In a whirlwind of policy shifts and legal battles, the Trump administration is poised to fundamentally reshape the landscape of U.S. national security—both in the digital realm and at the nation’s airports. With two major moves announced on December 13, 2025, the White House is pushing forward on a controversial cyber warfare strategy that would enlist private businesses in offensive operations against foreign adversaries, while the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) renews its effort to end collective bargaining rights for airport screening officers. Both initiatives have sparked fierce debate, raising questions about the future of American security, the role of government, and the rights of workers on the front lines.
According to Bloomberg News, President Donald Trump’s administration is preparing to deploy private businesses to conduct offensive cyberattacks—an unprecedented shift from the traditional model where secretive intelligence agencies, like the National Security Agency, handled such sensitive operations. The White House is expected to unveil this strategy within weeks, through the Office of the National Cyber Director. The move, outlined in a draft strategy reviewed by industry officials, would target criminal and state-sponsored hackers who breach critical infrastructure, telecommunications networks, or unleash ransomware attacks that cripple American businesses.
The draft strategy, which runs about five pages, doesn’t just focus on offensive cyber operations. It also addresses the need to streamline data security regulations, modernize federal systems, secure critical infrastructure, and promote the adoption of post-quantum cryptography and secure quantum computing technologies. Industry representatives have been invited to provide feedback, and while the document is still evolving, its core message is clear: the United States is gearing up for a more aggressive, technologically advanced approach to digital conflict.
“The administration remains unapologetic and unafraid regarding offensive cyber operations,” Alexei Bulazel, the National Security Council’s senior director for cyber issues, declared at a September security conference. That tough talk is now being matched with concrete policy and substantial funding. Buried within the administration’s multi-trillion dollar tax and spending legislation is a $1 billion allocation specifically earmarked for offensive cyber operations—a sign of just how seriously the White House views this new frontier of warfare.
But the plan is not without its challenges. As Bloomberg notes, there is currently no legal framework that allows private firms to conduct offensive cyber operations independently. Any such action could place these companies in the crosshairs of foreign governments, exposing them to retaliation from state actors with vast resources and legal immunity. The administration is reportedly preparing to release additional information after the strategy is announced, possibly including an executive order to clarify the roles of private firms and provide them with legal protections. Legislative action may also be needed to establish clear boundaries and shield contractors from liability.
The push to involve private industry comes amid a consensus within the intelligence community that the U.S. needs more capacity to combat hostile hacking groups, many of which are backed by foreign governments. By bringing in private firms, the government hopes to expand its cyber warfare resources and free up intelligence and military units to focus on missions only they can handle. Interestingly, discussions about contracting offensive cyber operations began during the Biden administration, but the policy was never finalized. Now, the Trump team appears ready to move where its predecessor hesitated.
Michael Janke, co-founder of Datatribe, a technology foundry for cyber startups, observed that many cybersecurity firms with defensive expertise could easily pivot to offensive work. However, he cautioned that such a shift carries significant financial and legal risks, potentially alienating customers and investors. “Legislation could eliminate operational ambiguity that currently benefits both government and commercial actors,” Janke said, “but it might also constrain the tactical flexibility that’s proven valuable in rapidly evolving digital conflicts.”
While the cyber strategy is drawing attention in tech and security circles, another battle is raging at the country’s airports. On the same day as the cyber announcement, the TSA renewed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s campaign to end the collective bargaining agreement with airport screening officers—a move that comes just a month after the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. This is the second attempt this year to curtail union rights for TSA workers, following a failed effort earlier in 2025.
The push is anchored in a September memo from Secretary Noem, which asserts that TSA screeners “have a primary function of national security” and therefore should not engage in collective bargaining or be represented by a union. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents about 800,000 federal workers, immediately vowed to fight the decision. The union called the move illegal and a violation of a preliminary injunction issued in June that blocked Noem’s earlier directive to terminate the contract covering 47,000 TSA workers.
“It definitely seems like they’re using all loopholes to try to eliminate collective bargaining rights for the transportation security officers,” said Johnny Jones, secretary-treasurer of the bargaining unit for TSA workers, in a phone interview with the press. TSA declined to comment directly on the union’s assertions, but Adam Stahl, acting TSA deputy administrator, stated that screeners “need to be focused on their mission of keeping travelers safe.” Stahl added, “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.”
The TSA plans to rescind the current seven-year contract in January 2026, replacing it with a new “security-focused framework.” The contract, reached just last May, was supposed to run until 2031. The union, however, sees the move as a betrayal. Noem had recently handed out $10,000 bonus checks to TSA officers who worked through the 43-day government shutdown, missing more than six weeks of pay. “This is how they’re going to be repaid for coming to work every single day during the government shutdown?” Jones asked, calling the agency’s decision “a slap in the face to the people they’re handing checks to.”
The legal battle is far from over. Noem’s first memo rescinding the collective bargaining agreement, issued in February, led to a lawsuit from the union, which claimed the move was retaliation for AFGE’s resistance to Trump administration actions affecting federal workers. U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman of Seattle granted a preliminary injunction in June, writing that Noem’s directive “constitutes impermissible retaliation,” likely violated the union’s due process, and was “arbitrary and capricious”—findings that suggest the union may ultimately prevail when the case goes to trial in 2026.
These twin initiatives—one in cyberspace, the other at airport checkpoints—underscore the Trump administration’s determination to assert control over national security in new and sometimes controversial ways. As the legal and political battles play out, the outcome will shape not just how America defends itself, but also the rights and responsibilities of those tasked with keeping the country safe.
