Artificial intelligence has quickly become a centerpiece of cybersecurity strategy across government and industry. Agencies are under pressure to modernize, and AI promises to accelerate response times, automate enforcement, and increase efficiency at scale.
But there is a critical risk that’s not getting enough attention. Automation without visibility doesn’t eliminate complexity. It multiplies it. And for federal agencies operating under stringent mandates and oversight, that creates a dangerous blind spot.
When AI turns enforcement into chaos
Consider an organization that turned to AI to manage firewall rules. The idea was simple: Allow the AI to continuously generate and enforce rules, so that the network remained secure in real time. On paper, it worked. The AI delivered consistent enforcement and even a solid return on investment.
]]>
But when auditors stepped in, they discovered a problem. Instead of consolidating rules, the AI had simply layered them on repeatedly. What had been a 2,000-line ruleset grew into more than 20,000 lines. Buried within were contradictions, redundancies and overlaps.
For operators, the network functioned. But for compliance officers, it was a nightmare. Demonstrating segmentation of sensitive environments, something federal mandates and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards both require, meant combing through 20,000 rules line by line. AI had streamlined enforcement, but it had rendered oversight almost impossible.
This is the irony of AI in cybersecurity: It can solve problems while simultaneously creating new ones.
Masking complexity, not removing it
Federal IT leaders know that compliance is not optional. Agencies must not only enforce controls, but also prove to Congress, regulators and oversight bodies that controls are effective. AI-generated logic, while fast, often can’t be explained in human terms.
That creates risk. Analysts may be right that AI is enabling “preemptive” security, but it’s also masking the misconfigurations, insecure protocols and segmentation gaps that adversaries exploit. Worse, AI may multiply those issues at a scale human operators can’t easily trace.
In short, if you can’t see what AI is changing, you can’t secure it.
]]>
Federal mandates demand proof, not promises
Unlike private enterprises, federal agencies face multiple layers of oversight. From Federal Information Security Modernization Act audits to National Institute of Standards and Technology framework requirements, agencies must continuously demonstrate compliance. Regulators won’t accept “trust the AI” as justification. They want evidence.
That’s where AI-driven enforcement creates the most risk: It undermines explainability. An agency may appear compliant operationally but struggle to generate transparent reports to satisfy audits or demonstrate adherence to NIST 800-53, Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certificaiton or zero trust principles.
In an environment where operational uptime is mission-critical, whether for Defense communications, transportation systems or civilian services, losing visibility into how security controls function is not just a compliance risk. It’s a national security risk.
Independent oversight is essential
The solution is not to reject AI. AI can and should play a vital role in federal cybersecurity modernization. But it must be paired with independent auditing tools that provide oversight, interpretation and clarity.
Independent auditing serves the same purpose in cybersecurity as it does in finance: verifying the work. AI may generate and enforce rules, but independent systems must verify, streamline and explain them. That dual approach ensures agencies can maintain both speed and transparency.
I’ve seen agencies and contractors struggle with this first-hand. AI-driven automation delivers efficiency, but when auditors arrive, they need answers that only independent visibility tools can provide. Questions like:
- Is the cardholder or mission-critical data environment fully segmented?
- Are insecure protocols still running on public-facing infrastructure?
- Can we produce an auditable trail proving compliance with NIST or PCI requirements?
Without these answers, federal agencies risk compliance failures and, worse, operational disruption.
]]>
The federal balancing act
Federal leaders also face a unique challenge: balancing security with mission-critical operations. In defense, for example, communication downtime in the field is catastrophic. In civilian agencies, outages in public-facing systems can disrupt services for millions of citizens.
This creates tension between network operations centers (focused on uptime) and security operations centers (focused on compliance). AI promises to keep systems running, but without visibility, it risks tipping the balance too far toward operations at the expense of oversight.
The federal mission demands both: uninterrupted operations and provable security. AI can help achieve that balance, but only if independent oversight ensures explainability.
Questions federal security leaders must ask
Before integrating AI further into their cybersecurity posture, federal leaders should ask:
- What visibility do we have into AI-generated changes? If you can’t explain the logic, you can’t defend it.
- How will we validate compliance against federal frameworks? Oversight bodies won’t accept black-box answers.
- What happens when AI introduces errors? Automation multiplies mistakes as quickly as it enforces controls.
- Do we have independent tools for oversight? Without them, auditors, regulators and mission leaders will be left in the dark.
Don’t trade clarity for convenience
AI is transforming federal cybersecurity. But speed without clarity is a liability. Agencies cannot afford to trade explainability for convenience.
The warning is clear: AI is quietly building operational debt while masking misconfigurations. Without independent oversight, that debt will come due in the form of compliance failures, operational disruption or even breaches.
Federal leaders should embrace AI’s benefits, but not at the cost of visibility. Because in cybersecurity, especially in government, if you can’t see what AI is changing, you can’t secure it.
Ian Robinson is the chief product officer for Titania.
Copyright
© 2025 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
