Connect with us

Published

on

Dave Clark (L) and Ryan Petersen (R)

Getty Images

On Sept. 13, Flexport founder Ryan Petersen took the stage at North America’s premier supply chain conference in Phoenix. It was exactly a week after he’d forced out his hand-picked successor as CEO, ex-Amazon executive Dave Clark, so Petersen could once again run the show.

Sitting in the first few rows of attendees was Clark, the man he’d ousted just a year into the job. Petersen was surprised that he showed up, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Days earlier, Petersen had excoriated Clark, alleging he’d secretly expanded the company’s headcount and taken on unnecessary leases without Petersen or the board’s knowledge. On X, formerly known as Twitter, Petersen wrote, “Strategic Plan, Day 1: Make better decisions!”

With Clark sitting a few feet away, Petersen struck a different tone.

“I think we’re going to look back and go, ‘Wow I’d probably do that all over again because of the progress that we’ve made,'” Petersen said, in an interview on stage.

Doing it over again would seem to suggest hiring Clark wasn’t a bad decision. Petersen went even further, personally commending Clark for orchestrating the $1.3 billion purchase of Deliverr from Shopify, picking up supply chain technology for last-mile deliveries. That deal was announced in May.

“I’m very, very lucky because I wouldn’t have had the courage to go and do that acquisition, but I give all the credit in the world to Dave Clark,” Petersen said. “There’s no one probably in the world who would be better at running that last-mile e-com fulfillment network. Personally, I don’t have any experience and I would’ve been pretty intimidated to try and go pull that off.”

The mixed messaging from the 43-year-old Flexport founder underscores the dysfunction surrounding the sudden firing of Clark, who previously spent 23 years at Amazon and built its mammoth logistics network on the way to becoming one of Jeff Bezos‘ top deputies. It’s also indicative of a bigger challenge facing Flexport, whose software is designed to simplify the process of transporting goods. The company was valued at $8 billion by private investors in early 2022, just as the economy was turning and the 10-year tech bull market was coming to an end.

As a high-valued company backed by powerful VCs, Flexport has been trying to simultaneously operate in Silicon Valley startup growth mode while also restraining expenses to reflect the new economic realities and to cope with supply chain bottlenecks.

This account is based on conversations with people close to Clark and Petersen. They requested anonymity to discuss confidential interactions. Their perspectives have been corroborated by internal documents and communications reviewed by CNBC.

Petersen has publicly said Clark overspent, overhired and overpromised, something his allies echoed to CNBC. He burned through cash and kept Petersen in the dark about key financials and an ambitious expansion into providing end-to-end supply chain tools for small and medium-sized businesses. People close to Petersen pointed to a number of previously unreported incidents that eroded his confidence in Clark.

But documents viewed by CNBC and sources close to Clark undermine those claims. They show that Clark, who arrived when the company was struggling to bill customers and track containers, worked closely with the board and Petersen to implement decisions that Flexport now suggests were ill-advised.

Evidence to support Flexport’s claims of financial mismanagement is lacking, raising questions about whether that narrative was put forward to justify Clark’s exit. 

A Flexport spokesperson rejected that characterization.

“Ryan Petersen returned as CEO in order to restore Flexport’s culture of customer engagement, and drive the growth and cost discipline required to return the company to profitability,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Get IPO ready

Clark arrived last year as the perfect hire for a tech startup trying to disrupt the age-old logistics industry. He’d built Amazon’s logistics unit into a juggernaut that rivaled carriers like UPS and FedEx.

Ryan Petersen, chief executive officer of Flexport, participates in a panel discussion during the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, U.S., on Wednesday, May 4, 2022.

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Since 2021, Petersen had been seeking a successor for Flexport’s then-operating chief, Sanne Manders, in part to address what several ex-employees described as lingering issues with the company’s troubled billing processes. Fixing that was Clark’s job.

Petersen and Clark worked together as co-CEOs for the first six months. In March, Petersen transitioned to executive chairman.

The co-CEO arrangement would free Petersen up to do what he loved – “getting beers with customers,” in the words of two former Flexport employees. Clark, a self-described “builder at heart,” was at the wheel.

Among Clark’s goals was to help Petersen prepare Flexport for an IPO, something the company had discussed doing within a two- to three-year window, according to a person familiar with the matter and documents viewed by CNBC.

“There’s a perfect complement of skill sets,” Petersen told Forbes in June 2022. “Mine are much more creative, zero-to-one founder time, and Dave is the supreme executor and a legend in the supply chain world.”

Buying Deliverr was meant to be the first step in turning Flexport into a more full-scale logistics service for its customers.

Shopify had acquired Deliverr in May 2022 for $2.1 billion. But the e-commerce software company was getting hammered by Wall Street as its Covid pandemic pop faded. By January 2023, CEO Tobias Lutke knew he needed to get rid of Deliverr. Around that time, Lutke first approached Petersen to float the possibility of a deal, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Petersen told Clark he should engage with Shopify’s team, according to a person with direct knowledge of the negotiations. Initial talks fell apart, but resumed when Flexport executives learned that Shopify was about to execute deep cost cuts and was eager to sell Deliverr.

Clark and Petersen flew to Miami to meet with Shopify’s leadership. As a transaction was nearing, Clark, who had a reputation as a deft negotiator, got Shopify, which was already an investor in Flexport, to sweeten it with $40 million in cash and the framework for a $260 million convertible note that could help Flexport on its path to an IPO, according to an internal document analyzing the deal.

The sale would be announced alongside Shopify’s first-quarter earnings report on May 4.

“We did not change the terms of a deal or rush it just to have it line up with an earnings call,” Shopify said in a statement. With Flexport, “we are tightly mission-aligned to ensure the success of our merchants, which is why we chose to deepen our partnership with them earlier this year.”

The night before the announcement, Petersen appeared at a “Tech Talk” at Flexport’s Bellevue, Washington, office to pitch the “Flexport vision” to hundreds of people. An attendee asked Petersen whether Flexport would ever get into last-mile logistics.

Petersen paused, glanced at his watch, and said to keep an eye on the morning news, according to a Flexport employee who witnessed the exchange and by a person who was told independently.

The comment alarmed Clark and Flexport executives, who were concerned that Petersen had disclosed material nonpublic information about a publicly traded company, according to people familiar with the matter.

Petersen didn’t respond to calls or messages from CNBC, and the company declined to make him available for an interview. A Flexport spokesperson didn’t respond to CNBC’s question about whether Petersen was aware of concerns about his statement at the event.

The ‘whistleblower’

Bob Swan, then-interim chief executive officer and chief financial officer of Intel Corp., reacts during the inauguration of the company’s research and development facility in Bengaluru, India, on November 15, 2018.

Samyukta Lakshmi | Bloomberg | Getty Images

For much of the summer, Clark had pushed then-CFO Kenny Wagers and his financial planning and analysis team to realign Flexport’s year-end and 18-month forecasts, according to a person close to the situation.

The reasons were obvious. At the beginning of 2022, it cost around $14,500 to move a single container across the Pacific. By late 2022, prices of ocean freight from Asia to the U.S. West Coast were down 90% from a year earlier, due largely to weakening global demand. Because Flexport makes money by charging fees for the transportation of goods, the company’s business was getting hammered.

But Wagers and Stuart Leung, a Flexport finance executive and a close Petersen ally, were reluctant to pare back forecasts, frustrating Clark, who felt those projections were overly optimistic.

Wagers and Leung did not respond to CNBC’s interview requests.

Clark ultimately prevailed, but the revised forecasts distressed Petersen. Clark, Petersen and Wagers met in Texas in mid-August to fine-tune the forecasts.

A source close to Petersen told CNBC that the meeting went poorly for Clark because a so-called whistleblower — identified as a senior finance executive — stepped forward shortly before it began and told Petersen that the numbers being presented were “not real.”

The source referred to the senior finance executive as a whistleblower because of the information he disclosed to Petersen about Clark.

Documents seen by CNBC and conversations with people with direct knowledge of the board meeting make it clear that there were no substantiated whistleblower actions or allegations of financial impropriety.

Flexport’s spokesperson told CNBC in a statement: “There was no whistleblower nor was there any financial misconduct. Any allegations to the contrary are completely false.”

On Sept. 15, shortly after CNBC spoke with the Petersen source, legal counsel for Clark sent a cease-and-desist letter to Flexport. The letter, viewed by CNBC, instructed the company to preserve and retain all communications involving Clark’s departure. The letter disputes the existence of a whistleblower and lists specific allegations as false and defamatory, including Petersen’s claims that Clark was an unfit CEO because he overextended the company’s lease obligations.

Five hours after the letter was sent, the source close to Petersen contacted CNBC and asked to retract their statements and all details related to Clark’s firing or about the so-called whistleblower. CNBC declined to retract his statements.

Petersen has since deleted several of his posts criticizing Clark.

Dave Clark, Amazon’s former senior vice president of worldwide operations.

Lindsey Wasson | Reuters

The letter cited two documents that had been presented to the board. Both were viewed by CNBC. The first was a pre-acquisition financial analysis of the Deliverr deal, and the second was a review of Flexport’s first-quarter numbers. The Deliverr analysis was presented by the co-CEOs to the board for their approval and was shaped by multiple prior board meetings.

Clark’s camp suggested that other factors may have led to the abrupt firing.

For example, politics.

Days after Clark was ousted, Petersen sent him a message — seen by CNBC — blasting one of his key female executives for wasting her days at the company on “far left-wing political activism.” The executive is a registered Republican.

Stephens, the Founders Fund partner, also shared his contempt for that executive weeks before Clark’s departure, a person familiar with the board told CNBC. Stephens did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

Petersen is also a venture partner at Founders Fund, the firm started by Peter Thiel, who was a prominent supporter of President Trump’s 2016 campaign and more recently bankrolled Senate candidates in Ohio and Arizona. Many of Thiel’s closest confidantes at Founders Fund and elsewhere in the venture industry are outspoken conservatives.

Petersen’s sole public political contribution in 2023 was to a Democratic political action committee associated with Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. He doesn’t talk much about politics on social media or in interviews.

Clark has donated to candidates on both sides of the aisle. Upon his departure, The Wall Street Journal reported that he was considering running for governor of Texas, but two people familiar with his thinking say it’s not happening anytime soon.

Flexport told CNBC that an employee’s politics are not relevant in personnel decisions.

“Ryan Petersen does not care at all about anyone’s political or personal affiliations. That is their business,” the spokesperson said. “It is inappropriate for any employee to spend an excessive amount of time during work hours on activities unrelated to their role.”

A person familiar with the female executive said her noncorporate endeavors were largely related to charitable organizations. 

Clark has largely remained silent since he was forced to resign on Sept. 5, though in private he’s expressed frustration at how his former team was being treated by Flexport, according to people close to him. Many of his allies at Amazon who joined him at Flexport were summarily fired by Petersen shortly after his departure.

On Sept. 13, Flexport’s chief legal counsel, Chris Ferro, contacted Clark. Ferro told him that his resignation a week prior had not been accepted, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

Instead, Ferro told Clark that Flexport’s board met the day after Clark resigned and voted to fire him for cause, the person familiar said. Ferro said the board minutes didn’t yet reflect why Clark had been fired, the person said.

Ferro allegedly told Clark that Flexport would be willing to give him a block of 2 million shares — worth millions of dollars — if he signed a separation agreement that included nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses.

Clark declined, the person said. Shortly after Flexport reached out with the offer, Clark took the stage at the same supply chain conference in Phoenix that Petersen spoke at earlier in the day.

He didn’t hold back.

“The only thing I really regret from the past year was I sort of picked the wrong founder,” Clark said. “Basically, it was a place of extending my reputational halo to a group that, in my opinion, didn’t deserve it. Largely, because about half the team was let go last week on Friday, the most brutal nonseverance packages I’ve ever seen in my life. It was about as disrespectful a way as humanly possible.”

Amazon showdown

On top of the public relations fallout from the Clark saga and any legal wrangling that may follow, Flexport faces staffing turnover and a growing threat from Clark’s former employer.

Flexport recently ousted Wagers as CFO and lost its human resources chief. More layoffs are expected soon, sources said, after the company cut 20% of its staff in January.

On Sept. 12, almost a week after Clark was fired, Flexport executives convened in Seattle to launch an end-to-end supply chain service that would allow sellers to move their products from factories to customers’ doorsteps through integrations with major online marketplaces.

The project was spearheaded by Parisa Sadrzadeh, an executive vice president at Flexport who Clark had poached from Amazon’s logistics unit.

Earlier in the day, and just up the street from Flexport’s event, Amazon had unveiled a strikingly similar service in front of approximately 2,200 attendees at its annual Accelerate seller conference. Flexport had planned to have a booth onsite but was told it couldn’t be an exhibitor, which some staffers suspected was due to the competing supply chain products, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Flexport discussed securing exhibit space at Accelerate months earlier but didn’t meet all the requirements to participate, and its launch wasn’t mentioned in those conversations, Amazon said.

Flexport’s event was underwhelming. In a conference room, about 50 people looked on as Sadrzadeh debuted Flexport’s service and then introduced Petersen, who spoke for roughly 20 minutes, according to Burak Yolga, co-founder of a digital freight forwarding company who was in attendance.

“Flexport announced pretty much the same thing that Amazon announced,” Yolga said in an interview. He said he left after about a half-hour.

The company paid rapper Nelly $150,000 to perform at the event. But in the days leading up to the launch, Petersen opted to squash the performance because the optics were bad after his post about rescinding job offers, a person familiar with the matter said. Despite canceling the event, Flexport still paid the artist.

WATCH: Flexport CEO Ryan Petersen on reinvesting profits

Flexport CEO Ryan Petersen: We are looking to reinvest profits to compound capital

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending