TL;DR
Andreessen Horowitz published a proposal on November 12 for a White House-led effort to secure selected operators and shared vendors across five critical infrastructure sectors. It calls for three measurable targets, CEO accountability and monthly reporting, but it is not government policy and does not estimate costs.
Venture firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) published a proposal on November 12 for a White House-led cyber defense effort focused on selected operators and shared vendors in power, banking and payments, water, communications and hospitals. Written by a16z general partner Anne Neuberger, the plan would set sector targets and hold company leaders publicly accountable, but it is a proposal, not an active government program.
Get business pricing on networking and server gear
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
The plan argues that artificial intelligence could help both attackers and defenders move faster: AI systems may identify vulnerabilities and help generate fixes, while attackers could exploit weaknesses sooner. a16z says the central question is whether defenders can apply those tools quickly enough. These are the plan’s claims about the threat and potential response, not a finding that a specific AI-enabled attack has occurred.
Rather than covering every organization, the proposal would prioritize what it calls a few hundred operators and shared vendors whose disruption could have effects across the country. The named areas are power, banking and payments, water, communications and hospitals. The plan’s examples include major transmission substations, payment systems, large-city water utilities, core telecom and 911 systems, regional trauma centers, and health-record vendors.
For each sector, a CEO council would commit to three targets: zero internet-exposed control systems, passing 72-hour drills to operate manually, and containing critical vulnerabilities within a set time. The plan says top-priority targets should be contained within six months. It also proposes cross-sector exercises, monthly anonymized scorecards from sector information-sharing centers (ISACs), and CEO-level reviews when sectors fall behind. The CEO council would meet with the president every six months.
Targets for High-Impact Operators
The proposal would concentrate attention on infrastructure dependencies where a cyber incident could disrupt essential services across multiple communities or sectors. Its focus on measurable outcomes and operating during a prolonged IT outage is intended to connect cyber preparedness to service continuity, rather than relying only on general security commitments.
That approach also makes the plan’s scope consequential: companies and vendors selected as high priority could face new expectations for drills, vulnerability response and reporting. a16z proposes legal protections in return, including long-term reauthorization of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 and a possible safe harbor for participating companies that meet outcome-based targets. The proposal does not establish those protections or specify how they would work.
Products Worth Considering
Jackery Solar Generator 1000 v2 with Two 100W Solar Panels, 1024Wh LiFePO4 Battery
Logitech MX Keys S Combo Wireless Keyboard and Mouse, Graphite
DJI Mini 5 Pro Fly More Combo with DJI RC 2
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Neuberger’s White House Proposal
Neuberger says she worked on infrastructure security in the U.S. government, first at the National Security Agency and later as deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technology. She is now a general partner and head of global affairs at a16z. The firm says she also outlined the plan in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.
The proposal is addressed to the White House’s Super Intelligence Force. The source material says President Donald Trump announced the task force on October 4, 2026, and named National Intelligence Director Jay Clayton to lead it. That task force’s announced remit includes coordinating federal engagement with critical infrastructure providers and AI companies. The a16z plan would make the force responsible for setting targets and receiving scorecards; it does not establish that the task force has accepted or adopted those duties.
The plan says replacing unsupported equipment could take two to five years, compared with a six-month goal for containing top-priority targets. That contrast frames its preference for rapid containment and operational readiness, but the source does not provide a cost estimate or a detailed implementation schedule for equipment replacement.
“AI is shrinking the time between when a weakness is found and when it is exploited. Defenders who still work at human speed will lose that race.”
— Anne Neuberger, a16z general partner and head of global affairs
The document is a private-sector proposal, and the source material does not show that the White House or the Super Intelligence Force has endorsed it. It names no budget, funding source, participating companies, enforcement mechanism or method for deciding which operators qualify as top priority.
It is also unclear how the three targets would be measured across sectors with different systems, or what consequences would follow if a company missed them. The proposal calls for legal protections but does not specify their scope. Its claims about AI speeding vulnerability discovery and helping defenders are not accompanied in the supplied material by independent data or named case studies.
White House Response Would Set Course
The next material development would be a response from the White House or the Super Intelligence Force indicating whether it will consider the plan. If officials take it up, details would still be needed on sector selection, target definitions, funding, reporting, legal protections and the timetable for drills. Until then, the six-month containment target and the proposed reporting structure remain recommendations from a16z.
Key Questions
What did a16z propose?
a16z proposed a White House-led cyber defense effort for selected operators and shared vendors in five sectors: power, banking and payments, water, communications and hospitals. It calls for measurable security targets, operational drills and regular reporting.
Is the plan government policy?
No. The published plan is a proposal from a16z. The source material does not say that the White House or the Super Intelligence Force has adopted it.
What targets would companies face?
The proposal names three: eliminate internet-exposed control systems, pass drills demonstrating 72 hours of manual operation, and contain critical vulnerabilities within a set period. It says top-priority targets should be contained within six months.
How would companies be held accountable?
A CEO council would commit sectors to targets, while sector ISACs would submit anonymized monthly scorecards. The proposal calls for CEO-level review if a sector falls behind and for the council to meet the president every six months.
Does the plan say how much it would cost?
No cost estimate is given in the source material. The proposal also leaves open its funding source, participation rules and the design of the legal protections it seeks.
Source: Thorsten Meyer AI
