State Authority and International Law in the Era of AI-Driven Cyber Defense and Private Sector Offensive Operations

Full report

On this page

The landscape of state-sponsored cybersecurity, international law, and artificial intelligence (AI) has undergone a profound structural shift following a cascade of executive and operational directives issued by the United States government in mid-2026. Moving decisively away from fragmented, reactive defense architectures and historically ambiguous approaches to private-sector cyber retaliation, the executive branch has codified a comprehensive, dual-track strategic posture. The first track centers on centralized, AI-driven defensive coordination through voluntary public-private clearinghouses, most prominently the "GOLD EAGLE" initiative1. The second track, encapsulated in the August 12, 2026, National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) "Expanding Capabilities to Combat Transnational Cyber-Enabled Crime," formally authorizes vetted private-sector entities to conduct offensive cyber operations against foreign Cyber-Enabled Transnational Criminal Organizations (CE-TCOs) under the strict direction and control of the federal government4. To determine what gives a sovereign nation the "right" to undertake these operations requires an exhaustive examination of both domestic constitutional frameworks and the deeply contested boundaries of customary international law. Domestically, these initiatives rely on robust assertions of executive authority, targeted statutory exemptions for government agents, and specialized, legally insulated contracting mechanisms. Internationally, they stress-test the doctrines of state sovereignty, the principle of non-intervention, the obligations of due diligence, and the rules governing state responsibility for the actions of private actors. This analysis deconstructs the legal, policy, and geopolitical architecture that enables this unprecedented projection of sovereign cyber power, establishing how the United States justifies these actions not as autonomous or preemptive acts of cyberwarfare, but as lawful extensions of national defense and law enforcement in the digital domain.

The Domestic Legal Architecture: Executive Mandates and Frontier Innovation

The authority of the United States government to implement rapid AI cyber initiatives, compel federal network hardening, and coordinate private-sector resources is anchored in an expansive interpretation of Article II constitutional powers, supported by specific statutory frameworks that govern federal contracting, information sharing, and criminal law6.

Executive Order 14409 and the Rejection of Preclearance

On June 2, 2026, the signing of Executive Order 14409, "Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security," established the foundational policy doctrine for these defense-oriented efforts6. The order explicitly eschews mandatory licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirements for the development of new AI models, favoring a voluntary framework intended to foster commercial innovation while simultaneously prioritizing national security8. This approach stands in stark contrast to more restrictive, gatekeeper-style regulatory regimes emerging in jurisdictions such as the European Union11. The legal authority to issue EO 14409 stems directly from the President's constitutional powers to direct the operations of the executive branch, safeguard national security systems, and define federal procurement and operational standards6. The order executed a series of rigorous 30-day and 60-day operational sprints, compelling the Department of War, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Committee on National Security Systems to harden federal networks and deploy AI-enabled defensive tools9. Notably, the order directed CISA to issue Binding Operational Directives to expedite the defense of civilian federal systems and to facilitate the provision of advanced cybersecurity tools to under-resourced critical infrastructure operators, such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities6. A critical component of EO 14409 is Section 3, which establishes a framework for highly advanced AI systems designated as "covered frontier models." Operating on a 60-day timeline, this section directs federal agencies to develop a classified benchmarking process to evaluate the cyber-relevant capabilities of advanced AI models9. Rather than mandating compliance, the executive branch relies on voluntary collaboration, inviting developers to provide the federal government with early access to these frontier models for up to 30 days prior to public release, subject to stringent confidentiality, intellectual property, and insider-risk protections9. By framing AI innovation as an indispensable component of national security, the executive branch justifies the extensive mobilization of federal resources toward public-private partnerships without requiring new congressional legislation6. This posture extends beyond AI. The administration has treated advanced technologies holistically as strategic national priorities. For instance, on June 22, 2026, the President signed an adjacent executive order, "Ushering in the Next Frontier of Quantum Innovation," establishing the Quantum Computer for Application Development and Discovery Science (QC-ADDS) Effort. This initiative aims to deploy a scientifically useful, fault-tolerant quantum computer by 2028, reflecting the same whole-of-government drive toward technological commercialization and cyber resilience seen in the AI sector12.

The Architecture of Cyber Defense: GOLD EAGLE and Public-Private Integration

Section 2(d) of EO 14409 mandated the creation of an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse within 30 days, serving as the legal genesis for the GOLD EAGLE program12. Launched on July 14, 2026, GOLD EAGLE operationalizes the defensive mandates of the executive order. It functions as a public-private clearinghouse designed to ingest, validate, prioritize, and coordinate the remediation of software vulnerabilities at scale using frontier AI capabilities2. The program was implemented collaboratively by the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security (through CISA), and the Department of War (through the National Security Agency), signaling a high-level interagency effort to bring a "wartime footing" to vulnerability management2. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent notably emphasized the initiative's role in safeguarding the integrity of the U.S. financial system, indicating that the financial services industry is an early priority for GOLD EAGLE's protective measures12.

Overcoming the Fragmentation of Vulnerability Management

The necessity for GOLD EAGLE arises from a longstanding systemic failure in traditional cybersecurity defense: fragmentation. Organizations and security researchers generate massive volumes of vulnerability data using divergent scanning tools, resulting in overlapping reports, inconsistent severity ratings, and disparate asset identifiers2. As frontier AI models drastically accelerate the pace of vulnerability discovery—creating a dynamic described by industry analysts as a looming "vulnpocalypse"—highly manual review and patching processes are rendered obsolete2. GOLD EAGLE utilizes advanced AI to solve this data ingestion crisis. The platform aggregates vulnerability findings from diverse sources, deduplicates redundant reports, validates whether a finding constitutes a genuine threat or a false positive, and prioritizes remediation based on contextual risk factors rather than mere technical severity2. Industry recommendations from organizations like CrowdStrike advocate for utilizing AI detection and response (AIDR) tools and expanding the use of agentic Security Operations Centers (SOCs) to manage this influx of data, approaches that harmonize with GOLD EAGLE's centralized model16. Furthermore, efforts to strategically scan major open-source code repositories ensure that foundational software components receive prioritized patching, preventing cascading supply chain attacks1.

The FFRDC Legal Mechanism: VINCE and the SEI

The legal right to establish and operate such a clearinghouse without violating anti-trust laws or exposing proprietary commercial data to public disclosure relies heavily on the Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) model12. GOLD EAGLE employs a two-platform pipeline. The newly designed GOLD EAGLE platform acts as the intake and prioritization engine, analyzing AI-generated vulnerability reports at scale12. Once triaged, selected vulnerabilities are routed into the Vulnerability Information and Coordination Environment (VINCE) for coordinated disclosure3. VINCE is operated by the CERT Coordination Center at Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute (SEI)12. Under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 35.017, SEI functions as an FFRDC sponsored by the Department of War12. This legal structure is paramount because FFRDCs are mandated to operate objectively and in the public interest, insulated from private-sector competition12. The FFRDC framework provides the legal mechanism necessary to build trust; it allows the government and private entities to entrust an independent organization with highly sensitive, proprietary source code and vulnerability data without immediately subjecting it to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or competitive misuse12. However, routing data through a Department of War-sponsored FFRDC creates complex legal implications for submitters. FFRDCs owe full disclosure of their affairs to their sponsoring agency, and the legal nuances of utilizing an FFRDC for a Treasury-led initiative highlight the intricate cross-agency authorities required to operationalize the clearinghouse12.

Legal Shields for Voluntary Participation

The government's authority to aggregate this data relies entirely on the voluntary participation of the private sector12. To incentivize participation, the U.S. government leverages a constellation of domestic legal shields designed to protect cooperating entities:

1. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA 2015): When statutory conditions are met, this act provides participating entities with liability protection, antitrust protection, and exemptions from FOIA disclosures when sharing cyber-threat indicators with the federal government12. However, legal experts note that these protections are not permanent; CISA 2015 is currently authorized only through September 30, 2026, posing a potential expiration risk for GOLD EAGLE contributors12.

2. Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Program: This framework offers additional, validated protections against regulatory use and public disclosure for critical infrastructure vulnerability submissions12.

3. Department of Justice Prosecutorial Policy (CFAA Safe Harbor): Revised in May 2022, this internal DOJ policy directs federal prosecutors to decline Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) charges for good-faith cybersecurity research12. While vital for the researchers discovering vulnerabilities for GOLD EAGLE, this is merely a prosecutorial policy, not a statutory safe harbor; it does not bind civil litigants, does not confer private rights, and does not override state-level computer-crime statutes12.

Authorizing the Private Sector for Offensive Operations

While GOLD EAGLE leverages domestic administrative law to facilitate defensive coordination, the August 12, 2026, National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) titled "Expanding Capabilities to Combat Transnational Cyber-Enabled Crime" utilizes domestic criminal statutes and executive authority to project offensive power4. The NSPM officially authorizes vetted private contractors ("Participating Companies") to conduct cyber operations against foreign Cyber-Enabled Transnational Criminal Organizations (CE-TCOs)5. The fundamental domestic legal barrier to "hacking back" by private entities is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030\. The CFAA criminalizes the unauthorized access of a computer system, and historically, it has been applied to aggressively penalize private companies attempting to engage in vigilante cyber retaliation against foreign threat actors5. Independent retaliation poses severe risks, including conflict escalation, lack of diplomatic context, and the likelihood of inflicting collateral damage on unwitting third parties whose infrastructure has been co-opted by botnets4.

The 18 U.S.C. § 1030(f) Exemption and the National Coordination Center

The NSPM bypasses the prohibition on private hacking by invoking the statutory exemption found in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(f)5. This critical provision stipulates that the CFAA does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency or an intelligence agency of the United States. By structuring the program so that Participating Companies act directly on behalf of the government, the executive branch legally transforms these private corporate entities into agents of the state5. To maintain this legal fiction and ensure strict control, the NSPM establishes a rigorous oversight mechanism. The program is managed by the National Coordination Center (NCC), established under previous executive directives to protect the nation from foreign threats5. The program is overseen by two co-Executive Directors: one designated by the Attorney General and the other by the Secretary of Homeland Security5. Participating Companies are required to sign formal contractual agreements with the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which stipulate strict vetting of personnel, adherence to rigorous operational protocols, and the posting of a financial bond or escrow of no less than $1 million, subject to forfeiture in the event of contractual non-compliance5. Most importantly, every single proposed cyber operations package must receive written pre-approval and direction from the co-Executive Directors before any technical action can be taken5.

Cyber Surveillance vs. Cyber Effects Operations

Under this framework, Participating Companies are legally authorized to conduct two distinct categories of operations against foreign CE-TCOs:

1. Cyber Surveillance Operations: Covert intelligence-collection activities that involve accessing foreign systems without authorization to gather data on criminal networks. This permits incidental manipulation or temporary disruptions to facilitate collection, provided the actions do not cause physical effects or permanently impair the usability of the infrastructure5.

2. Cyber Effects Operations: Offensive actions targeting information technology infrastructure to actively manipulate, disrupt, deny, degrade, or destroy targeted systems, networks, or resident information used by criminal organizations5.

To mitigate the risk of these operations triggering an international armed conflict, the NSPM establishes a hard boundary: Program Executive Directors are strictly prohibited from authorizing any operation that results in a "Critical Outcome." The policy defines a Critical Outcome as an action likely to result in loss of life, serious physical injury, or an operation that rises to the level of a "use of force" or an "armed attack" under international law4.

The DOJ Realignment and Victim Restoration

The authorization of private sector hacking is part of a much larger realignment of federal law enforcement priorities. The executive branch justifies the right to execute these aggressive operations based on the sovereign duty to protect its citizens from a devastating wave of cybercrime. In 2025, American consumers reported losing over $20.8 billion to cyber-enabled crimes, with foreign TCOs engaging in ransomware, financial fraud, and highly destructive sextortion schemes that disproportionately target vulnerable populations5. To combat this, the Department of Justice orchestrated a massive shift in enforcement resources. On February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memorandum titled “Total Elimination of Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations,” directing prosecutors to redirect resources away from traditional priority offenses—such as conventional money laundering and historical Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement—toward cases connected with cartels and TCOs5. This redirection was accompanied by Executive Order 14157, which designated major cartels (e.g., the Sinaloa Cartel, MS-13, and Tren de Aragua) as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs)5. This designation weaponizes 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, imposing severe criminal liability on any corporation worldwide providing "material support" to these entities, thereby isolating the financial infrastructure of the TCOs targeted by the cyber operations5. Furthermore, the administration initiated a Victim Restoration Program, utilizing funds clawed back, seized, or forfeited from dismantled TCOs to provide restitution to the victims of cyber-enabled fraud schemes5.

International Law and the Extraterritorial Application of Cyber Power

While domestic laws provide the bureaucratic mechanism, the assertion of domestic authority does not intrinsically grant a state the right to act internationally. When the U.S. deploys deputized private hackers to disrupt a CE-TCO located on servers in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, or a neutral third country, it forces a direct confrontation with the foundational principles of customary international law.

The Applicability of the UN Charter to Cyberspace

The foundational premise granting any country the right to operate, regulate, or defend in cyberspace is the international consensus that existing international law applies to the digital domain. This principle has been painstakingly negotiated and repeatedly affirmed by the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Cyber (UN GGE) in their 2013, 2015, and 2021 reports, as well as the UN Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG)19. These reports confirm that the UN Charter applies in its entirety to state conduct in cyberspace, requiring states to resolve disputes peacefully and refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state19. However, diplomacy in the UN GGE has been highly volatile. The 2016-2017 GGE famously collapsed without a consensus report due to objections from Cuba, Russia, China, and others regarding the explicit inclusion of the rights to self-defense, countermeasures, and the applicability of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in cyberspace20. The successful adoption of the 2021 GGE report managed to reaffirm these principles, though deep interpretive fractures remain regarding how rules like sovereignty and non-intervention apply to specific cyber operations20.

The Sovereignty Debate: Rule Versus Principle

A central friction point in international cyber law is whether sovereignty is a binding primary rule of international law or merely a foundational principle from which other rules (like the prohibition on intervention) derive20. The interpretation advanced by the Tallinn Manual 2.0 International Group of Experts, and officially adopted by states such as France, asserts that sovereignty is a primary rule21. Under this strict view, any unauthorized penetration by a state into the cyber infrastructure of another state, or the production of physical or functional effects on its territory via a digital vector, constitutes a per se violation of sovereignty20. If the U.S. adhered strictly to this interpretation, the NSPM's authorization of Cyber Effects Operations against servers located in foreign jurisdictions would routinely violate international law. Conversely, the United Kingdom has articulated the position that international law does not recognize a standalone rule of sovereignty in cyberspace that is violated by mere cyber espionage or non-destructive intrusions20. Under the UK approach, while states must respect the overarching principle of sovereignty, a remote cyber operation does not constitute an internationally wrongful act unless it violates the prohibition on intervention or the use of force. The U.S. navigates a pragmatic middle path, prioritizing operational flexibility. By structuring the NSPM to exclusively target non-state criminal actors (CE-TCOs) rather than foreign government networks or critical infrastructure, the U.S. implicitly argues that neutralizing a criminal botnet does not usurp the inherently governmental functions of the host state, and thus does not necessarily violate its sovereignty4.

The Prohibition of Intervention

If a cyber operation bypasses the threshold of a sovereignty violation, it must still survive the prohibition of intervention. For a cyber operation to qualify as a prohibited intervention under customary international law, two conditions must be met: it must bear on the internal or external affairs of the target state (its domaine réservé, such as elections or foreign policy), and it must be coercive in nature25. Coercion in international law is strictly defined. It requires an act specifically designed to compel a victim state to change its behavior with respect to a matter it is legally permitted to decide freely, or an act that effectively deprives the target state of its ability to control those matters25. Merely causing a nuisance or influencing a state by persuasion does not qualify as coercion25. The NSPM derives its international legal validity from the fact that hacking a CE-TCO lacks this coercive element toward the host state. Disrupting a financially motivated ransomware syndicate or dismantling a fraudulent call center does not attempt to force the host government to alter its foreign policy or domestic legislation; it merely neutralizes a criminal threat4. Therefore, the U.S. asserts that private-sector cyber effects operations targeting criminal networks do not constitute an unlawful intervention in the affairs of the nation where the criminal servers reside.

State Responsibility and the Privatization of Cyber Force

The most complex international legal framework engaged by the NSPM is the doctrine of State Responsibility. By moving away from tolerating independent private-sector "hacking back" and instead formalizing it under federal contracts, the U.S. fundamentally alters the legal attribution of these acts, invoking the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA)27.

ARSIWA Article 8: Direction and Control

As a general rule under ARSIWA, the conduct of private persons or corporate entities is not attributable to the state27. If a private company hacks a foreign server independently, the state is generally not liable. However, ARSIWA Article 8 establishes a critical exception: the conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a state under international law if the person or group is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that state in carrying out the conduct27. The NSPM relies on the premise of absolute federal control. The memorandum explicitly specifies that operational actions by Participating Companies must be conducted "exclusively on behalf of and under the supervision of the Federal Government" and requires explicit, written pre-approval from DOJ and DHS for every technical action4. Under international law, this intense degree of supervision perfectly satisfies the stringent threshold established by Article 826. Consequently, the actions of the private tech companies participating in the program are legally imputed to the United States government28. By deliberately triggering Article 8 attribution, the U.S. claims the "right" to harness the scale and speed of private enterprise while simultaneously accepting full international legal responsibility for the outcomes4. If a Participating Company violates the NSPM's internal guardrails, accidentally routes an attack through an allied nation's critical infrastructure, and causes catastrophic damage, the U.S. cannot legally disavow the action by claiming the company acted independently4. Under ARSIWA, the state bears full responsibility for ultra vires acts (acts exceeding granted authority) committed by entities acting under its strict direction26. This strategic legal decision resolves a longstanding vigilante paradox. Prior to 2026, private companies possessed the technical capability to strike back at threat actors but lacked the legal authority, while the government possessed the legal authority but lacked the agility and proprietary network visibility to combat hundreds of diffuse CE-TCOs4. By fusing private capacity with state authority, the U.S. creates a regulated market for offensive cyber operations, utilizing the $1 million bond requirement and the State Action Doctrine to maintain leverage, prevent rogue escalation, and uphold its obligation to maintain international peace5.

Due Diligence, Countermeasures, and the Necessity Doctrine

When the U.S. executes these extraterritorial operations, it relies on complementary legal doctrines regarding the obligations of the host state. International law imposes a duty on states not to allow knowingly their territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other states, a principle established in the Corfu Channel case and repeatedly applied to cyberspace by the UN GGE20. When a host state provides safe haven to a CE-TCO, or persistently ignores evidence of cybercrime emanating from its jurisdiction, the U.S. argues that the host state has failed its due diligence obligations20. This failure by omission constitutes an internationally wrongful act31. The assertion of the right to deploy private hackers operates on the logic that when a host state is "unwilling or unable" to police its own cyberspace, the victim state is justified in taking targeted action to neutralize the immediate threat to its citizens19. If the host state's failure rises to the level of an internationally wrongful act, the victim state may invoke the doctrine of countermeasures. Countermeasures permit a state to take otherwise unlawful measures against a responsible state to compel compliance with international obligations21. However, countermeasures are strictly state-to-state mechanisms21. Because the NSPM targets non-state CE-TCOs rather than the host government itself, traditional countermeasures theory does not seamlessly apply5. To bridge this legal gap, the U.S. must rely on the doctrine of necessity. This doctrine precludes the wrongfulness of an act if it is the only way for a state to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril. Combating tens of billions of dollars in economic drain, preventing the exploitation of children via sextortion schemes, and halting the compromise of critical infrastructure by CE-TCOs could be legally argued as safeguarding an essential national interest, granting the U.S. the right to act even when the target is a non-state actor hosted in a third-party jurisdiction4.

Geopolitical Escalation, Norm Proliferation, and Digital Colonialism

The establishment of AI-driven vulnerability clearinghouses and the deployment of state-directed private hackers represent a profound escalation in the geopolitical contest for cyber dominance. By codifying these rights under domestic law and interpreting international law to accommodate them, the U.S. forces strategic adaptations across the global ecosystem, carrying severe second and third-order risks.

Deconfliction and Unintended Collateral Damage

One of the most pressing operational risks of the NSPM is the challenge of deconfliction. The memorandum explicitly requires deconflicting private operations across federal law enforcement, the Department of War, and the U.S. Intelligence Community4. However, cybersecurity experts note a stark reality: because military and intelligence hacking operations are highly classified, it is highly unlikely that these agencies will share sensitive operational intelligence with private Participating Companies to warn them off a target4. Furthermore, the internet's borderless routing architecture dictates that cyber operations against a CE-TCO located in an adversarial nation may route through, and inadvertently disrupt, computing infrastructure located in allied countries4. While the U.S. maintains that such operations are legally justified, collateral damage to neutral third-party infrastructure could easily trigger diplomatic crises and invoke international state liability under the very ARSIWA Article 8 framework the U.S. utilized to authorize the program4. To mitigate this, the NSPM requires companies to immediately cease operations and report to the DOJ if they unintentionally target U.S. persons or infrastructure, ensuring compliance with domestic Fourth Amendment and FISA regulations under the State Action Doctrine5. However, protecting foreign allied infrastructure relies entirely on the precision of the private operators.

Norm Proliferation and Anti-Piracy Analogies

By establishing a legal framework for private sector hacking, the U.S. risks normalizing behavior that it may find highly objectionable if adopted by strategic competitors. The historical prohibition against piracy is a foundational concept in international law, and legal scholars warn that empowering private tech entities to execute offensive cyber operations closely mimics the issuance of modern-day letters of marque, effectively state-sponsored cyber privateering4. If the U.S. normalizes the right to deploy private corporate proxies against threats it deems criminal, rival nations such as China, Russia, or Iran may adopt identical legal frameworks. They could authorize their own domestic corporations to hack Western targets, framing political dissidents, journalists, or rival commercial entities as "criminal organizations" under their own domestic laws4. This proliferation would significantly undermine ongoing global efforts by the UN GGE and OEWG to build stabilizing, restrictive norms in cyberspace4.

Competitive Blocs and the Threat of Digital Colonialism

Executive Order 14409 and the GOLD EAGLE initiative are explicitly designed to maintain U.S. hegemony in frontier AI and cybersecurity. By leveraging its unrivaled private-sector AI dominance and utilizing federal resources to secure those models, the U.S. seeks to weaponize AI cybersecurity as a geopolitical tool6. This strategic calculation has violently escalated the global AI arms race. Competing nations are doubling down on targeted investments to counter U.S. dominance and prevent reliance on Western systems. For example, Russia's "Start-II" federal competition provides substantial grants to domestic enterprises to develop AI solutions specifically aimed at replacing imported Western software, while Japan has earmarked hundreds of billions of yen to fund homegrown large language models for government use13. The U.S. policy framework actively avoids imposing burdensome domestic regulations on its AI developers in order to preserve their speed of innovation, while simultaneously enforcing strict export controls on high-performance AI chips and frontier models to block adversarial nations from achieving parity6. Observers warn that this dynamic risks fracturing the global tech ecosystem into competing blocs and creating a new form of "digital colonialism," wherein developing nations are forced into a dependency on U.S.-controlled AI tools for everything from national security to healthcare and critical infrastructure management, thereby permanently widening the global digital divide13.

Synthesis of the Strategic Legal Posture

The right of a country to execute advanced AI-driven defensive clearinghouses and authorize private-sector offensive cyber operations does not stem from a single, universally accepted treaty. Rather, it is derived from a highly sophisticated, layered synthesis of domestic executive authority and pragmatic, flexible interpretations of customary international law. Through Executive Order 14409 and the GOLD EAGLE program, the United States exercises its sovereign prerogative to harden its critical infrastructure and lead the commercial development of frontier AI. By utilizing the FFRDC model at Carnegie Mellon’s SEI and the statutory protections of CISA 2015, the government establishes a legally insulated environment that incentivizes the private sector to share advanced vulnerability data without facing commercial liability or anti-trust violations12. This defensive posture aligns perfectly with international norms encouraging state capacity building and the protection of critical infrastructure19. Conversely, the NSPM's authorization of offensive Cyber Effects Operations by private companies represents a bold expansion of state power. The domestic "right" is secured via the CFAA's law enforcement exemption (18 U.S.C. § 1030(f)), effectively deputizing private actors and bringing them under the umbrella of federal authority5. Internationally, the U.S. preempts accusations of vigilantism by assuming full responsibility for these actions under ARSIWA Article 8, ensuring that operations remain bound by constitutional limits and international prohibitions against the use of force5. By carefully delineating targets as non-state CE-TCOs and restricting operations below the threshold of an armed attack, the U.S. navigates the grey zones of sovereignty and non-intervention, asserting a legal right to neutralize persistent transnational threats when host nations fail in their due diligence obligations5. Ultimately, these 2026 executive actions reflect a broader geopolitical strategy: treating artificial intelligence and cybersecurity not merely as domestic regulatory issues, but as the primary domains of twenty-first-century international power projection. As the United States aggressively defines state practice in this space, it inevitably shapes the future trajectory of customary international law, forcing the global community to adapt to a reality where the boundaries between private enterprise, criminal networks, and sovereign state power are irreversibly intertwined.

Works cited

1. The White House's Gold Eagle Initiative Signals a New Phase in AI Enabled Cyber Defense, https://www.alstonprivacy.com/the-white-houses-gold-eagle-initiative-signals-a-new-phase-in-ai-enabled-cyber-defense/

2. What is GOLD EAGLE? A Detailed Overview \- Nucleus Security, https://nucleussec.com/resources/knowledge-center/what-is-gold-eagle/

3. Gold Eagle: Advancing AI-Driven Vulnerability Reporting \- CISA, https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/gold-eagle-advancing-ai-driven-vulnerability-reporting

4. https://www.cybersecuritydive.com/news/us-private-companies-gangs-cyberattacks-offensive-operations/827805/

5. Presidential Memorandum Authorizes Vetted Private Companies to Conduct Offensive Cyber Operations Against Foreign Criminal Organizations, https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2026/08/presidential-memorandum-authorizes-vetted-private-companies-to-conduct-offensive-cyber-operations-against-foreign-criminal-organizations

6. Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security \- The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/06/promoting-advanced-artificial-intelligence-innovation-and-security/

7. Brief Reflections on the Cognitive Semiotics of President Trump's Executive Order; Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security (2 June 2026\) \- Law at the End of the Day, https://lcbackerblog.blogspot.com/2026/06/president-trump-exercutive-order.html

8. AI Security Executive Order 14409 \- AccuKnox, https://accuknox.com/blog/ai-security-executive-order-14409

9. Trump U.S. AI Executive Order 14409 Explained | Cybersecurity Priorities Compliance Impact | Foster Swift \- BizTech Law Blog, https://www.michiganitlaw.com/trump-ai-executive-order-cybersecurity-priorities-innovation-impact

10. White House Issues Executive Order on Advanced AI Innovation and Security \- Pearl Cohen, https://www.pearlcohen.com/white-house-issues-executive-order-on-advanced-ai-innovation-and-security/

11. US AI Executive Order 14409: What It Does and What It Means for Europe | Jasper Bernaers, https://jasperbernaers.com/us-ai-executive-order-14409-what-it-means-for-europe/

12. GOLD EAGLE Takes Flight: White House Launches AI-Enabled Cybersecurity Clearinghouse \- K\&L Gates, https://www.klgates.com/thought-leadership/GOLD-EAGLE-Takes-Flight-White-House-Launches-AI-Enabled-Cybersecurity-Clearinghouse-7-29-2026

13. U.S. Initiative Intensifies AI Competition​ \- Fan Gaoyue \- CHINA US Focus, https://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/us-initiative-intensifies-ai-competition

14. White House Launches “GOLD EAGLE” AI Cybersecurity Clearinghouse: What It Could Mean for Financial Institutions | Consumer Finance Monitor, https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2026/07/17/white-house-launches-gold-eagle-ai-cybersecurity-clearinghouse-what-it-could-mean-for-financial-institutions/

15. White House Launches Gold Eagle Initiative for Unprecedented Cybersecurity Vulnerability Coordination, https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/07/white-house-launches-gold-eagle-initiative-for-unprecedented-cybersecurity-vulnerability-coordination/

16. After Executive Order 14409: Next Steps for Securing AI \- CrowdStrike, https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/blog/after-executive-order-14409-next-steps-for-securing-ai/

17. White House launches AI-driven "Gold Eagle" clearinghouse to centralize public-private vulnerability coordination : r/netsec \- Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/1uzllm1/white\_house\_launches\_aidriven\_gold\_eagle/

18. White House Launches 'Gold Eagle' AI-Driven Cybersecurity Vulnerability Clearinghouse, https://www.paulhastings.com/insights/ph-privacy/white-house-launches-gold-eagle-ai-driven-cybersecurity-vulnerability-clearinghouse

19. A/76/136\* General Assembly \- United Nations Digital Library System, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3933543/files/A\_76\_136-EN.pdf

20. The Sixth United Nations GGE and International Law in Cyberspace \- Just Security, https://www.justsecurity.org/76864/the-sixth-united-nations-gge-and-international-law-in-cyberspace/

21. International Law in Cyberspace \- Georgetown Law \- Center on National Security, https://nationalsecurity.law.georgetown.edu/publication/international-law-in-cyberspace/

22. Rethinking the Legal Status Quo in Cyberspace to Legally Attribute State Responsibility, and Enhance Accountability and Deterre, https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3154\&context=ils

23. Taming the Lawless Void: Tracking the Evolution of International Law Rules for Cyberspace, https://tnsr.org/2020/07/taming-the-lawless-void-tracking-the-evolution-of-international-law-rules-for-cyberspace/

24. The UN GGE Failed. Is International Law in Cyberspace Doomed As Well? \- Lawfare, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/un-gge-failed-international-law-cyberspace-doomed-well

25. Scenario 08: Certificate authority hack \- International cyber law: interactive toolkit, https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Scenario\_08:\_Certificate\_authority\_hack

26. Scenario 05: State investigates and responds to cyber operations against private actors in its territory, https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Scenario\_05:\_State\_investigates\_and\_responds\_to\_cyber\_operations\_against\_private\_actors\_in\_its\_territory

27. Attribution of cyber operations in International Law \- Lund University Publications, https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9081150/file/9087494.pdf

28. TEACHING OLD LAW NEW TRICKS: APPLYING AND ADAPTING STATE RESPONSIBILITY TO CYBER OPERATIONS, https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/22076-lcb202art9paynepdf

29. Full article: The vital role of international law in the framework for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace \- Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23738871.2020.1832550

30. Attribution to a State (Chapter 4\) \- Cyber Operations and International Law, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cyber-operations-and-international-law/attribution-to-a-state/FC97677A3B551311148C74CAAE8F781D

31. The Attribution of Omissions: Due Diligence in Cyberspace and State Responsibility \- Unil, https://api.unil.ch/iris/server/api/core/bitstreams/f7c00530-b70f-4b4c-bc04-df9db0eb6325/content

32. Remarks on International Law and Stability in Cyberspace \- State.gov, https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/264303.htm

33. ARTICLE, https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/HNSJ-Vol-12-Schmitt-and-Watts-Collective-Cyber-Countermeasures.pdf

34. Reflections on the DoD General Counsel's Cyber Law Address \- Lieber Institute \- West Point, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/reflections-dod-general-counsels-cyber-law-address/