ConflictClarifier

متتبع أزمة إيران-الخليج 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 31, 2026

DHS shutdown fuels cybersecurity concerns as Iran-linked cyberattacks continue across US

Summary

DHS shutdown fuels cybersecurity concerns as Iran-linked cyberattacks continue across US Now 45 days without funding, CISA has furloughed 60% of its workforce. Caught in the crossfire of stalled negotiations for funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the country's main defender against cyberattacks has taken a hit. Now more than 40 days without funding, Senate appropriations leaders say around 60% of current employees for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) -- the front line for U.S. cyberspace and critical infrastructure -- have been furloughed. This forced the agency to cancel physical and digital assessments to detect vulnerabilities of the nation's critical infrastructure, according to the same Senate appropriations release. As strikes continue across Iran, some experts worry America's digital shields are down while the country faces a known player in global cyber warfare. While President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the TSA to resume paychecks, other agencies like CISA still lack allocated budgets. Senate Republican and Democratic leaders continue to warn of Iranian cyberattacks as the conflict with the U.S. and Israel develops, but there's still no clear or quick path ahead, leaving some experts concerned. "Diminishing of resources here on cybersecurity at this particular juncture is absolutely dangerous," Dr. Frederic Lemieux, Georgetown professor of cybersecurity risk management, said. "In a conflict with a known enemy that uses cyber weapons to, you know, like to inflict damage on its opponents, I think that it will be tested, that's for sure," he added. CISA has not responded to ABC News' multiple requests for for comment. What is cyber warfare? Put simply, cyber warfare is the breach of information networks for various malicious means, including disruption, spying or destruction. Cyberattacks from state and non-state actors are common. In 2025, CISA successfully blocked 2.62 billion malicious connections within the federal civilian network, according to its annual reports. It blocked 371 million attempts targeting the country's critical infrastructure, including power and water systems. "They happen, but they don't necessarily have consequences," Lemieux said. "We can contain them, we can repel them, and so on and so forth." Conventional warfare is expensive. Cyberspace gives an alternative and much cheaper option, Lemieux said. With growing access to technology and programming tools, the barrier to entry for cyberattackers is much lower. "They are too easy to deploy, and there's something also that we see in terms of return on investment, where you can manage a lot of, I would say, widespread campaigns for very low costs," Lemieux said. "You can inflict a lot of cost on your opponent just in defending systems, not even talking about other consequences afterwards," he added. What's the threat? Former National Cyber Director Harry Coker Jr. warned about the world's evolving cyber capabilities in a 2024 report on the United States' cybersecurity posture, saying the U.S. is "in the midst of a fundamental transformation" of its cyber defenses. "It is now clear that a reactive posture cannot keep pace with fast-evolving cyber threats and a dynamic technology landscape," Coker said. That same report listed Iran as one of four main nation-states responsible for "a wide range of malicious activity that impacts the United States and our allies." Hackers breached FBI Director Kash Patel's personal email, sources familiar with the situation said last week. Iranian-linked hackers online have claimed credit. Earlier this month, hackers supporting Iran claimed responsibility for a significant cyberattack against U.S. medical device company Stryker. The group known as Handala claimed the strike was in retaliation for strikes that killed Iranian schoolchildren. Groups working for Tehran have also infiltrated the email system of President Donald Trump's campaign, tried to breach the networks used by the military and defense contractors, and even targeted U.S. water plants in rural America, according to previous reporting. "We have a state actor that is cornered, and we know that it has penetrated several critical infrastructure systems, and it's there," Lemieux said. Russia and China, two powerful allies of Iran, were also listed in the report as bad actors against the U.S. "There is a conjuncture of a situation here that makes it appealing for another adversary to get in," Lemieux said. Since the strikes began, the Kremlin has provided Iran with intelligence on the location of American troops, according to U.S. officials. Lemieux said that as much as he worries about military intelligence sharing, he worries about cyberspace. "We don't know everything about where the Russians are hiding in our systems or I mean, where the Chinese might be hiding in our systems," Lemieux said. "Those kinds of things are a reality of cybersecurity. You don't know what, you don't know when." Attacks take many forms, Lemieux said, which adds to the complexity of cyber defense -- a challenge made greater by the recent boom in artificial intelligence. "It could be, for example, passive and just provocative," Lemieux said. "We saw them, you know, interrupting television channels and putting some message." Hackers can more easily coordinate mass attacks or make their programs more resilient against defenses, Lemieux said. "You could receive, you know, an outage from your local government -- do not drink the water because somebody tampered with the level of, you know, like filtration and chemistry in the water," he added. The threat, Lemieux warned, is only growing more urgent. "This is critical," Lemieux said. "... being cornered will break, even intensify. And that's where we might see those hybrid warfare tactics taking place." CISA's funding is tied to DHS. Should Americans be concerned during a shutdown? Employees of several DHS agencies, including CISA, are operating without pay, with some senators saying both operations and personnel have been effected. CISA is not new to the stresses of shutdowns. During the November 2025 shutdown, it faced one of the biggest hits within DHS, with 65% of the division placed on furlough. In early March, Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Dave McCormick posted on social media that "over half of CISA's workforce has been furloughed -- 2,000 personnel cut down to about 800," and warned that "Critical cybersecurity and infrastructure assessments are paused while the threats of Iranian cyberattacks are rising." Others, like Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, posted that "the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency has had to limit its operations." There is still debate over funding the agency. House Republicans on Friday rejected a Senate-approved bill that would have returned DHS's budget without funding ICE and instead passed a short-term funding bill for all of the agency's departments. That proposal was sent to the Senate, where Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, says it is dead on arrival. Former CISA acting director Dr. Madhu Gottumukkala gave a warning to lawmakers ahead of February's partial shutdown. "I want to be clear. When the government shuts down, cyber threats do not. And our adversaries work 24/7," Gottumukkala said. "Even a brief lapse can have lasting consequences on small businesses, federal networks, and American taxpayers." Lemieux agrees. "You should be concerned about what happened before the shutdown," Lemieux said. "Also in the cuts previous, you know, prior to the shutdown. So all that puts us in a very precarious situation."

Actors involved

USIran

Sources

  • ABC NewsBy ABC News

    DHS shutdown fuels cybersecurity concerns as Iran-linked cyberattacks continue across US Now 45 days without funding, CISA has furloughed 60% of its workforce. Caught in the crossfire of stalled negotiations for funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the country's mai

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran