In a move that sent shockwaves through the global cybersecurity community, the digital guardians of the United States have abruptly vanished from the speaker list of the world’s most influential cybersecurity gathering, the RSA Conference. The coordinated withdrawal of America’s top security agencies—the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security Agency (NSA)—has left a gaping hole in the conference agenda and raised urgent questions about the politicization of national security. This isn’t a minor scheduling conflict; it’s a public disengagement from the very stage where public-private cyber defense strategies are forged.
A Vanishing Act on the World’s Biggest Cyber Stage
The RSA Conference (RSAC) is more than just an industry trade show; it is the premiere global nexus for cybersecurity professionals. Each year, it draws tens of thousands of experts from the public and private sectors to San Francisco to share intelligence, set standards, and build the collaborative relationships essential for defending against sophisticated cyber threats. For government agencies, it serves as an indispensable platform for communicating strategy and coordinating with the private sector partners who operate the majority of the nation’s critical infrastructure.
This year, however, that vital link has been severed. High-ranking officials from CISA, the FBI, and the NSA were slated to lead critical discussions on everything from nation-state threats to election security. The sudden removal of their names and sessions from the 2026 schedule signals a significant retreat from a longstanding tradition of public-private partnership, leaving a void that canned statements and official explanations have failed to fill.
More Than a Conference A Pillar of National Security
The stakes of this withdrawal extend far beyond the conference halls. The collaborative efforts showcased at RSAC are fundamental to U.S. national security. CISA, the FBI, and the NSA are not passive attendees; they are central figures who lead dialogues on defending electrical grids, financial systems, and communication networks. Their sessions provide crucial threat intelligence briefings that help private companies bolster their defenses against foreign adversaries.
Without this direct and open collaboration, the nation’s ability to respond to large-scale cyberattacks is compromised. The absence of federal leadership at RSAC risks creating dangerous blind spots in national cyber defense, slowing the dissemination of critical threat information and undermining the trust that is the bedrock of effective public-private partnerships. The move disrupts a proven model for collective defense at a time when digital threats are escalating in scope and severity.
Deconstructing the Withdrawal A Timeline of the Fallout
The catalyst for this unprecedented action appears to be a single personnel change. RSAC announced the appointment of Jen Easterly, the former director of CISA under the Biden administration, as its new Chief Executive. A 25-year Army veteran and respected figure in the cybersecurity community, Easterly’s appointment was initially seen as a major win for the conference organizer.
Just eight days after the announcement, the federal response came swiftly and silently. All scheduled speakers from CISA, the FBI, and the NSA were systematically removed from the RSAC agenda. Canceled sessions included a keynote from the acting deputy head of CISA’s cyber division and panels featuring senior members of the FBI Cyber Division and the NSA’s Cybersecurity Collaboration Center. The synchronized nature of the withdrawal suggests a top-down directive aimed at sending a clear, if officially unspoken, message.
Official Statements and Unspoken Political Tensions
When pressed for an explanation, the agencies’ responses were a study in contrast. The FBI and NSA remained silent, offering no official reason for their sudden departure and thereby fueling speculation about the political motivations at play. CISA, however, provided a carefully worded statement, attributing the decision to a “routine review of all stakeholder engagements, to ensure maximum impact and good stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”
The statement notably avoided any mention of Easterly, instead framing the withdrawal as part of a strategic shift to focus on “President Trump’s policies” and return the agency to its “statutory, core mission.” This official rationale has been met with skepticism from many in the industry. Former officials and cybersecurity experts have voiced alarm, describing the move as part of a “troubling pattern” of the administration disengaging from the traditionally non-partisan security community.
The Chilling Effect Politicizing Cybersecurity’s Future
This incident sends a chilling message across the industry: participation in collaborative forums may now be conditional on political alignment. The decision appears to be directly linked to Easterly’s past. During the 2025 RSAC, she publicly criticized the president’s “loyalty mandate,” an act that had already led to professional repercussions, including the rescission of a job offer from West Point. Her appointment as RSAC’s CEO seems to have been the final straw.
The withdrawal by federal agencies from RSAC has set a dangerous new precedent. It has transformed a cornerstone of cybersecurity collaboration into a political battleground, raising pressing questions about the future of public-private partnerships in an increasingly polarized environment. An issue as critical and bipartisan as cybersecurity has now been drawn into the political fray, a development that could have lasting and damaging consequences for the nation’s security.
The abrupt pullout marked a stark departure from decades of established practice, leaving a community dedicated to collective defense feeling alienated and concerned. The incident underscored a deep and growing rift between the administration and the non-partisan cybersecurity world, a division that many experts believe could only benefit the nation’s adversaries. The immediate fallout was a conference missing its key government partners, but the long-term impact on national cyber resilience remained a deeply unsettling unknown.
