At press time, it still remains a public mystery why he and NSA deputy Wendy Noble (who was removed and reassigned) were fired from leading the largest intelligence agency — which produces the majority of the intel for the president’s daily brief — and the government’s main cyber warfare entity, Cybercom.

Chief Pentagon spokesperson released a statement late Friday afternoon that read: “The Defense Department thanks General Timothy Haugh for his decades of service to our nation, culminating as U.S. Cyber Command Commander and National Security Agency Director. We wish him and his family well.”

The websites of Cyber Command and NSA were updated Friday afternoon to reflect that Army Lt. Gen. William Hartman is now in charge of both organizations. Hartman had been the deputy commander of Cybercom. Although the commander is dual-hatted to lead both organizations, the deputy Cybercom commander is not part of NSA.

Those that spoke to DefenseScoop noted how rare it is for a sitting NSA director to be fired mid-term, especially absent any loss in confidence to command or a scandal. For context, the director wasn’t removed after the Snowden leaks came to light during the Obama administration.

Although the president does have the authority to remove officers like this, some observers have indicated it might not be a wise use of that power, and could create morale issues.

“I don’t recall an NSA director in recent memory being removed other than during the normal cycle,” said Jamil Jaffer, founder and executive director of the National Security Institute at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, who held positions in the Bush White House, Department of Justice and was senior counsel to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the Republican chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan. “When a well-regarded, four-star general is fired for no apparent reason — if in fact that’s what happened and even if it is legally permissible — that can have a massively detrimental impact on both ongoing operations and morale.”

Prior to taking office — and in successive confirmation hearings — Trump administration officials expressed an interesting in taking a more aggressive approach in cyberspace against adversaries in the face of high-profile intrusions of telecom firms and critical infrastructure that some say went beyond traditional espionage to prep the battlefield.

“General Tim Haugh is an outstanding leader and was doing a superb job at Cyber Command and National Security Agency. He was fired with no public explanation. This action sets back our Cyber and Signals Intelligence operations,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, the chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation and a former one-star Air Force general, said on X.

A slew of Democrat lawmakers issued statements Friday criticizing the administration’s move.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed alarm and anger regarding the decision to fire Haugh — who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to his role — and oust Noble.

“As the commander of Cyber Command, General Haugh led the most formidable cyber warfighting force in the world and kept our enemies up at night. President Trump has given a priceless gift to China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea by purging competence from our national security leadership,” he said. “I have long warned about the dangers of firing military officers as a political loyalty test. In addition to the other military leaders and national security officials Trump has fired, he is sending a chilling message throughout the ranks: don’t give your best military advice, or you may face consequences. The President must immediately explain himself to the American people.”

Reed was referring to assertions that political activist Laura Loomer urged President Donald Trump to fire certain officials due to their perceived disloyalty to him and his agenda. She wrote in a social media post Thursday night that Haugh and Noble were fired for being “disloyal” to Trump. In recent weeks, Trump also fired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, among other senior defense officials.

“It’s concerning, from a national security perspective, when a 9/11 truther is providing advice to the President on whether a four-star general ought keep his job as the head of the world’s premier signals intelligence agency,” Jaffer said regarding the allegations Loomer had something to do with Haugh’s ouster.

Others agreed with that sentiment.

“If this was tied to Loomer’s action, then preparing for a future war against China is taking a back seat to the fight against DEI and those perceived as not loyal enough to the regime,” said Jason Healey, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s School for International and Public Affairs with a deep cyber background in the government and military. Healey previously served as a founding member of the Office of the National Cyber Director at the White House and worked at a U.S. military organization that was a precursor to Cybercom.

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Alabama, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, did not respond to requests for comment.

“Silence, nothing but silence, from my once honorable colleagues in the GOP who just days ago sat with me in meetings on the Armed Services Committee praising GEN Haugh. Cowering before Trump and complicit in letting a lunatic upend their own national security team, they do nothing to stand up for our troops or our country,” Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., wrote on X Friday.

Top Dems on the House Armed Services Committee issued a joint statement citing their concerns.

“Under [Haugh and Noble’s] leadership, the men and women of US Cyber Command and the National Security Agency have been at the tip of the spear in defense of our country against very real cyber threats, including ransomware extortionists and actors like Volt Typhoon and Salt Typhoon. Reports that the dismissals were due not to failure to execute their positions but, rather, being accused of being disloyal by a far-right conspiracy theorist are deeply disturbing,” said HASC ranking member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., ranking member of the CITI subcommittee and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Penn., who has taken a keen interest in cyber issues.

Houlahan in a separate statement to DefenseScoop called the firing “inexplicable,” adding it “should leave us all feeling less safe today.”

“There have still been no consequences for anyone over the leaking of classified information over Signal – the real threat. This action—meant in some way to distract us from the Signal and gmail fiascos— to summarily remove the four-star General responsible for the National Security Agency and Cyber Command is chilling,” she said. “The American people deserve answers – now including why General Haugh was relieved of his duties. The case is not, in fact, closed.”

The post Firing of top cyber general ‘sets back’ US military and intel operations, makes America ‘less safe,’ lawmakers of both parties say appeared first on DefenseScoop.

During a Hudson Institute event on Tuesday, Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., touted the advantages that AI can bring to the U.S. military.

“Every new weapons system should have sort of an AI component or capability or the ability to integrate that, because the reality is that this is the future of warfare. And again, I think we’re starting to find ourselves behind,” said Moulton, a retired Marine. Lawmakers are “trying to look for ways to just force DOD to do this, because they’re clearly not” following this path at the Pentagon, he said.

Simulations, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s AlphaDogfight Trials, have demonstrated that AI-enabled systems can defeat human pilots, he noted.

“The reality is that robots fly planes better in most cases. That’s why every time you go on a commercial flight, I don’t know — 90% of the flight is flown by a computer, not by the pilot,” Moulton said. “We literally live with that in the commercial sector every single day, and yet there’s this huge reluctance to adopt it in the military.”

The Pentagon is pursuing robotic wingmen and other uncrewed systems that are to be equipped with algorithms. However, a variety of manned platforms are also in the works.

“If we were really …  looking at the future, we’d be developing a lot more pilotless aircraft than aircraft that have to keep a pilot alive just to do their do their job,” Moulton said. “No matter how you look at it, the AI wins. And we’ve got to come to terms with that and recognize that as a military.”

However, as artificial intelligence advances and the technology proliferates, the United States also needs to lead an international effort to constrain its use, he suggested.

“I want to make one point that I think is especially crucial here, which is that there’s this whole other dimension to the AI discussion, which revolves around the ethics of AI, not just … do pilots trust that AI can fly an airplane. The ethics of AI, of course, govern how it’s used. And this is a place where we’re very, very far behind,” he said.

In the wake of World War II, there were major international initiatives to limit the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons, he noted. Now, in Moulton’s view, there’s a similar imperative to establish norms and treaties to govern how militaries wield artificial intelligence.

AI-enabled weapons may ultimately become even more dangerous than atomic weapons, he warned.

“They’re certainly headed in that trajectory. If we don’t have any constraints around their use, if we do not lead this effort, if we are not the ones who fundamentally set the ground rules agreed to by international treaty for the use and development of AI-enabled weapons and we leave that to adversaries like China — then we’re going to lose because China doesn’t care about civilian casualties. They don’t care as much as we do about collateral damage. And so, therefore, if it’s a free for all, we’re gonna have more restraint on our weapon systems, more restraints than they will on theirs, and theirs will therefore probably be more lethal,” he said.

About two years ago, the Pentagon has crafted a list of “AI Ethical Principles” that it’s supposed to follow as it pursues what the department calls “responsible AI.”

Earlier this year, Diane Staheli was tapped to lead the Responsible AI Division of the new Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO), where she will help steer the Defense Department’s development and application of policies, practices, standards and metrics for buying and building AI that is trustworthy and accountable.

In June, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks signed the Pentagon’s Responsible Artificial Intelligence Strategy and Implementation Pathway.

The DOD has also been engaging with international allies and other organizations as they look to implement their own AI ethics policies. However, some officials and other observers are skeptical that authoritarian adversaries like China and Russia will abide by the same types of rules or restraints as the U.S. and its democratic allies.

But Moulton is banging the drum about the need to create a broader framework at the international level.

“I think it’s a national security imperative, not just a human imperative or an ethical imperative, that we have a major effort to establish the rules around the use and development of AI. And we’re really doing next to nothing in that department. So this is a big effort of mine. This is something that I am pursuing,” he said at the Hudson Institute event.

Crafting these rules shouldn’t just be left to government officials, he suggested.

“I had a long conversation with an AI expert in the private sector about how we can involve the private commercial sector in the development of this ethical framework. And I’m going to be pursuing that amongst some of my other priorities over the next Congress,” Moulton said.

The post HASC lawmaker Seth Moulton urges faster adoption — and more restraint — of military AI appeared first on DefenseScoop.