[Senate Hearing 119-147]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-147
NOMINATIONS OF PEDRO ALLENDE,
SEAN PLANKEY, CHRISTOPHER FOX,
AND EDWARD O'CONNELL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATIONS OF PEDRO ALLENDE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; SEAN PLANKEY TO BE DIRECTOR, CYBERSECURITY AND
INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; CHRISTOPHER FOX TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE; AND EDWARD O'CONNELL TO BE AN ASSOCIATE
JUDGE, D.C. SUPERIOR COURT
__________
JULY 24, 2025
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-440 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MAGGIE WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire
RICK SCOTT, Florida RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio ANDY KIM, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
ASHLEY MOODY, Florida ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
William E. Henderson III, Staff Director
Christina N. Salazar, Chief Counsel
Andrew J. Hopkins, Counsel
David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
Christopher J. Mulkins, Minority Director of Homeland Security
Claudine J. Brenner, Minority Senior Counsel
Nomi Rosen, Minority Research Assistant
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Ashley A. Gonzalez, Records Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Paul................................................. 1
Senator Peters............................................... 2
Senator Moreno............................................... 3
Senator Blumenthal........................................... 5
Senator Moody................................................ 7
Senator Scott................................................ 11
Senator Hassan............................................... 12
Senator Ernst................................................ 15
Senator Lankford............................................. 17
Senator Hawley............................................... 19
Senator Slotkin.............................................. 20
Prepared statements:
Senator Peters............................................... 27
WITNESSES
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2025
Pedro Allende to be Under Secretary for Science & Technology,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Biographical and professional information.................... 31
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 59
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 68
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 94
Sean Plankey to be Director, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Prepared statement........................................... 104
Biographical and professional information.................... 106
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 122
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 132
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 146
Christopher Fox to be Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Prepared statement........................................... 159
Biographical and professional information.................... 161
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 175
Edward O'Connell to be an Associate Judge, DC Superior Court
Prepared statement........................................... 182
Biographical and professional information.................... 183
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 205
APPENDIX
The chart submitted by Senator Ernst............................. 210
NOMINATIONS OF PEDRO ALLENDE,
SEAN PLANKEY, CHRISTOPHER FOX,
AND EDWARD O'CONNELL
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12 p.m., in room
342, Senate Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Rand Paul, Chair of
the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Paul [presiding], Lankford, Scott,
Hawley, Moreno, Ernst, Moody, Peters, Hassan, Blumenthal, and
Slotkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL
Chairman Paul. The Committee will come to order. The
Committee meets to consider four nominations. First, Pedro
Allende. Pedro is to be the U.S. Under Secretary for Science
and Technology (S&T) at the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). Mr. Allende serves as the Secretary of Florida's
Department of Management. He previously served in several roles
in the Executive Branch, including a Deputy Assistant Secretary
at Department of Homeland Security.
Second is Sean Plankey, to be the Director of Cybersecurity
and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) at the Department of
Homeland Security. Mr. Plankey currently serves as senior
advisor at the department. He's a veteran of the United States
Coast Guard (USCG) and served at the Department of Energy (DOE)
during the first Trump administration.
Next is Christopher Fox to be the Intelligence Community
Inspector General (ICIG). Mr. Fox currently serves as senior
advisor to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). He's a
veteran of the United States Air Force (USAF) and previously
operated his own business.
Last but not least, is Edward O'Connell to be Associate
Judge (AJ) of the D.C. Superior Court. Mr. O'Connell presently
serves as the Chief of Staff and Deputy General Counsel (DGC)
in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the United
States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Defense Nuclear
Facility Safety Board (DNFSB). Prior to joining the IG, he was
a career prosecutor serving in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office,
as an Assistant United State's Attorney (AUSA) in Baltimore,
Maryland.
The witnesses have submitted written statements, and I ask
unanimous consent (UC) to submit letters of support received
for the nominees. Without objection, those will be entered into
the record.
In the interest of time, I will forego opening remarks, but
I will recognize the Ranking Member, Senator Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\
Senator Peters. Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I am
relieved to see that Paul Ingrassia, the nominee to run the
Office of Special Counsel (OSC), has been pulled from today's
hearing. The Office of Special Counsel is an independent, non-
partisan agency that investigates allegations of prohibited
personnel practices involving Federal employees, including
whistleblower retaliation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
Appendix on page 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ingrassia is unqualified for the position, both in
terms of legal experience and given his long record of bigoted
statements. I urge the administration to formally withdraw his
nomination.
We have a number of nominees for critical roles in the
Department of Homeland Security, the intelligence community
(IC), and the courts in our Nation's capital, before us today.
Sean Plankey is nominated to lead the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency. Mr. Plankey, thank you for
joining us here today. If confirmed, you will be tasked with
overseeing an agency that has been gutted by the Trump
Administration.
As you know, CISA is the backbone of our Nation's
cybersecurity defense system, protecting Federal networks and
partnering with the private sector. CISA is the only civilian
agency with the infrastructure, the expertise, and the
statutory authority to carry out this critical work.
Since President Trump's first term, he has worked to
decimate CISA, most recently slashing its workforce by more
than 30 percent, and eliminating key leadership positions. The
administration has also proposed a nearly 20 percent budget cut
for the agency for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026.
Cyber-attacks are one of the most significant national
security threats our Nation faces, and I am extremely concerned
by this administration's actions that are undercutting CISA's
capacity to defend our Nation.
We are also considering the nomination of Christopher Fox
to be the Inspector General of the intelligence community, a
role that demands full independence and credibility. This
nomination also deserves scrutiny.
Mr. Fox's decision to accept a political appointment in the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), even
after he was nominated to serve as Inspector General gives me
pause. Not only is he a senior advisor to the director, but he
is also currently running the Information Management Office
(IMO), which handles the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
declassification, and record retentions issues, all matters
that would likely need to have independent review from the
eventual confirmed Inspector General.
We also have Pedro Allende who is nominated to lead DHS
Science and Technology Directorate. This directorate plays a
critical role in ensuring DHS components have the most reliable
and effective technology to carry out their Homeland Security
missions. The threats we face are getting more complicated each
day, and DHS must have the right tools to address those threats
and keep American safe.
Finally, we have Edward O'Connell, who is nominated to be
the associate judge of the D.C. Superior Court. The D.C.
Superior Court functions as a State level trial court here in
the Nation's capital. The court handles some of the highest
case volumes in the country and is strained further by extended
vacancies on the bench.
Every day, judges on the Superior Court decide matters that
impact the freedom, livelihoods and safety of individuals and
families across the District of Columbia. Currently, 15 of the
62 seats on the court are vacant, with two more judges set to
retire in September. These vacancies delay cases and place
serious burdens on the current judges, and I am glad to see the
administration is moving forward with the nominees for this
important role and will help carry out justice in our Nation's
capital.
I look forward to hearing from all of you here today, hear
more about your experience and how you plan to approach these
very important roles that each of you have been nominated for.
Welcome to the Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. It is the practice of the Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in
witnesses. Will the nominees please stand and raise your right
hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
It's a standard practice of the Chair to ask the nominees
the following question. Do you agree without reservation, to
comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before
any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are
confirmed?
[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
Chairman Paul. Thank you. You may be seated. We will now
proceed to questions where each Member will have five minutes.
We will start with Senator Moreno.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO
Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and congratulations
to the four of you for this nomination to serve our country.
Thank you for your willingness to serve, by the way. I know
it's a big sacrifice, and certainly all of you will be doing a
great service to your country.
Mr. Plankey, we will start with you. I enjoyed being with
you. I enjoyed our conversation. The good news is you are not
completely insane, which already makes you dramatically more
qualified than your predecessor. Question for you would be, how
are you going to restore the agency's reputation? Over the last
four years of the Biden administration, we saw an agency that
should have the total trust and respect of the American public
deteriorated into a spying agency on American citizens. How
will you restore the confidence of Americans in that agency?
Mr. Plankey. Senator, thank you for the question, and thank
you for the opportunity to be here. Extremely honored to be
here and have the opportunity if confirmed to lead the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
If confirmed as the leader of CISA, I would seek to restore
CISA to its congressional authorities and focus on the missions
that this body tasked it with, which is securing the Federal
Executive Branch and then securing the critical infrastructure
of the United States.
Senator Moreno. There is a lot of acronyms that are thrown
here. I am only through 10,000 of them so far. I think we have
200,000 acronyms left to go. Can you explain for the record and
for my colleagues, the difference between CISA the agency,
which you are going to restore back to its original mission we
just described, and CISA 2015, which is set to expire in
September, and what the implications are of not having that
renewed, and how that's very different than the agency that we
just discussed.
Mr. Plankey. Yes, Senator. CISA the agency is mandated to
follow the congressional direction to secure the Federal
computing Executive Branch, Federal civilian Executive Branch
computer systems, and then also protect the critical
infrastructure of the United States often thought of as the
Nation's Cyber Defense Agency.
Now, CISA 2015, was the 10-year authorization of
information sharing. That law in particular was actually very
critical for protecting liabilities of sharing information for
business to business and business to government. When somebody
has a cybersecurity breach or concern, they then could share
that information to protect themselves and protect others
without experiencing liability for sharing that information
Senator.
Senator Moreno. What would be the implications if that was
just led to expire?
Mr. Plankey. Senator, if that was led to expire, in
particular in the financial sector, who does some of the
largest, most prevalent amount of information sharing, they
would experience difficulties in sharing and community
protection of information security, and then other industries
would as well.
I would note Senator that Secretary Noem, my boss, she
supports the reauthorization of CISA 2015.
Senator Moreno. What's your current role in what are you
doing now?
Mr. Plankey. Yes, sir. I am the senior advisor to the
Secretary, focused on the United States Coast Guard.
Senator Moreno. Gotcha. Just a little bit of off topic for
just a second. What is the morale among the Coast Guard knowing
that the One Big Beautiful Bill just gave him historic funding?
Mr. Plankey. Yes, Senator. The morale in the Coast Guard is
very high right now. They received the largest amount of
funding, in $24.59 billion to restore airplanes, ships,
infrastructure, piers, buildings and training centers for the
United States Coast Guard.
They just hit recruitment numbers of putting 5,200 men and
women in the United States through Training Center Cape May
this year, which is an all-time high that we have not seen
since 2002.
Senator Moreno. That's great. It's nice to have a commander
in chief that's refocused on the vital role that the Coast
Guard plays, and glad to see those recruitment numbers playing
out. Obviously, representing Ohio, it's got big Coast Guard
presence there. We are seeing that.
It's just great to see that we have made that historic
investment in the Coast Guard. I wish more of my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle had voted with us on that bill that
gave that historic funding to the Coast Guard. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Chairman Paul. Senator Blumenthal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Welcome to all of
our nominees. Thank you for serving our country. Mr. Plankey, I
have a couple of fairly straightforward yes or no questions.
Was the 2020 election rigged and stolen?
Mr. Plankey. Senator, thank you for your question----
Senator Blumenthal. It's pretty much a yes or no question.
Mr. Plankey. Thank you for your question, Senator. I have
not reviewed any of the cybersecurity of the 2020 election.
Senator Blumenthal. Don't have an opinion on whether the
2020 election was rigged and stolen?
Mr. Plankey. Senator, my opinion on the election as an
American private citizen is probably not really relevant. But
the electoral college did confirm President Joe Biden sworn
into office.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you, were there,
``widespread election malfeasance and serious vulnerabilities
with the voting machines'' that changed the election outcome?
Mr. Plankey. Senator as you know elections are State run
entities and many different sectors of State across the 50
states of the United States pursue different methods to secure
their own elections----
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Plankey, my time is limited, so I
am just going to say to you, there ought to be no hesitation in
your answer to these questions. The agency that you have been
nominated to lead, CISA, along with the entire National
Security and Intelligence Community agreed that the election
was secure.
You are undermining the confidence of the Nation in the
election apparatus, at a time when that credibility is as
important as ever when you are about to lead an agency that has
responsibility for that security. State and elections officers
across the country ran audits and examinations, and on a
bipartisan basis, affirmed that President Trump lost the
election. He won the next election.
The answer to my questions is no. The 2020 election was not
rigged and stolen. There were no widespread election
malfeasance and serious vulnerabilities, even though President
Trump said there were. Now, I know it is a contentious topic,
but your role in that agency is to be above politics. If you
cannot tell us with conviction and conscience that those
elections were secure, I have very serious doubts about your
ability to lead this agency.
Let me ask you, if President Trump comes to you and he
demands that CISA falsely claim that the 2026 or 2028 elections
were rigged, what will you do?
Mr. Plankey. Senator, as a cybersecurity professional,
these are State run elections. I have not reviewed the
cybersecurity posture of law 50 states----
Senator Blumenthal. With all due respect.
Mr. Plankey. That's like a doctor who's diagnosing somebody
over the television because they saw him on the news.
Senator Blumenthal. No, it's like a doctor who has a
patient come to him and is responsible for doing the diagnosis.
It may be a second opinion, but it actually is the
determinative opinion because you are the head of the Federal
agency that oversees the security of our election system for
the entire nation.
You are telling me in effect, you are just going to dodge,
you are going to jump ship, you are going to evade that
responsibility. I think that answer is completely
unsatisfactory.
Mr. Plankey. Senator, I did not say that I would dodge or
abate any of my responsibility. I would remind you, Senator,
that CISA is a consent-based cybersecurity agency, and CISA is
postured to respond and support every State across the United
States, and we will gladly and do our due diligence to support
those States across the United States.
Senator Blumenthal. You seem to not understand the
responsibility of CISA. People turn to this agency for
unbiased, objective science evidence-based expert information,
and you are in effect saying that if President Trump's comes to
you and he says, I want you to say this election was rigged,
you are going to yield to him. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. When we talk about elections and whether or
not they're rigged or not, I don't think one party or another
is particularly immune to this. There are still people who
believe that the Daily Machine and the mafia in Cook County in
1960. There's some evidence of it. It's a longtime American
tradition, for both parties to question the other party in
elections.
I will say that in 2016 when Donald Trump won the first
time, Hillary Clinton to this day says that he was an
illegitimate President. Jimmy Carter said he was illegitimate
from the very beginning. They tried to delegitimize Trump. I
would say it's no different.
In fact, if we are going to criticize Donald Trump for
questioning the 2020 election, we should be equally critical of
Hillary Clinton for questioning the 2016 election. The quotes
are legion. I mean, dozens and dozens of quotes. Dozens and
dozens of interviews. Hillary Clinton, to this day, is
unrepentant in this.
But it's worse than that. That's just sort of an opinion.
What they ended up doing is using the apparatus of government
to try to delegitimize Trump. They used the apparatus of
government to spread something that was a falsehood, that the
Russians got the election for Donald Trump. He was not
deserving, the people did not vote for him. The Russians did
this.
It turns out that all of the intelligence reports saying
the Russians, of course, they try to meddle, they meddle every
time in all of our elections. It was judged to be insignificant
and not consequential until it wasn't. Until all the sudden
someone at the top of the of the intelligence community
decided, oh, well, yes, we think Donald Trump's illegitimate.
We are going to spread this throughout government. There
basically was a conspiracy using government and using the power
of the Intel agencies.
For people who complained, Donald Trump complained about
the 2020 election. My goodness, the Obama administration
planted misinformation throughout government, purposely. They
planted it in lots of different places.
At one point, John Brennan is asked the question by the
analyst that he has selected, this information Sir, this
dossier, the Steele dossier, is opposition research, and it is
unchecked. It is unverified. Brennan's flippant response was,
yes, it sure sounds like it could be true. Sure, rings true.
This is the head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
saying this. They got together and really cooked up something
to delegitimize.
I really am not that interested in hearing. Oh, Donald
Trump says it. Will you admit the election wasn't rigged?
There's a great book on this. It's called Rigged by Molly
Hemingway. In it, she goes through in great detail the
Democrats disregard. Does anybody remember the Democrats voted
against seating electors? The whole January 6th stuff? They
say, oh, this is unprecedented, Republicans aren't seating the
electors.
Now, look, I voted to seat the electors. I thought the
argument wasn't a valid argument. But the thing is, Democrats,
including one of the ones who worked, Raskin, to impeach the
President, he voted not to seat the electors in 2016 because he
thought the election was rigged.
For goodness sakes, let's put this to rest. Both parties
have accused each other of malfeasance. Both parties have
accused the elections of being rigged, and let's just try to
move forward.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Chair, with all due respect,
nothing you have said absolves this witness of a responsibility
to answer these basic questions about the core responsibility
of the agency he's been nominated to lead.
Chairman Paul. CISA has nothing to do with the elections.
The CISA has nothing to do with the State-run elections.
Senator Moody.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Agree to
disagree, I guess, Mr. Senator?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MOODY
Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
nominees for being here today. I know this is not an easy
process, and we appreciate you standing ready to answer our
questions, and to your families who are here with you and
supporting you, not only today, but after you are confirmed in
these incredibly important roles.
Public service is not easy, and we understand that and are
grateful to you for the service to our country. I would like to
recognize we did not do introductions for efficiency's sake. If
we were doing them, I would have proudly introduced one of our
nominees today, Pedro Allende.
Pedro has served the great State of Florida in his capacity
as the Secretary of the Florida Department of Management
Services, which comprises three areas of service, business
technology, and workforce. He oversaw a one billion budget and
workforce of nearly 1,000 employees. He previously served as
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Risk and
Resilience policy with the Office of Strategy Policy and Plans,
at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
In this role, he led policy development to protect U.S.
critical infrastructure against cyber, physical, and natural
threats, while overseeing policy efforts to increase Federal
and State local preparedness response and recovery
capabilities. He's also served as a member of our Florida Cyber
Cybersecurity Council. I have no doubt if confirmed he will
once again serve the United States of America (USA) with great
honor, and we appreciate you stepping up.
Mr. Allende, if you can quickly, for the position for which
you are nominated to serve now, it will be responsible for
integrating cutting edge technology and reliable scientific
research to support the department's mission of keeping America
safe. Can you give this Committee an example of how in your
role currently as the Secretary of Florida's Department of
Management Services, you utilize new technology to better serve
and protect the people of Florida?
Mr. Allende. Thank you, Senator Moody for your kind words.
I am honored for the nomination by President Trump and for this
Committee's due diligence in the advice and consent role and to
my family, my wife, behind me especially.
In Florida, we have had the great opportunity to do
interesting things, is how I describe it. We have had the
opportunity to work not just within government but also expand
outward. The department currently has research agreements with
the University of Florida, University of South Florida (USF),
Florida International University (FIU), and Idaho National
Laboratory (INL) to fill in the gaps where State governments
are not well equipped to provide solutions.
Some of our innovative work has involved working on things
such as assessments of locks and levy infrastructure and
cybersecurity. Also, we have a project coming up that has been
projected for next year with Idaho National Lab and Florida
International University (FIU) to assess battery technology in
its security, which will include the issue that's been recently
in the news about inverters on solar panels.
There are just a few of the examples. One example of just
leveraging existing technology has been during Hurricane Ian in
southwest Florida. The Governor and our team as directed ended
up in addition to the traditional effort of bringing mobile
devices called Cellular-on-Light-Truck (COLTs) and Cell on
Wheels (COWs) from the three telecom carriers to reestablish
communications, we felt that there was a need to expand that.
We had the largest deployment of Starlink satellites 56
hours after landfall to restore connectivity to Floridians to
begin the recovery process. Grocery stores, pharmacies to
establish communications to manage your inventories, and to
bring that service to Floridians in need.
Senator Moody. Thank you so much, and we look forward to
continuing your great service to the United States of America.
Know a lot of leaders coming out of the great free State of
Florida, and we are proud of you, sir.
I would like to also turn my attention now to Ed O'Connell.
Welcome. You are nominated to serve on the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia. As a former judge myself for over a
decade, I know what goes into serving in a trial court when you
are dealing with criminal matters, civil matters, family law
matters, probate matters, very important to this country and to
the jurisdiction you will be serving specifically, is
efficiency in court.
The delay sometimes denies justice to the litigants that
come before it. What is your approach to maintaining efficiency
within a court as a judge?
Mr. O'Connell. Thank you, Senator. The superior court of
the District of Columbia is extraordinarily overburdened. There
are not enough judges on that court to move the caseload as it
needs to be moved. I view my role as a new judge on that court
as one of the most important things I would have to do is
manage a caseload expeditiously without sacrificing
thoroughness with regard to any one individual case.
I think the unique training that I have had enables me to
succeed at that role and that training was being an Assistant
United States Attorney in the Superior Court system for almost
20 years. Part of my job as an AUSA, was to efficiently manage
an extraordinarily high caseload without sacrificing the
individualized attention due to any particular case.
Senator Moody. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Fox you wrote in
your opening statement that you will be 'independent,
impartial, and fair? Which as we discussed in my office, is a
core responsibility of the job of independent counsel. Yet you
accepted a senior advisor position in the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence from Director Gabbard, after
you knew that she had put your name forward for the role of
Inspector General.
You are also now Acting Chief of the Information Management
Office at ODNI. My question for you sir is, how can we or the
employees of the intelligence community trust that you will
indeed be independent, impartial, and fair when you chose to
work in the very office so that you are nominated to oversee?
Mr. Fox. Thank you for the question, Senator. Thank you
again for taking the time to meet with me. I appreciate our
conversation. Being a truthful and being independent are my top
priorities as the Inspector General if confirmed. I was chosen
for the role of senior advisor and ultimately for the role of
Inspector General, I believe, because of my reputation for
doing so. I only took this role as senior advisor, which in
reality is just a title.
My duties have been to perform as Acting Chief of the
Information Management Office, which is overseeing the release
of records to the public for FOIA Requests, Privacy Act and we
have a number of other groups. I am dedicated to transparency
and rebuilding public trust.
One thing I would like to add is, since day one, the entire
leadership team has understood the importance of that
independence. For that purpose, I have been properly insulated
from any personnel decisions or any significant organizational
decisions to the extent that if I am in a meeting and one of
these topics arises, I will literally leave the room. They have
respected that and supported that effort.
Senator Peters. You shared with me the same information in
my office, which I appreciated, but it's still, I believe,
raises serious questions about some judgment as to why you
would take that position, given your background. As Senator
Moreno highlighted with his questions, CISA 2015 is a critical
law that provides liability protections to businesses that
share threat information with the Federal Government and each
other.
These authorities play a key role in coordinating public
private responses to cyber incidents, including the recent
vault and salt typhoon attacks. Mr. Plankey I am pleased with
the answer that you gave to my colleague. It was very thorough.
I think it was pretty clear you fully support the
reauthorization of that legislation as to how critical it is. I
understand Secretary Noem also fully supports the
reauthorization of that as well.
We are heading toward the deadline here at the end of
September, so we have to take action before that time. Mr.
Chair I know you and I have spoken about this on numerous
occasions, and look forward to working with you in the weeks
ahead as we look at this deadline and trying to get legislation
passed to make sure that those authorities are continued to be
there.
Thank you for your support. If confirmed, I would hope to
deliver a bill that allows you to continue to work with all of
the partners necessary to provide cybersecurity in this
country.
Mr. Fox, I am very concerned about Signal Gate, both the
sharing of classified information on commercial messaging app
and the implication that those records have not been retained
as they should have been. In our meeting on Tuesday, you
reiterated that nothing classified was shared because the
Defense Secretary, who is the original classification authority
of the information, has confirmed that the messages were not
classified.
Yet, just yesterday, after you and I met, the Washington
Post reported that the information Secretary Hegseth shared
came from an email marked secret. You know exactly what that
means. Secret is classified information that should not be
shared with foreign allies.
My question for you, will it be your stance as IG if
confirmed, that the Secretary can simply retroactively say that
operational battle plans involving men and women in uniform are
not classified, and thus try to avoid the consequences of
sharing them in an unclassified manner?
Mr. Fox. Thank you for the question, Senator. With my IMO
role, when we review information for classification, a part of
that involves a line-by-line review. If a document is marked
secret, for example it's likely that there are portions within
that document, they may be unclassified entirely. I cannot
speak to this because I am not aware of the facts and
circumstances.
I would also like to add that National Defense Information
and Department of Defense (DOD) information would be
originating from DOD, and thus DOD would be the appropriate
entity to make any determination for that. That being said, to
answer your question, as IG have confirmed nobody is above the
law, and I am committed to conducting every single activity of
the Inspector General's office in an impartial manner without
fear of favor.
Senator Peters. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. Senator Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I thank all of
you for being here. Congratulations on your nominations. Our
country faces numerous threats in the work you are nominated to
do, as essential to supporting President Trump's mission of
protecting American lives and infrastructure against the
threats of Communist China, Russia, and more.
Under both the Obama and Biden presidencies, we saw our
intelligence community and other agencies weakened and
weaponize against its own citizens, putting Americans at risk.
We have seen policies put in place at undermine the agency's
credibility and attempt to enforce security at the expense of
hardworking Americans.
Thankfully, we have President Trump back in office. He and
his administration take the threat that Xi Jinping and others
pose her country very seriously, and he knows too well the
experience of intelligence agencies being weaponized for
political purposes. With no one being held accountable.
Let me ask Mr. Fox the first question. We have known for
years that both the Obama and Biden administrations weaponized
every element of the Federal Government against President
Trump, including the intelligence community. Just last week,
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released over
100 declassified documents that she said, provided overwhelming
evidence of a treasonous and conspiracy by senior Obama
officials, administration officials to undermined President
Trump's 2016 election.
If confirmed, how would you prioritize reviewing the
actions of our intelligence agencies during the 2016
transition? How would you ensure your office's full
independence when investigating current and former senior
government officials?
Mr. Fox. Thank you for the question, Senator. I share the
priorities of this administration and the director of
rebuilding public trust, and there's a lot involved in that
effort. If confirmed as ICIG, then I will take every action as
appropriate to properly investigate or conduct audits and
inspections as needed, aligned with the national intelligence
priorities as best we can. Of course, consistent with
congressionally directed actions.
Senator Scott. Based on the evidence Ms. Gabbard put out,
what reforms or safeguards would you advocate to prevent any
future political weaponization of the intelligence community?
Mr. Fox. That's a complex answer, Senator, and I appreciate
it. Step one would be a zero-based review, if confirmed to
understand the roles and responsibilities within the office,
and make sure we have the right people in the right position
with the right tools and the right intent.
The ICIG is a cross-cutting office, so it does have the
authority to oversee all 18 IC elements, and I would work with
the ICIG forum to ensure that we are working together as
appropriate and ensuring that the watchers are conducting their
oversight in each element of the IC appropriately and fully.
Senator Scott. Thank you. My next question is for Mr.
Allende and Mr. Plankey. In May, U.S. Department of Energy
officials found secret communication equipment inside Chinese
made devices like power inverters, which are used throughout
the United States and the world to connect solar panels and
wind turbines to electricity grids. Are also found in
batteries, heat pumps, and electric vehicle chargers.
The Biden administration recklessly rescinded Trump's first
term Executive Order (EO) that banned Chinese procurement or
involvement in the U.S. power grid. I know this administration
has restored that EO and I have previously filed a bill to
codify that. Does the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have a kill
switch embedded in our power grid through our use of Chinese
renewable energy infrastructure, like solar panels and Chinese
batteries, and how we combat this and make sure we are not
procuring China Compulsory Certification (CCC) made energy
infrastructure. Mr. Allende if you will, go first.
Mr. Allende. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your
question. At present, I am not in the Department of Homeland
Security. I do not currently have any insights into that
matter. If confirmed, however, I look forward to studying that
very deeply with the experts at the directorate of science and
technology.
I can tell you that based on public reports, that is a
concern that we have had in Florida, and we have taken action.
We have started some work with Idaho National Laboratory to
assess battery technology, which will include the inverters and
solar panels. We previously conducted an operational technology
(OT) security assessment of Florida's locks and levies and the
Florida legislature in the 2023 session banned the use of
Chinese drones, which our department effectuated regulations to
ban those.
Those were ultimately sent to the University of South
Florida for testing for those very issues that you are
describing. I am just not aware of the results of those tests.
Mr. Plankey. Senator thank you for your question. I share
the concern of you and my colleague, and we worked together in
the original Trump 45 administration on this very issue. We are
both concerned. I am concerned. If confirmed, that it will be a
priority of mine to remove all Chinese intrusions,
exploitations, or infestation into the American supply chain.
Yes, Senator and I look forward to working with you on that.
Senator Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. Senator Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. I thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
Peters for holding this important hearing. I thank all of the
nominees for your willingness to serve and congratulations to
you and your families, and I think your families for their
support as well.
I am going to start with a simple question, and we will go
right down the line from Mr. Allende to Mr. O'Connell. If you
are directed by the President to take an action that would
violate the law, would you follow the President's directive or
follow the law? Mr. Allende.
Mr. Allende. Senator, thank you for your question. If
confirmed, I find it very unlikely that the President or anyone
acting on his behalf would ever instruct me to break the law. I
do not believe that would ever happen.
Senator Hassan. But if it did?
Mr. Allende. If it did as unlikely as that would be, I
would consult with the Office of General Counsel (OGC) as to
the interpretation of the law. If persists, for some reason I
disagreed with the interpretation, I would resign.
Senator Hassan. Are you committed to following the law or
not?
Forget for the minute who instructs you to follow the law
or whether there's a difference of opinion. Are you committed
to following the law or not?
Mr. Allende. I am Senator.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. That's a yes, Mr. Plankey.
Mr. Plankey. Thank you, Senator. I share my colleagues'
process that I do not believe the President would ever ask me
to violate the law, but I do believe in upholding the rule of
law. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Fox.
Mr. Fox. Senator, in my professional capacity now, and if
confirmed as ICIG, I will always follow the law.
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. O'Connell.
Mr. O'Connell. Thank you, Senator. As a judge on the D.C.
Superior Court, my only job would be to follow the law, and I
could not anticipate any circumstance where anyone, the
President of the United States or anybody else, would try to
influence me to do anything other than follow the law.
Senator Hassan. I appreciate your commitment to following
the law. I will say to those of you who have just said out loud
that you do not believe or expect the President of the United
States to instruct you to break the law, that reflects a
disconnection from reality. That concerns me. I know you may
have to say those things to satisfy the President or the people
who are watching this hearing on his behalf, but it's an
extraordinary statement given events.
Now, Mr. Plankey, as you know, CISA helps State and local
governments improve their cybersecurity and protect critical
assets. One of the key programs that supports this goal is the
State and local cybersecurity grant program. This program
provides grants to State and local governments to bolster their
cybersecurity and better protect Americans from hostile actors
and cyber criminals. Unfortunately, this program runs out of
money in September.
My question to you, Mr. Plankey, is do you support
continued funding for the State and local cybersecurity grant
program? What would the impact be should Congress fail to fund
it?
Mr. Plankey. Senator, thank you for that question. I
absolutely support State and local grant program for
cybersecurity. I think there's many rural areas of America, and
CISA exists to support all Americans across the United States,
and one of the best ways to do that is through the State and
local grant program.
Senator Hassan. I appreciate that it's not, in a State like
New Hampshire, 234 cities and towns, many of them very small,
they just do not have the resources. Of course, the bigger
impact, it's not only on each individual city or town or county
but it also the weakest link in cyber impacts everybody. I
would really appreciate working with you on that.
Mr. Allende, under the 2024 DHS artificial intelligence
(AI) Roadmap, the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate is
set to build out the infrastructure needed to evaluate the risk
that terrorists and criminals could misuse powerful AI models,
right? So just this past week, OpenAI released a new model that
for the first time, they classified as having a high capability
of producing biological harm, including dangerous pathogens.
Given these very real risks to our national security, I
would like to hear from you about how you would prioritize
specific types of AI risk as Under Secretary of Science and
Technology, and how would you approach that prioritization?
Mr. Allende. Senator, thank you for your question. For
background, I am an attorney and a manager. I have a very
strong technical interest, and I study the material, but I am
not a scientist or an engineer. If confirmed, however the
Director of Science and Technology has a number of experts
within that I would consult on this matter.
I can say that the kinds of models matter, whether its
smart language small language models open and closed. That gets
very granular. I am very happy to work with you and your team
to discuss each of those options and how each one could be
managed in a very granular way.
Senator Hassan. Are you concerned about the risk that AI
poses?
Mr. Allende. Senator, thank you for your question. I am. In
Florida, we have actually taken it upon ourselves at the
department to build an AI use policy and to start addressing
those very risks both on the privacy aspects of what can be
disclosed to a model and how to responsibly use a model?
Senator Hassan. You must have some experience then in
prioritizing what kind of risks you are looking at? My
question, this is urgent. I mean, this is a national security
and public safety matter, and it is an urgent one. We have open
AI saying they have now got an AI that is highly capable of
producing biological harm. This is on our doorstep. It's a
national security issue. Do you feel urgency about it? What's
your plan to make sure that you are focused on the most serious
threats?
Mr. Allende. Senator, I absolutely feel urgency behind it.
The scope of what the Department of Management Services and
what the Director of Science and Technology were very
different. I cannot relate one to the other.
Senator Hassan. How are you qualified for the job?
Mr. Allende. Senator, my background as a lawyer has
involved highly technical matters such as cybersecurity. I
started the cybersecurity practice for my law firm. I have a
Master's in decision information science. I have a long history
of working with very smart folks such as scientists, engineers,
and data analysts, to bring those methodologies to bear on the
problems that we have at the Department of Management Services.
I am very happy and comfortable working with people much
smarter than I, and enabling them to do the job that they need
to do.
Senator Hassan. I am over time. I will follow up with you,
but perhaps I can make this observation. This is not
necessarily about how smart people are although that helps.
This is about whether technologists, who are engaged in this
kind of work, understand the risks and are willing to put some
guardrails up and willing to prioritize how we go after making
sure that these risks do not impact our national security and
public safety. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. I think the question of whether we follow
the law is an important question. Obviously, we should always
follow the law. I think what makes it a more difficult question
is we all know that you are not supposed to steal, you are not
supposed to commit fraud, but if the President orders you to
fire 10 percent of your people, is he breaking the law? There
have been accusations made by the minority party that the
President's authorizing people to break the law. So it's a
question, can the President hire and fire people?
It's gone all the way to the Supreme Court now, and Supreme
Court is siding with them. We have to be careful about accusing
the President and saying, the President's ordering his people
to break the law. Because actually the court so far has sided
with him on that. The court may not side with him on
everything, but that's why we have courts, and it is
complicated.
When Mr. Allende responds that he would ask the counsel.
He's probably a little bit removed from the President. He has
to ask for counsel on it. If you feel that the President doing
the resigning is sort of ultimately the answer on this, it
isn't. I would just argue not as always as simple as we say--
follow the law--when there's a dispute over the law.
We are probably going to have more separation of power
issues decided under President Trump because he pushes the
envelope than any President in our history. And you can argue
that's good or bad, but the courts have so far sided with him
on the hiring and firing that that's not illegal.
Senator Hassan. No. My respectful dissent from some of your
characterizations, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST
Senator Ernst. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations
to our nominees for being here today and for your willingness
to serve. We thank your families as well. Mr. Plankey, I am
going to start with you. We have behind me a chart,\1\ and it's
quite lovely here. But it is something symbolic, but it is
important. The blue outer ring and the inner red ring represent
the unity with DHS and the commitment to cut through government
red tape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart submitted by Senator Ernst appears in the Appendix on
page 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, Federal agencies have been tied up in knots with
outdated technology and many bureaucratic hurdles. Currently,
the Federal Government maintains over 10,000 unique forms and
processes, approximately 125 billion forms annually. That
volume isn't just a paperwork problem; it's a symptom of deeply
antiquated systems that are ranging anywhere from eight to 50
years old. Unfortunately, modernization efforts so often become
boondoggles.
Take the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) attempt to
modernize its oil and gas activity tracking, which ballooned to
three times the projected cost. It was four years late, and it
added 565,000 labor hours resulting in $19 million of
productivity losses. Outdated technology also leaves the
Federal Government dangerously exposed.
Mr. Plankey, as CISA successfully assists State and local
critical infrastructure to meet current cybersecurity
protections, what will you do to ensure the Federal Government
isn't falling behind while helping others catch up?
Mr. Plankey. Thank you for that question, Senator. I was
nervous you were going to ask me about the logo as we could
change that if you want. [Laughter.]
Senator Ernst. We might have to work on that.
Mr. Plankey. Roger that.
Senator Ernst. After we fix these problems.
Mr. Plankey. Yes, ma'am. Senator, one of the ways I like to
attack the problem as somebody who has worked in private
industry from startups to fortune 10 companies, I think too
often we love to focus on how we fix a problem.
Basically, when you are fixing something in the private
sector business you are stopping the bleeding, right? You stop
the decremental decrease of what you are trying to process. The
problem is you really actually need to grow or change the
service, right? You need to make a shift in what you do and
change the way that you approach the problem set to deliver
something better, in this case for the taxpayer.
When you focus on fix, all you are doing is stopping the
bleeding. What I would like to focus on, and what I have done
in my technical experience is wholesale changes. Instead of
investing more in bad processes and policies or making small
adjustment, micro changes, in a process that is outdated to
begin with, we will invest in wholesale changes and move
forward to deliver better outcomes for the American taxpayer.
Senator Ernst. That's outstanding. I appreciate that. Let's
stop doubling down, spending additional money where we do not
have to. It's just throwing money out the window. I am going to
move on to Mr. Fox. Your job ensures whistleblowers can trust
the system they are reporting into.
As you know, last Friday, the Director of National
Intelligence declassified documents exposing what she called 'a
treasonous conspiracy, carried out by some of the highest-
ranking officials in our Nation to weaponize the intelligence
community against the incoming President of the United States.
Framing him as being the agent of a foreign government. We know
today that it was all a made-up lie. This carried real costs.
The House of Representative impeached the President in part
over accusations built on fiction. Taxpayers were stuck with a
$32 million bill for Miller's witch hunt. Trust in our
intelligence apparatus was undermined and despite all of this,
the American people saw through the lies and reelected
President Trump last November.
Let me be clear, weaponizing government against political
opponents is un-American. Mr. Fox, will you commit to turning
over every rock, regardless of how uncomfortable or
embarrassing the truth may be for the intelligence community?
Mr. Fox. Thank you for addressing this, Senator.
Absolutely, that is what I have been asked to do.
Senator Ernst. Do you agree that the intelligence community
should be impartial, apolitical, and never weaponized against
U.S. citizens or the leaders they choose?
Mr. Fox. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Ernst. Thank you very much for your straightforward
answers. Thank you all very much, and congratulations on your
nominations.
Chairman Paul. Senator Lankford.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you all for
going through the process. It's not a fun process to be able to
do the preparation, all everything else that you have done, and
then be able to go through this. I appreciate your dedication
to the country and your willingness to be able to serve.
Mr. O'Connell, I wanted to ask you a question because you
are getting left alone all the time on this. I want to be able
to just zero in on it. You have served in officer of the
Inspector General in the past. You have served as a prosecutor
in the past. Stepping into one of the roles as a judge here in
D.C. is an incredibly important role.
But my concern is always that people get access to justice.
One of the challenges that we have had is attorneys are not
prepared when they walk in and they ask for an extension, they
ask us for more time. Your judges just keep giving that, the
person who's trying to get to justice can never get to justice.
The family that's the victim can never get an answer there
because everything gets delayed.
How are you going to run your courtroom in such a way to be
able to make sure people actually get to justice in a timely
manner?
Mr. O'Connell. Thank you for the question, Senator. I
certainly do not take it personally. These are important issues
that are being addressed. My experience as an Assistant U.S.
Attorney in the Superior Court division of the of the U.S.
Attorney's Office here in D.C., I encountered it frequently
where defense counsel was not prepared for trial, not prepared
to proceed.
I think the judges of the Superior Court, who was
successful at managing those caseloads, were able to use a
number of tools to ensure that to hold accountable counsel who
were unprepared. Certainly, this was done with the interest of
the clients of those counsel. Judges have to ensure that
litigants, especially criminal defendants, are adequately
represented.
A number of tools were used by judges. Certainly. when an
assistant U.S. Attorney would be unprepared, the judge would
outright dismiss their case. That was a circumstance that
nobody ever wanted to encounter as a prosecutor. I think it's a
broader question. I think that you are asking about the volume
of cases in D.C. Superior Court. It's overwhelmingly
overburdened. There are, not enough judges and there are too
many cases, right?
Senator Lankford. But there's an expectation that when the
case comes to the court, the attorneys are prepared, the case
is going to get heard rather than just one more delay. One more
delay. If folks are actually ready to be able to get to the
courtroom, the folks that are there seeking justice can
actually get it.
Mr. O'Connell. That's exactly right.
Senator Lankford. I appreciate that. Fox, I want to be able
to drill down, thank you for stepping in this role as well.
Your job is a tough one. Your work for Congress, Congress is
one who established the Inspector General. We have an
expectation that you are the eyes and the ears of this U.S.
Congress. To the intelligence community, you also work for the
White House, and you work for the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence. Ultimately, you work for the American
people.
Your job is to be able to oversee people that literally, we
hire them to go steal secrets from other places and be as
clandestine as possible. That's a tough job to say, we need you
to go in and make sure that this is being done correctly.
Let me ask you a couple questions of that. No. 1 is, we
cannot have our secrets stolen. If there are processes in place
that lead to somebody that's a contractor or an individual
that's hired, that's taking our secrets, part of the
responsibility, that's the Inspector General, to be able to
look over our own shoulder, to be able to make sure that we
have processes in place to prevent that.
What are you going to do to make sure our secrets aren't
being stolen? How are you going to engage in that way?
Mr. Fox. Thank you for that question, Senator. I share your
concern. It's very important across all 18 elements, that we
are simpatico in this effort to protect our secrets, while also
maintaining appropriate transparency with the public. That is a
balancing act in some ways.
When it comes to holding individuals accountable for
leaking information or selling information to a foreign power,
there are a number of steps that we can take, hopefully to
deter that activity in the first place. That's something I am
prepared to look at as the IG. I cannot commit to it now, given
our many different priorities. I would have to look at the work
plan and understand the resources we have available and the
other congressionally directed actions. But I will stand ready
to address that issue for the entire IC.
Senator Lankford. OK. We look forward to Mr. Plankey,
thanks for stepping into this role as well. The Cybersecurity
Information Sharing Act of 2015 expires on September the 30th
of this year. Secretary Noem has asked for its reauthorization.
What do you see as the challenges that face the Nation if it is
not reauthorized?
Mr. Plankey. Senator, thank you for the question. The CISA
act of 2015 created before CISA was created, is necessary in
that it provides the sharing of information from business to
business and business to government without exposing liability
to those said parties.
A business that has experiences an issue, a breach, detects
an adversary, that type of information, they can share it
without feeling pressure of liability across to other
businesses, so that they may protect themselves and then also
to the government, so the government may then distribute that
information in a way that protects the greater good of America.
That's contained in the CISA 2015 bill.
Senator Lankford. Right. But if it expires, what happens?
Mr. Plankey. If it expires, they lose the Liability
Protection Authority Center.
Senator Lankford. We will have less of that. OK, sir. Thank
you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations to
the nominees. Thank you for being here. Mr. Plankey, if I could
just start with you.
One of the most troubling things that we have seen in the
last few years when it comes to behavior by the government, is
the effort by the Federal Government to coerce and otherwise
pressure social media companies to engage in mass censorship of
private American citizens, across a range of topics,
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, elections, school
board meetings.
Unfortunately, the agency that you have been nominated to
lead was right in the thick of it, CISA. So much to that
agency's shame, I must say, I think in direct violation of the
First Amendment of the United States, because what the Supreme
Court has said over and over is the Federal Government cannot
use private entities to do what the First Amendment bars the
Federal Government from doing. As you probably know, there's
been much litigation about this.
The discovery in that litigation is damning for many
agencies in the Federal Government, including CISA. My question
is, what are you going to do to ensure that CISA gets out of
the speech regulation business, the surveillance business when
it comes to private American citizens, and gets back into what
it's supposed to do, which is actually to keep us safe, not to
regulate our speech, not to follow us around online, but to be
stopping cyber-attacks and ensuring cybersecurity.
Mr. Plankey. Senator, thank you for that question which I
believe to be an important one. And so does Secretary Noem and
President Trump. It is not CISA's job and nor is it in its
authorities to censor or determine the truths whether it be on
social media or in any level of media.
CISA will not do any of that work will not be a part of any
of that work. If I am confirmed, I would like to focus CISA on
what it's mandated to do, and that's to protect the Federal
Civilian Executive Branch, as well as protect the critical
infrastructure of the United States. Cybersecurity's a big
enough problem. We have adversaries at our door, inside our
house and all over us every day.
If confirmed, I need my people at CISA to be focused on
eradicating those adversaries from the Federal Government
computer systems, as well as critical infrastructure of the
United States.
Senator Hawley. Let me just read some of the euphemisms
that your predecessor used to talk about CISA's mission and the
censorship effort. Narrative control, perception management,
information integrity-that one is my favorite. You are telling
me you are going to get CISA out of the business of policing
narrative control.
I mean, narrative control? Good lord. I mean, what could be
more Orwellian than that? A Federal Government, the most
powerful government in the world engaged in narrative control?
Your testimony here is that you will get CISA out of this
business. You will comply with the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, and you will not engage in
censorship of American citizens of any kind. Am I understanding
you correctly?
Mr. Plankey. Senator, put it bluntly, yes. You are
understanding me correctly.
Senator Hawley. Good. Let's talk about what that's going to
look like in the election context. Obviously, CISA has
important election security work, protecting our election
infrastructure, that's important work, that's designated by
statute. That however, is different than monitoring political
speech and monitoring political campaigns.
Tell us how you are going to make the line clear between
cybersecurity protections for our elections and political
content moderation, which again, is unfortunately which your
agency has been involved in in recent years.
Mr. Plankey. Senator, thank you for that question. CISA's
role in election security is a sub-sector of critical
infrastructure.
The President has already given guidance on this in his
recent Executive Order. That guidance says that the Department
of Homeland Security will focus on electronic election system,
so electroencephalography (EEG), like a voting system that
Americans might use to vote to ensure their vote is assessed
prior to an election, and that no adversarial actions or
vulnerabilities are on it.
Now that is tasked in the President's Executive Order that
he has already thought of, down to DHS. If Secretary Noem
tasked CISA to do that, which I could imagine she likely will,
my team if confirmed, will focus on the assessments of that
election infrastructure.
Senator Hawley. Good. Everything you said to me is
encouraging. I am glad to hear it. I know that you appreciate
that CISA has a major trust deficit, given what's happened in
the last four years. That's a problem because, we have gone so
far in this body, there are tasks that frankly CISA ought to be
performing, including things related to like the security of
rural hospitals, which is very important to me, very important
to my State. Forty percent of the hospitals in my State are
rural. We need the cybersecurity help.
But frankly, we have been very reluctant to use CISA for
any of this because CISA has been a surveillance and censorship
machine for the last four years. This has to stop. We have to
get this agency back on track, and I hope that you are the
right person to do it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. Senator Slotkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLOTKIN
Senator Slotkin. Thank you for being here. I understand
this was raised before, but Mr. Fox you have been nominated, to
be Inspector General of the entire intelligence community.
Having relationships with Inspector Generals and providing that
objective stand back investigation into really important
questions of integrity in the intelligence community. I am a
former CIA officer, so this is important to me.
I think if we expect you to do that behind closed doors, we
have to know that you are going to be objective. What is your
assessment of whether classified information was shared in the
Signal Gate exchange? Was there classified information that you
are aware of, placed on an unclassified system and shared with
the journalist?
Mr. Fox. Thank you for the question, Senator. I agree with
you that it's very important that we protect our sensitive
information. To my knowledge, the Secretary of Defense, who is
the original classifier authority (OCA), on the content from
DOD, determined that it was unclassified. In my capacity as the
Acting Chief of Information Management at ODNI, our practice is
to defer to other agencies for information originating out of
those agencies.
Senator Slotkin. OK. Even though we now have a report that
that information was directly taken from a document labeled
``SECRET'' ``Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals (NOFORN), with
no declassification process that I have heard of formally going
on, you believe that just because the Secretary of Defense was
the Secretary of Defense, he got to declassify it just by
putting it on Signal Gate?
Mr. Fox. I am not familiar Senator with DODs policies when
it comes to declassifying or determining the classification of
information.
Senator Slotkin. That's a strong statement to say that I am
not familiar with DODs processes, but you are saying it's
unclassified. First of all, I want you to be familiar. If you
are going to be the Inspector General, you are going to have to
weigh in on a million of these cases when people rank and file
officers, leak information.
I would just say it's hard to understand how the senior
officer in charge of inspections and investigations on this
issue can't speak clearly about how a potential leak of
classified information is bad, and to be not familiar with the
procedures is concerning.
Let me ask another question related to the reporting. I
believe you are right now the senior advisor to Tulsi Gabbard,
is that correct?
Mr. Fox. My title is Senior Advisor, but I am performing
the capacity of Acting Chief of Information Management,
Senator.
Senator Slotkin. Got it. I guess what I am having trouble
understanding is in the past couple of days there's been
reports out that your current boss has put forward going after
Barack Obama and a bunch of reporting from I think nine years
ago now, on the exact same day that President Trump's name
appeared in the Wall Street Journal as being in the Epstein
files, the exact same day.
It is hard to imagine that in the four-years of the Trump
administration, previously, in the six-months leading up to
now, when there's been plenty of time for your boss, for you
all and your front office to refer these issues to the
Department of Justice (DOJ), you picked the exact same day that
the President knew he was going to be named as being in the
files of a known pedophile, right? A known sexual offender.
Can you help me understand why, because my 10-year-old
nephew understands that that was a distraction. That we were
talking about something that was 10 years old on the exact day
that the President did not want to be talking about his name
being in those files. Can you answer for that?
Mr. Fox. Senator, I really appreciate the opportunity to
address this. The declassification process is lengthy and it's
significant, and we have an excellent team of officers
working----
Senator Slotkin. Wait a minute, you just said that
Secretary Hegseth could declassify under his authority and put
out on public information, a piece of SECRET NOFORN
information. So that took seconds. I have seen Presidents do
this. I am a CIA officer; Presidents can declassify very
quickly.
Are you saying that the reason why Tulsi Gabbard made that
decision to announce yesterday, or whatever it was two days
ago, was because of a lengthy declassification process? You are
talking to a CIA officer who's watched those things happen.
Please tell me how in the four-years of the Trump
administration, previously it did not get done, but yesterday
it got done?
Mr. Fox. Senator, I appreciate that question and your
service as a clandestine officer. These documents are reviewed
very carefully and redacted as needed to protect sensitive
sources and methods. That's not an overnight process.
Chairman Paul. Time has expired.
Senator Slotkin. Thank you. Sorry.
Chairman Paul. We are getting close to the end. Senator
Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Allende, I have
introduced bipartisan legislation to establish a pilot program
with very strict Federal oversight that would permit some
State, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) law enforcement
agencies to conduct operations to counter drone threats that
are going to continue to be a persistent challenge for us.
My question for you is, if confirmed as the Under Secretary
for S&T, how would you help ensure that these law enforcement
agencies have access to the safest, most effective technology
necessary to accomplish this mission?
Mr. Allende. Senator, thank you for your question. I share
your concern. In Florida, drones are something that we have a
great deal of concern about. Within our portfolio at the
Department of Management Services, we have the Florida
Facilities Pool, which includes the capital and the Governor's
mansion. Those are two very sensitive subjects for us
particularly when someone's flying a drone that should be
unauthorized.
If confirmed, in the context of your question in the
Federal space, my first step would be to get with the
components in the law enforcement space, particularly those
within DHS at the first instance, to understand what their
needs, gaps and wants would be to support their critical
operations.
Then, work with the experts within the Director of Science
and Technology to bring to bear already available technologies,
technologies that can be incrementally modified to very quickly
adjust to those needs, and if needed, specialized research.
Although I think in the drone space, we have seen a lot of
breadth in the market. So, I would probably lean very heavily
on the first two.
Senator Peters. Very good. We have a lot more than that, so
I will look forward if indeed confirmed that we have to have
further conversation on this. We are way behind in our
abilities to protect the American people, the homeland and need
to take aggressive actions.
Mr. Plankey, CISA has a number of statutory requirements
such as Critical Infrastructure Protection Stipulations under
Homeland Security Act, national communications, infrastructure
security mandates. You are well aware of the long list of
responsibilities that are there. There's been some questions
about focus of CISA and we can debate the past, but it was you
know, I think it was a unit there, folks are concerned about
that had 15 people out of 3,000 people that work at CISA. From
what I have heard from Secretary Noem, she says, this is back
on mission. It's ready to protect our country from cyber
threats. We have to lean in to make this happen.
You are fully aware of the threats that we have. You
understand the significant nature of them and how they are
persistent, and we need resources to deal with it. My question
for you is, how would you ensure that all of the agency's
statutory requirements are met? Given potentially millions of
dollars in budget cuts that we are seeing and hundreds of
personnel leaving that agency.
You are walking into an agency that's critically important
and it's being cutoff at the knees, because some of alleged
things that may have happened in the past but are not occurring
now according to the Secretary.
Mr. Plankey. Yes, Senator. Thank you for that statement.
One of the ways that I have found that's most effective to when
you come in to lead an organization is to allow the operators
to operate, right? CISA has a number of the most capable
cybersecurity people in the world. If confirmed, like to get
into that, provide them the direction, tell them what I would
say is the hill we are going to take, charge up and protect the
American public from cybersecurity tax on critical
infrastructure, in State and local areas, mom and pop small
businesses, but then also the Federal Civilian Executive
Branch.
I am going to empower those operators to operate and do the
best they can. If that means we have to reorganize in some form
or fashion, that's what we will do. I will lead that charge. If
that means that we need a different level of funding than we
currently have now, then I will approach the Secretary, ask for
that funding, ask for that support.
I am heartened by her understanding of the Department of
Homeland Security and where she's applied her resources. As you
can see her and under the President's leadership, they have
seen that the United States Coast Guard needed resources and
they provided those. I have no doubt if I go to her and tell
her we are driving in this direction to protect the American
public, she will work under the President's leadership to then
work with Congress to get us the funds we need.
Senator Peters. I appreciate that these are folks who are
already working very hard. The cyber threat is increasing like
this, and then our protection is going like that, reorganizing
may be something to look at, but you have your Coast Guard
experience. in the Coast Guard there are auxiliary Coast Guard
men and women, there are reserves. We do not have that at CISA.
We cannot call up the Cyber Protection Reserves to come in
to help us because the bad guys are coming at us with
everything they have. I would hope if confirmed, you are really
focused on the resource needs and have the willingness to step
up and tell folks, no, this is really important, and as a
committee we need to be engaged to back you up, not just from a
funding, but any other additional authorities that you need. I
hope you make that commitment to me now.
Mr. Plankey. Yes, sir. You have that commitment.
Absolutely.
Senator Peters. Thanks.
Chairman Paul. Thank you all for your testimony. As we come
to a close, I want to compliment the Trump administration and
Secretary Noem for changing the policy on censorship. We had a
CISA that was actually at one point in 2021, released a video
that encouraged people to report their own family to Facebook
if they challenge the government's narrative on COVID-19. Turns
out many of the things the government said turned out not to be
true.
The things people have as far as opinions on medicine,
vaccines, masks, a lot of times there are simply opinions. In
fact, almost always are opinions, and you can hear both sides
of these things, but I compliment you for stopping this, but
realize it's only temporary until the next administration.
The way to make it permanent is when we reauthorize CISA.
Everybody's been talking, they want see CISA reauthorized, all
right, we will do it, but we are going to put in their anti-
censorship language, and we need to make this part of the law.
It already is the law. It's called the First Amendment. But we
need to specifically prohibit CISA from getting involved in
political speech.
People on the other side immediately respond and they say,
what about sex trafficking and this and that? That's against
the law. That's not constitutionally protected speech. Crimes
CISA will still be allowed to be involved with, political
speech they won't. I think we can separate the two.
But I think if we add language like that, we can get some
permanence. I am hoping we can come to a bipartisan agreement
on this, to add language in there, keeping CISA out of this.
It's like, to me it's simply distracts CISA from a job we want,
not to be hacked in by foreign terrorists, et cetera, to
protect our grid.
All of those things are reasonable requests, but we are
wasting time and money and simply angering, and really it pits
us all against each other. Whether or not a cloth mask works or
not. Is it six foot of separation or should have been 30 feet
of separation? If you catch COVID once, can you catch it again?
Will you die if you catch it Again? These are opinions and
there are facts to support opinions, but CISA has got no
business being involved in this.
Really, they just shouldn't. There's something unseemly
about it. The idea that agents from Department of Homeland
Security and or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would
be meeting with the media to tell them, well, we are just not
so sure that interview where Rand Paul said, cloth masks do not
work and we are just not sure that should be aired. That sounds
like something you would see in a totalitarian regime. It
really is terrible.
But I compliment the Trump administration, Secretary Noem
for changing it. I want everybody to know that we are going to
reauthorize CISA, but we are going to put language in there and
I hope it can be bipartisan language that is going to protect
speech and protect the First Amendment.
Thank you all for coming. The nominees have filed responses
to biographical and financial\1\ questionnaires,\2\ answering
pre-hearing questions\3\ submitted to the Committee and had
their financial statements\4\ reviewed by the Office of
Government Ethics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information of Mr. Allende appears in the Appendix on page
31.
\2\ The information of Mr. Plankey appears in the Appendix on page
106.
\3\ The information of Mr. Fox appears in the Appendix on page 161.
\4\ The information of Mr. O'Connell appears in the Appendix on
page 183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Committee has received letters of
supports for the nominees. Without objection, this information
will be made part of the hearing record with the exception of
the nominees financial data, which are on file with the
Committee.
The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow.
Thank you all. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]