When the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA 2015) was signed into law, it represented an acknowledgment that cyber defense requires cooperation, not isolation. The principle was straightforward: companies and government agencies would share indicators of compromise, attack methods, and threat intelligence in order to strengthen collective resilience. It was imperfect, but it was progress.
Now, with CISA 2015 set to expire, the United States is potentially facing a significant setback. The expiration would remove the legal framework that encouraged companies to share critical threat information without fear of liability. In doing so, it risks returning us to a fragmented environment where organizations conceal breaches, regulators operate in the dark, and cyber adversaries exploit the gaps.
Publicly traded companies already face difficult choices when a cyberattack occurs. Disclosure often leads to stock price volatility, regulatory scrutiny, lawsuits, and reputational harm. The SEC has attempted to close loopholes by mandating timely disclosure of material cyber incidents, but enforcement has been uneven.
Without CISA’s structured framework, companies may conclude that silence is the least damaging option. A ransomware attack, for example, could be downplayed as a “system outage” in financial filings, allowing executives to manage perception while attackers reuse the same methods elsewhere. Investors, customers, and smaller firms in the supply chain would remain uninformed until it is too late.
The consequences are not limited to Wall Street. Supply chain attacks have demonstrated that when one organization fails to disclose, dozens or even hundreds of others become vulnerable to the same tactics. Transparency is not simply a compliance issue -- it is a matter of national and economic security.
The expiration of CISA 2015 also risks undermining cooperative cybersecurity agreements between U.S. agencies and international partners. These partnerships are built on the assumption that information will flow consistently and quickly. If American companies retreat into secrecy, allied governments and corporations will lose access to valuable intelligence. That, in turn, could strain trust and reduce the effectiveness of joint efforts to counter state-sponsored hacking campaigns.
The importance of timely information sharing is magnified by the rapid evolution of threats. With scams that threaten to disclose search requests and webcam footage or fraudulent antivirus campaigns that masquerade as antivirus protection, human vulnerability is exploited as much any potential technical flaws. Meanwhile, critical vulnerabilities such as Microsoft CVE errors demonstrate how quickly attackers can weaponize newly discovered weaknesses.
These threats spread most effectively in environments where warnings are delayed or withheld. A single disclosure can equip hundreds of organizations to patch or block attacks. Without it, the same exploit may be used repeatedly, compounding damage across industries. As a result, individual entities in both the public and private sectors must focus on endpoint protection platforms to cover blindspots.
Markets depend on accurate information. Just as investors require transparency in financial reporting, they now expect disclosure of cyber risks that could materially affect operations. If companies choose secrecy over transparency, confidence in the integrity of markets erodes.
The SEC can attempt to enforce rules, but without the supporting structure of CISA’s protections and incentives, compliance will be weaker. Disclosure becomes a negotiation rather than an obligation, and the public becomes the last to know about threats that may have national implications.
Even if CISA is renewed, no federal law can fully protect private organizations. Cyber threats move too quickly, and government responses are inherently slower. This reality underscores the need for businesses -- particularly small and mid-sized enterprises -- to adopt zero-trust architecture.
Zero trust assumes that every user, device, and connection could be compromised. Access is continuously verified, networks are segmented, and sensitive data is protected through strict controls. It is a model designed not for trust, but for resilience.
The expiration of CISA 2015 would mark a dangerous regression. It would incentivize silence over transparency, weaken cooperative agreements, and give cyber adversaries the advantage of time. Renewal is necessary, but renewal alone is not sufficient.
Companies must accept that government cannot provide comprehensive protection. Cybersecurity is a shared responsibility, and silence is not a defense. By renewing CISA and reinforcing private sector accountability, the U.S. can avoid drifting into a digital environment where attackers operate with impunity and victims suffer in isolation.
Julio Rivera is a business and political strategist, cybersecurity researcher, founder of ItFunk.Org, and a political commentator and columnist. His writing, which is focused on cybersecurity and politics, is regularly published by many of the largest news organizations in the world.
Image: Chrstoph Scholz