House panel seeks clarity on reported pause in offensive cyber operations and role on disinformation
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Members pressed DOD witnesses on whether offensive cyber operations were paused against Russia, and asked whether Cyber Command targets disinformation; witnesses declined to discuss operational specifics in open session and said Cyber Command does not execute disinformation operations.
House lawmakers on May 16 pressed Defense Department witnesses about reports that offensive cyber operations against Russia had been paused and about Cyber Command's role in countering foreign disinformation.
Lede: Multiple members asked whether the department had issued stand‑down or pause orders for offensive actions against foreign adversaries and whether Cyber Command engages in operations to counter disinformation; witnesses said they could not discuss operational specifics in open session and that Cyber Command has not executed operations specifically to counter disinformation.
Why it matters: Members said public reporting of pauses in operations and mixed public statements from DOD had created confusion about whether the United States was limiting cyber activities against near‑peer adversaries. One member told the panel he had dug into the matter and characterized it as a "one day pause," while another asked witnesses to confirm the secretary did not issue a stand‑down order. Witnesses declined to confirm or discuss operational details in the open hearing.
What witnesses said: Bucout said she could not discuss operational matters in open session. Hartman said he was "not aware of any stand on operations ordered at that time" and that he would discuss operational authorities and policy in the closed session. On disinformation, Hartman said Cyber Command "has never executed operations to counter disinformation," though he described the command's focus on malicious foreign cyber actors whose activity can enable influence operations.
Allies and partnerships: Members also asked about cooperation with allies beyond the Five Eyes and whether partners such as India should be more integrated on intelligence and cyber cooperation. Hartman said Cyber Command interacts with a range of partners daily, not only Five Eyes, and that bilateral relationships are evaluated where mutual benefit exists; he deferred policy questions to the director of national intelligence and the administration.
Next steps: Witnesses said authorities and policy questions require further closed‑session discussion with the committee. Committee members said they will seek follow‑up classified briefings and expect clearer public communications on operational posture where appropriate.