Politics of Cybersecurity - and the Governments Now Waging It

The long-awaited cybersecurity legislation introduced this week threatens companies with daily fines of up to 10% of global revenues if they fail to meet the country's standards of cyber resilience. In an age in which a single breach can knock hospitals, airports, or public services off the map, the UK has elected to use the stick rather than the carrot. Critics will say the penalties are draconian; supporters argue that nothing less than shock therapy will make companies take their digital hygiene seriously.

Even older laws are re-emerging as political tools. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015—quietly expired on the same day Washington shut down—may soon return, fortified by new funding tied to reopening the federal government. Its revival would underscore the increasing realization that information-sharing between corporations and the government is not a luxury; it's the backbone of national deterrence.

The Pentagon has rewritten its own rules. The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification rule, years in debate, is now in force. It requires every defense contractor to meet exacting security standards before a single contract can be signed or renewed. The burden has shifted from trust to verification For years, the presumption guiding the defense supply chain had been that good contractors act responsibly. But following breach after devastating breach, the Department of Defense has conceded what should have been obvious: a chain is no stronger than its weakest digital link. All these put together sketch a world where cybersecurity is no longer purely a technological issue but the frontline of national identity and global influence. It places governments not just as guardians, but as active combatants in a borderless digital battlefield that pauses for no election and respects no laws other than its own ruthless logic. The emerging politics of cybersecurity is defined less by ideology than necessity.