> Is he legitimately without a single person close to him that could inform him of how misguided this line of aggression is,
I've said it elsewhere and I'll repeat it here. People like Parsons who climb to positions of power think of security in terms of power, not technology. It's a sort of security-because-I-say-so mindset, which is more like what technologists would probably call "classified information". For a person of that mindset, calling it "secure" means that accessing it at all is a security violation, unless that person has clearance.
From the point of view of a person who sees security as "it's sensitive information because someone says so" accessing it without clearance is punishable, and I think that's where Parson and his ilk are working.
Even if Parson has someone close enough to him to explain the difference between security by technical means and security by declaration, the governor could still conclude, from his mindset, that a violation occurred because of the sensitive nature of the information.
As far as I know, neither Missouri nor any other state has anything like US federal-level information classification laws, for which a person can be found in violation and prosecuted even if they didn't have to overcome any technical security measures to access the information. But that doesn't seem to deter Parson from acting like there's an actual breach of law, according to his understanding. But someone could, possibly, reach the governor through explaining that there's no state law about sensitive information, and perhaps he would back down, although it might motivate him to push for laws that would look more like security clearance regulations.