We asked an AI agent to analyze the latest shift in U.S. cybersecurity policy, comparing past strategies under Biden to the new 2025 Trump Executive Order. The result? A surprisingly structured analysis that maps out the core philosophical and operational differences, from federal-led resilience to localized risk ownership. 

But this raises a more provocative question: what influenced the AI’s perspective? Are its conclusions based on objective synthesis, or shaped by the data it was trained on? Does the AI “know” what’s good for national cybersecurity, or is it simply reflecting the strongest patterns it has seen? 

This isn’t just a policy update, it’s a new operational reality that CISOs, security vendors, MSSPs, and local governments must now strategically respond to. 

Federal to Local: A Foundational Shift 

Trump EO (2025): 

“This Executive Order directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to work with States to develop risk-informed plans and investments, and establish a National Risk Register to identify and quantify the greatest threats to our national infrastructure.” 

Biden Strategy (2023): 

“Too much of the responsibility for cybersecurity has fallen on individual users and small organizations… we will rebalance the responsibility for cybersecurity to be more effective and more equitable.” 

From centralized resilience building to decentralized empowerment. While the Biden strategy sought to reduce pressure on small entities by reinforcing federal support, the Trump EO prioritizes agility and local leadership. 

Strategy Design: From All-Hazards to Risk-Informed 

Trump EO (2025): 

“The all-hazards approach led to wasteful spending. We’re shifting to a risk-informed strategy that targets the most pressing threats first.” 

Biden Strategy (2023): 

“Achieving this vision of a prosperous, connected future will depend upon the cybersecurity and resilience of its underlying technologies and systems.” 

Veriti’s work with enterprise clients confirms the efficiency value of risk-informed approaches, especially when threat prioritization is backed by actionable data. But we believe that success here hinges on equipping local organizations with tools they currently lack: real time telemetry, unified visibility, and automation. Without these, the “risk-informed” model risks becoming merely “risk-exposed.” 

Federal vs. Local Roles: Accountability Realigned 

Biden’s Model: 

“We will collaborate with industry, civil society, and State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments to rebalance the responsibility for cybersecurity.” 

Trump’s Model: 

“This Executive Order directs the Federal Government to focus on empowering state and local leaders rather than leading preparedness efforts directly.” 

The shift places the burden of preparedness on jurisdictions that vary widely in maturity, staffing, and resources. 

This could open opportunity for regional MSSPs and cybersecurity solution providers to step in as strategic partners, especially if federal oversight becomes more advisory than operational. 

Global Collaboration Takes a Backseat? 

State Department (2024 Strategy): 

“We must ensure a secure, open, and interoperable Internet… which requires shared responsibility among governments and stakeholders.” 

This sentiment contrasts with the Trump EO’s domestic-first tone. While international collaboration isn’t entirely deprioritized, cross-border cyber risk management may receive less emphasis moving forward. Globalized threats like ransomware-as-a-service, DDoS attacks from hostile actors, or cross-border breaches require integrated threat intelligence sharing, and decentralized governance may hinder that. 

Collective Defense vs. Local Autonomy 

RSAC Chairman: 

“Cybersecurity cannot be left to individual organizations alone – it demands a collective, coordinated response across sectors and borders.” 

Trump EO (2025): 

“We believe that local leaders are best positioned to understand and address the risks facing their communities.” 

This sets up a tension: collective defense is inherently federal, while local empowerment is inherently fragmented. Bridging this gap will require platforms that federate insights and automate correlation, while still allowing local independence. This is exactly where continuous threat exposure management solutions like Veriti’s can serve as the connective tissue. 

Cybersecurity Strategy Comparison 

Strategic Risks 

1. Inconsistent Cyber Maturity: States vary widely in security readiness. 

2. Fragmented Response: National-scale cyberattacks demand coordination. Fragmentation of responsibilities may slow response or dilute effectiveness. 

3. Weakened Intelligence Sharing: Without centralized threat aggregation, deduplication and real-time dissemination, indicators of compromise could go unshared or unnoticed. 

4. Budget Gaps: Many local entities lack the funding and personnel to implement high-assurance cyber programs on their own. 

Strategic Opportunities 

1. Faster Response Times: Decentralized models may allow more agile local decisions, bypassing federal bottlenecks. 

2. Tailored Defense: Local governments often understand their own threat landscape better than DC does. Risk-informed, community-specific programs could prove more effective. 

3. Private Sector Enablement: MSSPs and vendors can innovate service models for localized protection, especially with modular and automated cybersecurity stacks. 

4. Resilience Through Localization: Long-term gains may come from investing in local SOCs, upskilling, and community-centric cyber readiness. 

The Trump administration’s cybersecurity EO signals a significant structural shift in how the U.S. organizes its cyber defenses from centralized coordination to distributed responsibility. This may bring operational challenges, especially around standardization and national-level incident response, but also opens the door for more tailored and agile local strategies. Organizations that can adapt quickly and partners who can bridge the local-federal divide, will be better positioned to protect critical infrastructure. 

The AI’s analysis presents a compelling breakdown of a complex policy shift  from centralized coordination to distributed responsibility. But we’re left with an open question: Can an AI truly understand what’s “good” for national cyber defense, or is it merely reflecting the logic of its training data? 

As technology leaders, policymakers, and practitioners, it’s up to us to challenge, validate, and apply these insights responsibly. The future of cybersecurity may be increasingly localized — but how we interpret, implement, and adapt those changes remains very much a human decision. 

The post Trump vs. Biden Cyber Strategy — According to AI  appeared first on VERITI.

*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from VERITI authored by Veriti Research. Read the original post at: https://veriti.ai/blog/veriti-research/trump-vs-biden-cyber-strategy-according-to-ai/