Connect with us

Politics

House’s zero trust journey is more process than technology update

Published

1 month ago

on


The House of Representatives started its journey to push security to the edge by first looking internally.

With hundreds of end points in member offices across the country, House technology leaders had to take stock of what cyber tools they were already using.

Jamie Crotts, the chief information officer for the House of Representatives, said that initial assessment of its current state of cyber tools and how they fit into the zero trust model was the first step in their improving the overall cyber posture of the lower chamber of Congress.

Jamie Crotts is the chief information officer for the House of Representatives.

“We plan on a three-year technology roadmap cycle. So it’s about understanding which step is the next best step to get us the most benefit for the architecture and for our users. And from that point, we adjusted our roadmap and our planning,” Crotts said on Ask the CIO. “We began budgeting for some of the larger items that are going to be more long term, and we began implementing things that we could do immediately, that were more quick wins, if you will, and that’s still where we are.”

While the House doesn’t have to meet the executive branch mandates under zero trust, Crotts said the maturity models developed by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and Defense Department are helping to guide their efforts.

The initial zero trust assessment mapped against their current IT roadmap, which is broader than just cybersecurity, led to some adjustments for current and future planning as well as where to invest its limited budget.

Crotts said that mapping led the team to realize that achieving initial capabilities under zero trust was as much as about adjusting the way they did cybersecurity as it was about new tools.

“Looking at it from the users, devices, applications and the network, every single layer of that, we examined how our efforts were going to be able to make improvements. When we looked at the assessment and we saw we can get better at, say, provisioning of devices for users, we can do things a little bit differently that will get a slightly more secure device in their hands in a slightly faster time frame. That is something that would be low hanging fruit for us,” he said. “If it’s as simple as adjusting the way we do imaging to make sure it’s inclusive of certain types of tools, we would be able to take care of that without having to plan for a long-term investment that wasn’t already there. We’re not buying a new tool. We’re adjusting an existing process, and that’s most of our quick wins.”

Flexibility remains key to meeting cyber needs

At the same time, Crotts said they are optimizing existing cyber tools to push them closer key areas of zero trust.

“We spend a lot of money on these tools, whether they be cyber tools, specifically, monitoring analysis tools or general IT productivity tools, applications and suites. But we rarely take the time after we have purchased and implemented it to step back and say, ‘Are there other toggles we could adjust that give us a bit more benefit?’ So, part of our assessment from the zero trust side did exactly that,” he said. “It pointed out that we have some investments in tools giving us a bit of an overlap, which can result in a cost savings. If we identify turning on this widget and this tool actually allows us to stop buying this other tool, that’s a win. That’s essentially how we spent the last year, looking at the tools that we’ve already invested in reducing technical debt is something everybody’s trying to do. So every quick win we can get is amazing.”

Like most IT organizations, the House budgets on a multi-year cycle, so Crotts said they do their best to guess what cyber tools or IT applications they will need in a few years. He said having flexibility in existing tools and processes helps close gaps that otherwise they would have to wait for funding to address.

One example is how the House implemented cloud access security broker (CASB) capabilities.

“It might not be doing exactly what we want it to be doing, or we want to look at the way we do our web access firewalls a little bit differently or routing traffic differently coming from the far edge, things like that take a little bit more time,” he said. “We have to do that thorough analysis. We have to make an investment once we pick the right tool that’s going to work for our architecture. That’s really how we chalked up all of those things, so not necessarily by the pillar that they naturally belong in, but across all the pillars, where can we actually have the most innovative benefit for the House?”

With some initial zero trust capabilities implemented, Crotts said the next focus area is around the data pillar.

Focusing on the data pillar of zero trust

He said his team is spending a lot of time understanding their data governance model.

“Data is data, but the importance of that data is unique to the organization that creates it. Nowhere is that more true than in the legislative branch, where we have different types of data that other people don’t have to deal with, things like legislation data that’s protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. Those types of non-traditional data governance problems, if you will, are things that we’re trying to wrap our minds around,” Crotts said. “How do you do proper tagging of that kind of data? How do you understand the flow of that data throughout your enterprise? When it’s not as simple as tagging a Social Security Number automatically because I know what that looks like, but for some of these more ethereal concepts, it takes a real understanding.”

Crotts added that means analyzing current and possibly future tools to help manage the data as well as creating schemas that let data move securely and efficiently through the network.

“A lot of good security practices come back to the fundamentals of, can you invoke it in a policy and actually enforce it? So once we understand the data types in the data flow, and we get sort of the organizational agreement on, ‘Yes, these are the things and this is the level at which we want to want and need to protect them,’” he said. “Then setting up that structure becomes the next challenge, if you will. A lot of best security practices can be put in play there, but like everything else, you need to define it first.”

Once the House can define and manage its data, then applying a more strict version of privileged access management to further protect systems and data will be possible.

At the same time, Crotts said his team has to understand their users’ needs, of which there are thousands of people on Capitol Hill and across 900 district offices that need access to systems and data, to balance their experience with the cybersecurity requirements.

“A proper security tool configured well does not have to interrupt workflow. And that’s really key to understanding those challenges,” he said. “Every time a user has to stop and log into something else or authenticate or pull up their token numbers and reauthenticate, you have lost them. They become upset with the process, even if it’s perfectly efficient, you’ve interrupted them. You should only do that as little as possible. But then you need to trust that once they are logged into that session, that you’ve got the other controls in place to make sure that the accesses prevent them from moving laterally to a place where they shouldn’t be. If you’ve got all that in place, then you can trust that login and you don’t have to go through all those other processes.”

The post House’s zero trust journey is more process than technology update first appeared on Federal News Network.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

What Does Accountability Look Like for Service Members Affected by the COVID-19 Shot ?

Published

1 hour ago

on

November 11, 2025

By

Image: Wikimedia Commons (U.S. Department of Defense, February 2025)

Dozens of service members currently serving in the military have offered their thoughts on how to hold accountable those military leaders who violated the law by implementing and enforcing the COVID-19 shot.

A startling report released by The Gateway Pundit recently highlighted the findings of a small, independent survey carried out by J.M. Phelps. Sadly, 89 percent of over sixty respondents stated that they would not advise their children, family members, or friends to join the military.

As previously reported, 80 percent attribute their reason to “the lack of accountability for the implementation and enforcement of the 2021 military shot mandate.”

Out of 66 participants in the fall 2025 survey, 64 respondents, or 97 percent, believe that leaders within the Department of Defense should be held responsible for how the mandate was put into action and enforced in August 2021.

While the survey only represents a small fraction of a much larger population, 63 out of the 66 participants, or 95 percent, expressed that accountability is essential for them to restore their trust in the military. This perspective has been echoed by hundreds of service members and veterans in discussions with the author over the past four years. And as of now, no one has faced consequences.

In the latest findings presented below, individuals actively serving in the various branches of the military also shared their perspectives on what accountability would look like to them. Each emphasized that his or her views to not reflect those of the War Department or their respective branches of the military.

To summarize, here’s what the participants in the survey conveyed about the accountability of military leaders responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the shot:

Subjectively, most survey participants indicated that their violations of the law should be categorized into different levels, including low-level, moderate-level, and severe-level violations. Although these categories would need to be clearly defined, “low-level” infractions would require mandatory training on the unlawful components of the mandate, with no repercussions for the violator’s career.

In the case of what would be considered “moderate” infractions, those who violated the law should encounter negative administrative actions that may affect their career. Lastly, “severe” violations would warrant Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action, which could lead to the end of their career through courts-martial, dishonorable discharges, and more, including complete forfeiture of rank, benefits, and pension.

Numerous individuals advocated for General Officer Memorandums of Reprimand (GOMOR) to be included in their records. Some even proposed prohibiting federal service and future political appointments. One person even recommended that leaders face treason charges and time in jail.

Participants in the survey also advocated for public apologies to the American people through testimonies presented to Congress that would be included in the congressional record.

One respondent expressed concern that any form of punishment might be perceived as “authoritarian” by those on the Left. This same service member proposed offering “ribbons, medals, or awards [for] the brave few” who opposed the illegal enforcement of the shot mandate.

The loss of careers, the loss of promotions, the strains on marriages, and so much more have left many service members feeling resentful. Given the incredible challenges they faced in opposing an “unlawful as implemented” shot mandate, their anger may be justified.

Is there a middle ground that can be reached between those adversely affected and the Department of War? That’s a decision for War Secretary Pete Hegseth and his department to make.

Here are a few additional points for the Department of War to consider:

Out of 66 participants in the survey, 59—equating to 89 percent—reported knowing someone who has been separated or compelled to leave military service due to the COVID-19 shot mandate. Additionally, 61 individuals, or 92 percent, indicated that they know someone who has suffered physical harm from the shot. Furthermore, eight of the 66 participants reported experiencing physical harm themselves.

Is it any wonder why they may never cease seeking accountability? War Secretary Hegseth, what’s holding you back? That’s the question on everyone’s mind.

The post What Does Accountability Look Like for Service Members Affected by the COVID-19 Shot ? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Continue Reading

Politics

Embattled BBC Apologizes to the Public for Misleading Edit of Trump J6 Speech, as US President Demands Retraction, Threatens Legal Action Seeking $1 Billion in Damages

Published

2 hours ago

on

November 11, 2025

By

Will Trump take legal action against the BBC?

The ‘Beeb’ is in the crosshairs of Trump’s legal team for one billion dollars.

A day after the resignation of Director-General Tim Davie and the ousting of Chief News Executive Deborah Turness, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) is dealing with the fallout of the accusations of institutional biases and the scandal over the deceptive editing of Donal J. Trump’s J6 speech.

Today (10), BBC Chairman Samir Shah has publicly admitted the corporation made what he called an ‘error of judgment’.

Shah admitted that the editing of separate comments by Trump created the manufactured impression that the US President had called for violence on January 6 2021.

Shah made these comments in a written statement to Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

BBC reported:

“He writes: ‘Since the publication of Mr. Prescott’s memo, this issue has led to over 500 complaints. These are now being dealt with in the normal way. It has also prompted further reflection by the BBC’.

‘The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgement’.”

A spokesman for failing Prime Minister Keir Starmer says that he ‘does not believe the BBC is institutionally biased’.

“He added: ‘It is important the BBC acts to maintain trust and corrects mistake quickly when they occur… for any public service broadcaster – accountability is vital’.”

Dramatic AI-generated image of London skyline with burning buildings and smoke, featuring the iconic Big Ben and BBC logo in the foreground.AI image by Grok: BBC in complete meltdown.

This comes as BBC News has reported that Trump has sent a letter to the BBC threatening legal action.

UPDATE: Trump’s legal team demands a retraction from the BBC, threatening to sue for $1 Billion if the Broadcaster does not respond by Friday (14).

Text discussing legal action and potential damages involving President Trump and the BBC.

Read more:

JUST IN – Embattled BBC Head Tim Davie Resigns Over Trump Deceptive Documentary Edit and Widespread Bias – Chief News Executive Deborah Turness Also Out – UPDATE: Trump Reacts

The post Embattled BBC Apologizes to the Public for Misleading Edit of Trump J6 Speech, as US President Demands Retraction, Threatens Legal Action Seeking $1 Billion in Damages appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Continue Reading

Politics

“America Against America”: Iran Hardliners Emboldened by Mamdani’s Election Win

Published

2 hours ago

on

November 11, 2025

By

Image collage featuring a man in a "Free Palestine" hoodie, a political cartoon of Zohran Mamdani winning, and a video clip of Mamdani waving, all provided by MEMRI.Images taken from screenshots of Iranian sources, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, courtesy of MEMRI, a media which opposes the Iranian regime.

Hardliners and conservative commentators in Iran celebrated Zohran Mamdani’s election as New York’s first Muslim mayor as a symbolic victory for Islam over the West and a sign of America’s decline.

State-affiliated outlets such as the conservative daily Hamshahri and Nour News framed the win as “America Against America,” interpreting it as proof of deep divisions within the U.S. establishment and the “collapse of the old order” marking the beginning of the end of “Trumpism.”

Conservative and state-run media emphasized that Mamdani’s win reflected both a moral and political defeat for America and Israel, with Asr-e Iran describing the election as a “crossing of the mental barriers” created after 9/11 and the erosion of the “Jewish lobby’s” power over U.S. politics.

The IRGC Qods Force Telegram channel called it “the defeat of Trump and Zionism” and “a joyful event” marking America’s changing identity.

In Iran’s parliament, lawmaker Abolghasem Jarareh declared that Mamdani’s victory “shows the strength of the slogan ‘Death to Israel,'” prompting fellow MPs to chant it on the floor.

Tehran mayor’s spokesman Abdolmotahhar Mohammadi praised the result as evidence that “the people of New York reject the influence of a genocidal regime in U.S. governance,” calling it a boost to pro-Palestinian and anti-racist movements worldwide.

Tehran University ideologue Foad Izadi described Mamdani’s rise as “the arrival of the message of 13 Aban in New York,” invoking the anniversary of the 1979 U.S. embassy takeover, a cornerstone of Iran’s revolutionary hostility toward Washington.

Former culture minister Mohammad Hosseini credited Mamdani’s campaign to inspiration from Imam Hossein and the spirit of Ashura.

For Iran’s hardliners, Mamdani’s Shiite background and anti-Israel rhetoric validated their long-standing belief that America is collapsing under its own hypocrisy and moral decay.

They celebrated the rise of a Shia Muslim to power in what they view as the center of Western capitalism, framing it as proof that Islam is advancing within the heart of the enemy’s political system.

Pro-regime commentators portrayed his win as both a political and spiritual triumph over the forces of “arrogance,” arguing that Mamdani’s faith, class-based rhetoric, and pro-Palestinian stance echo the Islamic Revolution’s principles of justice, resistance, and opposition to Zionism.

His victory was cast not merely as a local event but as a divine sign that the West’s liberal order is faltering and that the narrative of Islamic resistance is spreading inside the enemy’s own institutions.

According to The Tehran Times, Iranian commentators framed Mamdani’s election as proof that the American capitalist system is collapsing under its own contradictions.

The paper described his socialist platform, free childcare, rent freezes, public transit reform, and higher taxes on the wealthy, as a direct challenge to U.S. capitalism and evidence of growing anger among ordinary Americans toward an economic order that enriches elites while impoverishing workers.

It characterized the United States as a nation where “billionaires live next to people who can barely pay rent,” portraying Mamdani’s rise as evidence that Americans are rejecting inequality and searching for a fairer alternative to the capitalist model.

Founded in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution, The Tehran Times framed his election as part of a global political shift led by the oppressed and working classes against the “bullies and thugs in the White House.”

His criticism of Israel and defense of Palestinian rights were highlighted as marks of moral courage and proof that the Western narrative on Gaza is weakening.

Asr-e Iran presented the result as a sign of shifting attitudes toward Israel, particularly among younger Americans, and as evidence of the “Zionist lobby’s decline” in New York, home to the world’s second-largest Jewish population.

Mamdani’s pro-Palestinian stance was celebrated as a triumph for the “Axis of Resistance” and proof that revolutionary ideals are spreading into the heart of the United States.

By aligning his socialist and anti-Israel message with Iran’s own revolutionary rhetoric, The Tehran Times cast Mamdani’s victory not merely as a domestic American development but as a symbolic win for the oppressed, confirming that history is tilting toward Islam’s eventual victory over Western hegemony.

According to a report by the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs titled “Tehran Celebrates Mamdani: ‘A Political Earthquake, A Crack in the Pro-Israeli Hegemony,’” Iranian discourse now frames the Islamic Republic as a “demanding side” rather than a reactive one toward Washington.

Supreme Leader Khamenei’s remarks on the “Day of Struggle Against Global Arrogance” reaffirmed that the battle between America and Islam is ideological.

Mamdani’s victory is also expected to embolden the political left in America and across the West.

The Cleveland Jewish News reported that the win is being hailed as a watershed moment for the emerging “Red-Green” alliance between the radical left and Islamist movements, a coalition gaining traction in both Europe and the United States.

Fiamma Nirenstein, Italian-Israeli journalist, author and former politician, described Mamdani as the embodiment of this new ideological partnership: a politician who built his campaign on pro-Palestinian rhetoric, anti-Israel activism, and the rejection of Western democratic norms that once anchored New York’s Jewish and pluralistic identity.

Mamdani’s victory symbolizes how anti-Zionism has become a socially acceptable form of antisemitism, even in America’s most Jewish city.

His promises to cut ties with Israeli institutions, boycott city–Israel partnerships, and divest from Israeli funds are seen as steps toward normalizing hostility to the Jewish state under the banner of social justice.

Nirenstein warns that while Mamdani’s policies may or may not benefit ordinary New Yorkers, the greater cost will be moral and cultural, signaling a West drifting toward moral relativism, hostility to Israel, and the loss of its Judeo-Christian democratic foundations.

The post “America Against America”: Iran Hardliners Emboldened by Mamdani’s Election Win appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Continue Reading

Trending