The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has confirmed it is cutting $10 million in annual funding for cybersecurity intelligence-sharing programs, as part of a broader realignment of federal cybersecurity priorities.
A CISA spokesperson stated that funding to the Center for Internet Security (CIS) for managing the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) and the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC) will be eliminated. These organizations have historically provided cybersecurity guidance, technical support, and intelligence-sharing services to state governments.
CISA explained that the decision is aimed at prioritizing “mission-critical areas” and eliminating overlaps in services.
“CISA has terminated federal funding for several activities under a cooperative agreement with the Center for Internet Security (CIS). The agency is committed to good stewardship of taxpayer dollars,” a CISA spokesperson stated. “Certain federally funded work within the cooperative agreement no longer aligns with departmental priorities.”
CISA clarified that activities being deprioritized include stakeholder engagement, cyber threat intelligence, and cyber incident response—services it believes can now be handled directly by the agency for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments.
Impact on State Cybersecurity Programs
EI-ISAC focused on threats affecting election systems and officials, while MS-ISAC addressed a broader range of state-level cybersecurity threats. Following CISA’s funding cuts, the CIS website now states that EI-ISAC is no longer operational. It is unclear how MS-ISAC will be affected.
A source familiar with the situation noted that both ISACs have played a significant role in assisting state and local governments with cybersecurity. The MS-ISAC, in particular, has been operating for over 20 years, offering cyber threat intelligence and incident response services.
Comparison to Other ISACs
While some ISACs received federal funding, many others operate independently. Denise Anderson, chair of the National Council of ISACs and president of the Health-ISAC, pointed out that most ISACs function as private nonprofit organizations funded by membership fees and other revenue sources.
“Cyber threats do not stop at a country’s borders. ISACs tend to be global, with members operating in multiple countries,” Anderson explained. “Changes in government priorities highlight the importance of ISACs as stable, trusted communities that provide real-time, actionable intelligence.”
Scott Algeier, executive director of the IT-ISAC and Food and Ag-ISAC, emphasized that his organizations operate without government funding and demonstrate the effectiveness of voluntary industry collaboration in cybersecurity.
Concerns Over Potential Risks
Some cybersecurity experts have expressed concern over the funding cuts, particularly for election security. Tim Harper, a former election official now working with the Center for Democracy and Technology, stated that EI-ISAC and MS-ISAC provided real-time threat-sharing and coordination services that many local election offices may struggle to replace.
“Many state and local election offices rely on EI-ISAC as their primary source of federal cybersecurity support. Cutting it puts entire counties at risk,” Harper stated. “Defunding EI-ISAC doesn’t just impact election security—it leaves local governments, schools, and emergency services more vulnerable to cyberattacks.”
Harper also noted that underserved counties that previously received free cybersecurity services from CISA may now have to seek private-sector alternatives, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.
CISA Workforce Reductions and Additional Cybersecurity Cuts
The funding cuts are part of a broader restructuring within CISA. Reports indicate that the agency has also seen staffing reductions, including the dismissal of personnel from cybersecurity “red teams” that conduct simulations of cyberattacks to strengthen defense strategies.
Christopher Chenoweth, a former penetration tester for CISA, shared on LinkedIn that his contract was terminated on February 28, impacting an entire red team.
“The following Wednesday, a second CISA red team was also cut. As a result, many experienced red team operators are now seeking new opportunities,” Chenoweth stated.
Several other cybersecurity professionals have shared similar experiences, indicating that the staffing changes affected personnel working on various federal cybersecurity projects.
Conclusion
The reduction in funding for ISACs and broader restructuring within CISA reflect an effort to reallocate federal cybersecurity resources. While CISA maintains that these adjustments will enhance efficiency and focus on critical areas, some cybersecurity professionals warn that state and local governments may face new challenges in maintaining cyber resilience. The long-term effects of these changes on election security and state-level cyber defenses remain to be seen.
Help us bring real change! Corporate lobbying has corrupted our system for too long, and it’s time to take action. Please sign and share this petition—your support is crucial in restoring accountability to our government. Every signature counts! Thank you!
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/restore-our-republic-end-lobbying
Support truth, health, and preparedness by shopping the Alex Jones Store through our link. Every purchase helps sustain independent voices and earns us a 10% share to fuel our mission. Shop now and make a difference!
https://thealexjonesstore.com?sca_ref=7730615.EU54Mw6oyLATer7a
Sponsored • TRJ Ads
Inquiries: contact@therealistjuggernaut.com
Hi John. I’m all for cutting waste but this is one area where I wonder if any funding cuts should be made. I don’t know enough about this business but it seems to me that problems in this area will only increase. I hope I’m wrong.
I hear you, Chris. Cutting waste is always a good thing, but cybersecurity is one area where reductions can have serious long-term consequences. The threats we’re facing aren’t going away—in fact, they’re evolving and becoming more sophisticated. While CISA claims it’s eliminating redundancies, the reality is that many state and local governments relied on these programs for cybersecurity support. If funding cuts leave gaps, those vulnerabilities could be exploited. Time will tell how this plays out, but I agree—it’s something we need to watch closely.