House Armed Services Cyber Subcommittee members on May 16 pressed senior Defense Department witnesses for answers about the unexplained removal of the previous commander of U.S. Cyber Command and called on the secretary of defense to appear and explain the rationale.

The removal, which members said occurred six weeks earlier, prompted bipartisan concern that the action harmed morale at Cyber Command and created operational uncertainty. "Removing him from the cyber battlefield in this way served absolutely no national security interest," a committee member said, urging the secretary of defense to answer for the decision when next before the committee.

Why it matters: The subcommittee framed the leadership change as an oversight issue because Cyber Command and the National Security Agency (NSA) are central to U.S. defensive and offensive cyber operations. Several members said the removal sent an alarming message to rivals and to the cyber workforce. "This is utterly unacceptable and a sign of the cavalier lack of professionalism from this administration," one member said, adding that the unexplained action "puts our citizens at risk" and harms morale.

What witnesses said: Neither witness present — Lori Bucout, performing the duties of the assistant secretary of defense for cyber policy, and Lieutenant General Joe Hartman, acting commander of U.S. Cyber Command — claimed authority to discuss personnel decisions made by the secretary. Bucout said she could not address operational specifics in an open forum and deferred to senior leadership where appropriate. Hartman told the panel he was focused on maintaining mission continuity and that he and his command were continuing operations.

Committee requests and next steps: Members repeatedly said they expect the secretary of defense to testify and provide a full explanation of the removal and any related personnel actions. The subcommittee chair characterized the matter as one that the secretary will "have to answer for" and several members said they would press for additional briefings and for the secretary to appear before the committee.

Context and balance: Committee members emphasized they did not fault the two witnesses for the personnel decision and thanked them for their service. Witnesses told members they are working to maintain Cyber Command operations and to minimize workforce disruption while congressional oversight continues.

The hearing record shows persistent, cross‑aisle concern about both transparency and operational impact; the subcommittee signaled it will seek further information from the secretary of defense.