. Federal cybersecurity still operates under a prevention model,believing that sufficient compliance will stop breaches from happening in the first place.
The Counterargument Has Merit
Critics of this thesis will point to genuine improvements in federal cybersecurity over the past decade. They're not wrong. Many agencies have upgraded ancient systems, implemented basic security controls, and improved their incident response capabilities. The creation of CISA itself represented recognition that cybersecurity needed dedicated focus and resources.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has also had some legitimate successes. Their threat intelligence sharing with private sector partners has value. Their election security efforts, while politically controversial, helped secure critical infrastructure during contentious election cycles. Their vulnerability disclosure programs have identified and helped remediate real security flaws.
But these successes are tactical wins within a strategically flawed framework. They represent incremental improvements to fundamentally broken incentive structures. A modernized but still compliance-focused approach to cybersecurity is still security theater,it's just better-funded theater with newer props.
What Actually Needs to Change
Federal cybersecurity won't improve by hiring back CISA staff to coordinate more compliance activities. It will improve when federal agencies start measuring security by actual defensive outcomes rather than process adherence.
This means abandoning the fiction that cybersecurity can be reduced to checklists and frameworks. Real security requires empowering practitioners to adapt rapidly to emerging threats, even when those adaptations don't fit predetermined processes. It means accepting that the most secure solution is often not the most compliant solution.
It also means fundamentally restructuring how federal agencies approach cybersecurity risk. Instead of trying to prevent all possible attacks through process controls, agencies need to assume they will be breached and focus on minimizing the impact when breaches occur. This is a much harder problem than compliance, but it's the only approach that actually works against sophisticated adversaries.
Most importantly, it means acknowledging that cybersecurity is fundamentally an operational discipline, not an administrative one. You can't audit your way to security any more than you can audit your way to military victory. Both require practitioners who understand their operational environment and can adapt quickly to changing conditions.
The Stakes Are Higher Than We Admit
The federal government's commitment to cybersecurity theater isn't just ineffective,it's actively dangerous. By creating the illusion of comprehensive defense, it encourages both agencies and oversight bodies to believe they're more secure than they actually are. This false confidence leads to taking greater risks with sensitive data and critical systems.
When the next major federal breach occurs,and it will,the response will predictably focus on compliance failures rather than systemic incentive problems. New frameworks will be developed, additional oversight will be implemented, and more staff will be hired to coordinate more elaborate theater. The underlying vulnerabilities will remain unchanged.
The current CISA staffing crisis could be an opportunity to fundamentally rethink federal cybersecurity. Instead of rebuilding the same compliance-focused bureaucracy, we could create smaller, more operationally focused teams that measure success by actual defensive capability rather than process adherence.
But that would require admitting that much of what we've built over the past decade has been security theater. And in Washington, admitting failure is often harder than perpetuating it.
**