America's cyber defenses are being dismantled from the inside

The U.S. has never been the world leader. The U.S. has been a military leader for other democracies since the end of WWII. That is why the title, leader of the free world has been applied to the U.S. president, who is the leader of the various military alliances between various major democracies. If you claim the U.S. considered itself to be the world leader, then you are claiming the U.S. considered itself to be the leader of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw pact, North Korea, etcetera. That is absurd. The U.S. likely did consider itself the leader of Vietnam and Cuba before the democracies in those countries fell, although that was in a military capacity. That is why the U.S. intervened militarily in both, although both interventions failed.

Saying that the U.S. got its leadership position because no one else wanted it is historically incorrect. Following WWII, every other major democratic power was in ruins while the U.S. was the sole major power left in tact. Without any military attacks on U.S. soil, U.S. military strength had skyrocketed during the war. As the war progressed, the U.S. attained the status of a great power and by the war’s end had become a nascent super power. U.S. strength continued to grow after the war due to the threat of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the other great powers never fully recovered militarily since they focused on their economies while relying on the U.S. for security. The U.S. gained its leadership position because no one else existed that could claim it.

> especially if it wasn’t expensive to maintain

Okay, so we’ve established that the cost of the endeavor is low.

> it’s the global catalog that helps everyone organize and talk about vulnerabilities

I would argue that leading and controlling the organization that provides the world with the single most ubiquitous cybersecurity resource justifies what you characterized as a meager cost in reputational capital alone.

> this is the follow up question to every headline and won't be seen as controversial later, so why bother treating it as controversial to say now

It’s not controversial, just a bit aloof.

Control of something like the CVE registry is essentially a geopolitical concern at this point, i.e. there has been anxiety brewing about China’s vulnerability disclosure laws for a bit now, much of which is warranted as China has been preventing the disclosure of vulnerabilities and instead stockpiling 0days and leveling up their APT groups. Even if the US wouldn’t exert such blatant influence or control over the program, the fact that vulnerability disclosures are being sent to US entities, or even just traveling through IP space we control, may be alone enough for value to be extracted.

This pattern could basically be viewed as the DOGE fallacy at this point.

It is a matter of whether you prefer transnational organized crime or not.

Businesses, Science and individuals thrive in societies that are democratic, with separation of powers and independent judiciary. The better they function, the harder it is for crime.

On the other hand, if you allow organized crime to prosper, take control of it, and on the other hand have the judiciary in your grip, you can play both cards against your political/business enemies.

This is the model of Russia, where the State is deeply connected to transnational organized crime. The Kremlin powers really wanted Viktor Bout free. Now, if the power brokers in the media landscape wanted to tell you the big picture instead of hyper focusing on the day to day circus... (that is also why journalism /= actualities).

So these are just necessary steps to clear roadblocks for crime networks. The same for IRS. In Russia you cannot get power without Kompromat on yourself. Like the maffia, the boss needs a kill switch on everyone.

From a higher perspective, it is a bit unfortunate that these transgressive steps were foreseen in academia, those despicable expertise centra in the EU and other democratic countries, while the general public is kept in the dark by media houses.

I am not sure if it still suitable for HN or that the Overton Window shifted too much already, but the other things that were forecast are the capturing of conservatism by the same networks. We expect also to see further normalization of law breaking, power abuse, power concentration and state capture by non-elected bodies. Yes, this was a normalization process of decades. But now on full acceleration. As an aside, it is not entirely a coincidence that "Accelerationism" is the ideology of associated power circles.

And now you also know how Tech Bro's and Conservatism could share the same campaign. Their intended outcomes differ on some points, but they agree on the path to their respective ideals. The extreme destruction that follows will not touch them personally. To ensure that last thing they unlock powers for them self: become the law.

Might you be assuming that the current management cares about actual "help the American people" stuff?

do you think this is what they're actually trying to do