The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s acting director testified that CISA is “getting back on mission,” but he provided few specifics after the agency lost nearly a third of its staff over the past year.

Acting Director Madhu Gottumukkala testified in front of the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. Asked by Chairman Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) about reports of plans for a reorganization at CISA, Gottumukkala said there are no plans to reorganize the cyber agency.

“We do have a lot of changes in the last year, but we have not planned any organizational changes,” Gottumukkala said. “But we are continuing to look at how we rescope our existing work that we have so that we can get back on our mission of protecting the critical infrastructure. And if there is any organizational changes, I will assure that we will communicate with you.”

CISA has gone from roughly 3,400 staff at the start of last year to 2,400 employees at the end of December. Most of those who left departed under the Trump administration’s workforce reduction programs, with many leaving government service earlier than planned due to uncertainty at CISA under the Trump administration.

Gottumukkala is leading CISA as the Senate has yet to approve Sean Plankey to serve as director. During Wednesday’s hearing, Gottumukkala declined to provide details on recent reports that he failed a polygraph exam needed to access a sensitive cyber program and that he had worked to oust CISA’s chief information officer.

Gottumukkala also said multiple times that CISA was “getting back on mission.” But he said little about what the agency was doing differently with markedly less staff.

“The way we are supporting back on mission is to make sure that we are protecting our critical infrastructure from physical and cyber threats, and our divisions are properly equipped, and we are making sure that we are aligning our existing resources,” he said.

Asked by Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) about potential vacancies at CISA after the mass wave of departures, Gottumukkala said, “we have the required staff that is supporting the mission we do.”

Thompson said that was contrary to a November memo CISA shared with the committee. Lawmakers are advancing a homeland security spending bill that would provide CISA with funding to fill some “critical” positions. It would also stipulate that CISA “not reduce staffing in such a way that it lacks sufficient staff to effectively carry out its statutory missions.”

Gottumukkala was also asked by Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) how many cyber intrusions CISA expects from foreign adversaries as part of the 2026 midterm elections.

“We look at it as incident by incident, and we look at what the risks are. I don’t have a specific number in mind,” Gottumukkala said.

“Well, we should have that number,” Gonzales shot back. “It should first start by how many intrusions that we had last midterm and the midterm before that. I don’t want to wait. I don’t want us waiting until after the fact to be able to go, ‘Yeah, we got it wrong, and it turns out our adversaries influenced our election to that point.’”

CISA’s budget request for fiscal 2026 would eliminate its election security program. But the appropriations agreement released this week would continue funding CISA’s election security work.

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) pressed Gottumukkala on whether CISA had analyzed if it could meet its mission with current staffing levels.

“The work that we do is mission focused, which means capability is measured by outcomes, not headcount,” Gottumukkala said.

Walkinshaw also asked about threats to state and local governments after CISA pulled funding for the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center in September. But Gottumukkala didn’t address the question head on, frustrating the Virginia lawmaker.

“You’ve managed to answer none of my questions. You haven’t answered a single question. But thank you for coming,” Walkinshaw said.

The post Lawmakers press acting CISA director on workforce reductions first appeared on Federal News Network.

House Democrats are urging the Transportation Security Administration to abandon efforts to do away with a collective bargaining agreement covering some 47,000 TSA airport screeners.

In a Dec. 23 letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and acting TSA Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill, 12 Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee say they have “deep concern” about the latest attempt to overturn TSA’s union agreement.

The letter signees include Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and subcommittee on transportation and maritime security Ranking Member LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.).

Their letter points to an ongoing case in federal court over the Department of Homeland Security’s directive to end TSA’s collective bargaining agreement. The judge in that case issued a preliminary injunction in June blocking DHS’s previous efforts to dissolve the agreement.

“DHS’s renewed effort to unilaterally void a valid, seven-year collective bargaining agreement – without a resolution to the pending litigation – displays a clear and flagrant disregard for the rule of law and workers’ rights,” the lawmakers write.

TSA has said it plans to eliminate the collective bargaining agreement and implement a new “labor framework” for the agency starting Jan. 11.

The American Federation of Government Employees represents most TSA staff under the 2024 collective bargaining agreement. AFGE joined with several unions in filing the lawsuit challenging DHS’s prior attempt to dissolve the CBA.

Lawyers representing DHS in federal court recently filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that Noem’s new September determination to end TSA union rights is based on “an entirely different supporting record and data unavailable” at the time of Noem’s previous directive, which led to the court case and the preliminary injunction.

AFGE’s lawyers have since countered with an emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction. They argue DHS is attempting to “evade the court’s injunction.”

The judge overseeing the case recently directed the parties to confer on a briefing schedule for the emergency injunction.

The Trump administration has sought to do away with most federal employee unions. At DHS, leaders have argued that collective bargaining for TSA officers “is inconsistent with efficient stewardship of taxpayer dollars and impedes the agility required to secure the traveling public,” according to TSA’s statement on the new labor framework.

“Our Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) need to be focused on their mission of keeping travelers safe not wasting countless hours on non-mission critical work,” Adam Stahl, senior official performing the duties of TSA deputy administrator, said as part of a press release. “Under the leadership of Secretary Noem, we are ridding the agency of wasteful and time-consuming activities that distracted our officers from their crucial work.”

But in their letter, House Democrats argue that the 2024 union agreement was negotiated “in good faith to address long-standing issues at TSA, such as high attrition rates, inconsistent workplace policies, and the lack of a proper system for employees to voice safety and operational concerns.”

“Eliminating collective bargaining protections for TSOs will not improve efficiency or security,” they wrote. “It will silence workers who are best positioned to identify safety risks, exacerbate attrition at a time of ongoing staffing challenges, and ultimately make air travel less safe for the American public.”

The post House Dems urge TSA to preserve collective bargaining agreement first appeared on Federal News Network.