Topic: Cyber Security
“The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is a DHS component that the Left has weaponized to censor speech and affect elections at the expense of securing the cyber domain and critical infrastructure, which are threatened daily. A conservative Administration should return CISA to its statutory and important but narrow mission.”
There’s the woke boogeyman again! Cuccinelli doesn’t cite any specific examples of CISA being weaponized either. He’s suggesting that CISA has been involved in activities that go beyond its intended role, such as monitoring or influencing only speech, possibly through partnerships with social media companies or other platforms to address misinformation or disinformation. It’s telling that he thinks that combating disinformation harms the Right – it indicates that they’re reliant on lies to keep their messaging intact. Again, I’m taking a stab at what Cuccinelli is talking about here – he doesn’t specify how CISA is being “weaponized” against the “non-woke.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security here.
“Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinformation efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth. CISA began this work because of alleged Russian misinformation in the 2016 election, which in fact turned out to be a Clinton campaign “dirty trick.””
“The government cannot be the arbiter of truth” is a telling admission. The rest of this statement is defamatory nonsense. The claim that Hillary Clinton was behind any kind of “Russia hoax” was based on unverified Russian intelligence released by Lindsey Graham and declassified by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe. In point of fact,
“Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified a Russian intelligence assessment that was previously rejected by Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee as having no factual basis, according to two sources familiar with the matter.” [Source]
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security and support for my above claim here.
“The Office of Intelligence and Analysis should be eliminated both because it has not added value and because it has been weaponized for domestic political purposes.”
The OIA is a division of DHS responsible for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence related to threats against the U.S. homeland. Its focus includes terrorism, cybersecurity, and other national security threats. The OIA provides intelligence support to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, as well as to private sector partners. Considering that, according to the Department of Homeland Security itself, white supremacists now pose the gravest terror threat to the United States, it’s unsurprising that they’d like to remove focus from that, including allowing white supremacy to flourish online and on social media.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security here.
“There is great concern about the vulnerability of undersea cable trunks that make up the Internet cloud. The vast majority of global Internet traffic — 95 percent — is transmitted through these cables, including news transmissions and Presidential Transition Project web-based content produced by the USAGM’s broadcast networks.”
That the cables “make up the internet cloud” is inaccurate. The cables carry information, they don’t store it. It’s also not news that these cables are vulnerable. They experience about 200 outages a year and the vast majority of these are human-caused (mostly by fishing equipment or anchors). The reason we don’t hear about the outages is that there is almost always a backup route of transmitting information, especially for crucial infrastructure.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.5: Media Agencies: U.S. Agency for Global Media & Corporation for Public Broadcasting here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“Eliminate special-interest funding programs. Many DOE energy funding programs are not targeted on fundamental science and technology; instead, they focus more on commercialization and act as subsidies to the private sector for government-favored resources. The DOE Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED); Office of State and Community Energy Programs; ARPA-E; Office of Grid Deployment (OGD); and DOE Loan Program should be eliminated or reformed. If they continue to exist, FECM, NE, OE, and EERE should focus on fundamental science and technology issues, particularly in relation to cyber and physical threats to energy security, rather than subsidizing and commercializing energy resources.”
This is a lot to digest. In context, he’s arguing here for the Department of Energy cutting all federal funding into research and development for renewable energy. He specifically mentions cutting funding for the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) or consolidating it into another entity. SPR is the world’s largest supply of of emergency crude oil, designed to reduce the impact of disruptions in oil supplies. It is unclear why he’s making this recommendation.
McNamee wants to eliminate the OCED (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations). OCED was created to fund large-scale projects that demonstrate the viability of emerging clean energy technologies, helping them reach commercial scale (deploying these technologies into the market.)
McNamee wants to eliminate the Office of State and Community Energy Programs, which provides subsidies to local governments and communities for clean energy.
McNamee wants to eliminate ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy), which funds high-risk, high-reward energy projects aimed at developing innovative technologies that could transform the energy sector.
McNamee wants to eliminate the OGD (Office of Grid Deployment), which focuses on modernizing and improving the electrical grid, including enhancing its resilience and reliability. This is DIRECTLY at odds with his stated goal of improving the resilience and reliability of the electrical grid.
McNamee wants to eliminate the DOE loan program, which provides loans and loan guarantees to innovative energy projects, often aimed at clean energy technologies like solar, wind, and advanced batteries.
As for the suggested focus for the remaining offices that he’s not killing, he’s saying that the FECM (Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management) should focus on fundamental research in fossil energy, rather than funding carbon capture projects. He’s saying that the NE (Office of Nuclear Energy) should focus on basic nuclear research rather than advancing commercial nuclear technologies. He’s saying that the OE (Office of Electricity) should prioritize cybersecurity and physical security of the grid, instead of grid modernization efforts. Finally, he’s saying that the EERE (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) should focus on scientific advancements rather than deploying renewable energy technologies commercially.
Whew! Now that we’ve unraveled the WHAT, you can find the WHY in the linked analysis below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“Though CESER is properly focused on the threat to the grid from inverter-based resources like wind and solar, it needs to focus on the entire energy system, including the interdependence between natural gas and electric generation and cybersecurity.”
This is within the context of making reforms to cybersecurity efforts. “Inverter-based resources” means energy sources like solar panels and wind turbines that generate direct current (DC) electricity, but must be converted to alternating current (AC) energy to be compatible with the existing electrical grid. Inverter-based systems, while essential for the integration of renewables, introduce certain challenges because they don’t inherently provide the same type of synchronous stability (like frequency regulation) that traditional generators do.
Are renewables a “threat to the grid”? It’s true that improperly managed, they don’t provide inertia in the same way and are therefore less stable in the absence of proper controllers. Traditional power plants have large, rotating turbines that provide inertia, which helps stabilize the grid by automatically maintaining the frequency (usually 60Hz in the U.S.). Inverters can offer synthetic inertia and other forms of frequency support, but they require advanced control systems and careful grid integration. So it’s possible and manageable, a fact that McNamee does not admit.
Renewable energy isn’t inherently a threat, but the grid does need to be modernized to accommodate a higher share of renewables. This includes better energy storage solutions (like batteries), improved grid infrastructure, and demand response systems that can adjust electricity use based on availability. Increasing renewable energy sources diversifies the energy mix, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing energy security.
While renewable resources do pose technical challenges (due to their intermittency and the way they interact with the grid), framing them as a “threat” overlooks the potential for grid modernization, technological advances, and the broader benefits of transitioning to clean energy. It’s baseless fearmongering on McNamee’s part.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.