Feature
In a warning to lawmakers, cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sharply criticizing the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) handling of federal data. Describing DOGE’s security protocols as dangerously inadequate, Schneier warned that the agency’s practices have put sensitive government and citizen information at risk of exploitation by foreign adversaries and criminal networks.
In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Harvard Kennedy School’s Bruce Schneier sounded the alarm about the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) data security protocols. He warned that highly sensitive federal data could fall into the hands of hostile nations or criminal groups.
“Data security breaches present significant dangers to everyone in the United States, from private citizens to corporations to government agencies to elected officials,” said Schneier, an internationally recognized security technologist who teaches cybersecurity policy at the Kennedy School. He described DOGE’s approach toward data security as “reckless” and urged Congress to rein in the agency’s attempts to consolidate federal data and remove key privacy and security controls.
“Their actions have weakened security within the federal government by bypassing and disabling critical security measures, exporting sensitive data to environments with less security, and consolidating disparate data streams to create a massively attractive target for any adversary,” Schneier told the committee.
In his testimony, Schneir outlined what he called a “DOGE approach” to data handling, with four distinct features:
Taken together, Schneier argued, these steps have already caused significant damage to the data security of the federal government. “By following the DOGE approach, the current administration has increased both the likelihood and the potential scale of attacks against us and endangered our safety, both individually and collectively. A decisive shift in the administration’s approach to data security can begin to right the ship.”
The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and do not necessarily represent the positions of the Ash Center or its affiliates.
Podcast
Andrea Hailey, who leads Vote.org, one of the nation’s largest nonpartisan voter engagement platforms, joins hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer on Terms of Engagement to discuss trends, turnout, and trepidation as we head into the pivotal 2026 midterm elections.
Podcast
Oxford University Professor Pepper Culpepper joins Terms of Engagement hosts Archon Fung and Steven Richer to discuss corporate excess, bipartisan popular anger, and his new book “Billionaire Backlash: The Age of Corporate Scandal and How It Could Save Democracy.”
Podcast
Harvard Law School Professor Guy-Uriel Charles joins Terms of Engagement hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to discuss the US Supreme Court’s decision to effectively dismantle the Voting Rights Act, its political aftermath, and what voting rights advocates can do to achieving electoral fairness in its wake.
Media Release
New study published in AI and Ethics introduces a new ethical-moral intelligence framework for AI and finds that leading AI models mimic human moral concern while making decisions that reveal a hidden value hierarchy.
Article
A new chapter in APSA Preprints by Archon Fung, Winthrop Laflin McCormack Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government and Director of the Ash Center, Bailey Flanigan, former postdoctoral fellow at the Ash Center and co-authors explores how generative AI is reshaping four dimensions of democratic practice—political campaigns, election administration, social movements, and citizen deliberation. The authors argue that AI’s ultimate democratic impact will depend less on the technology itself, and more on how institutions and leaders implement and regulate it.
Q+A
As artificial intelligence becomes more embedded in everyday decision-making, its role in shaping how people think about ethics and morality is drawing increasing scrutiny. In this conversation with researcher Sarah Hubbard, we discuss insights from her co-authored paper, “Crocodile Tears: Can the Ethical-Moral Intelligence of AI Models Be Trusted?”—examining how AI systems respond to moral dilemmas, and what this reveals about the risks, limitations, and need for greater transparency and human oversight in AI-driven ethical guidance.
