🔍 Read the full analysis: CEO Pledges And 72-Hour Drills: A16z’s Infrastructure Defense Plan on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
Andreessen Horowitz published a proposal on Nov. 12 for a CEO-led cyber defense effort focused on a few hundred critical infrastructure operators and shared vendors. It calls for sector targets, 72-hour manual-operation drills and monthly scorecards, but it is a proposal, not adopted policy, and does not specify costs.
Venture firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) published a proposed plan on Nov. 12 for a White House-led effort to defend critical U.S. infrastructure, asking company chiefs in five sectors to sign measurable cybersecurity targets, including passing 72-hour manual-operation drills. The plan is a proposal, not current government policy, and would focus on a few hundred operators and shared vendors whose failure could have wider effects.
The plan, titled “Super Intelligence-Era Critical Infrastructure Cyber Defense Plan,” was written by Anne Neuberger, an a16z general partner and head of global affairs. a16z said Neuberger also outlined the proposal in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. The five sectors named are power, banking and payments, water, communications and hospitals.
Under the proposal, CEOs would sign three targets for their sector: zero internet-exposed control systems; successful drills showing that operations can continue manually for 72 hours; and containment of critical vulnerabilities, through a patch or compensating control, within a specified period. The plan says its highest-priority targets should be contained within six months, though it does not detail every target or set a cost estimate.
The proposed governance structure assigns the White House’s Super Intelligence Force responsibility for setting targets, chairing monthly CEO reviews and clearing policy or funding obstacles. A CEO council would answer for sector results, while existing Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs) would coordinate shared tools and fixes and submit anonymized monthly scorecards. The plan says a sector falling behind would face a CEO-level review. Its governance table is labeled by a16z as illustrative.
The a16z plan in motion · schematic
From a CEO pledge to the President’s table
How the proposed cyber defense plan for power, banks, water, telecom and hospitals is meant to work, step by step. It is a proposal, not policy.
The chain, step by step
Each circle is one step of the plan; the ring marks the step being explained.
What happens at each step
- 1CEO pledgeA CEO council, with 2–3 CEOs per sector, commits each sector to national targets set by the White House’s SI Force.
- 2Three targets, signedZero internet-exposed control systems72-hour manual-operation drills passedCritical flaws contained within a set time
- 3DrillsTop targets prove they can run without IT for 72 hours. A joint cross-sector drill, modeled on GridEx, within 3-6 months.
- 4Monthly scorecardsSector ISACs report anonymized metrics to the SI Force. A sector behind target triggers a CEO-level review.
- 5President councilThe CEO council is publicly accountable for results and meets the President every six months.
Source: a16z, “Super Intelligence-Era Critical Infrastructure Cyber Defense Plan”, November 12, 2026, incl. its governance table (“For illustrative purposes only”). The chain is a schematic of the proposal, not an existing program.
Graphic: Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
How the Plan Would Change Accountability
The proposal would shift some infrastructure cybersecurity work from exchanging alerts among technical teams toward measurable, executive-level accountability. CEOs would sign targets, and companies could face a review if their sector lagged. For readers, the potential stakes include whether essential services can continue when digital systems fail or are taken offline during a cyber incident.
a16z argues that artificial intelligence could speed both vulnerability discovery and exploitation, leaving defenders less time to respond. The plan also proposes using AI to find exposed systems, prioritize risks and help generate fixes. Those are the proposal’s rationale and expectations, not evidence in the source material that the tools are already delivering these results at scale.
The proposal pairs its targets with a request for legal protections. It calls for long-term reauthorization of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 and suggests a possible safe harbor for companies that meet outcomes-based targets. That could shape how organizations share information and engage with government, but the source does not specify how such protection would work or what safeguards it would include.
Popular right now
Ninja Foodi DualZone Smart XL Air Fryer, 10 Qt, 6-in-1, Black (DZ550)
Shark Pet Cordless Stick Vacuum, Up to 40-Minute Runtime, Lightweight, IX141
Samsung 43-Inch M70H Series 4K Mini LED Smart TV (2026)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Federal Cyber Work to a16z
Neuberger’s background is part of the proposal’s framing. In the plan, she 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 now holds a role at a16z, a venture firm that invests in frontier AI labs and security companies.
The plan is addressed to the White House’s Super Intelligence Force. According to NBC News, President Donald Trump announced the task force on Oct. 4, 2026, and named National Intelligence Director Jay Clayton to lead it. The source material says Trump described its remit as coordinating federal engagement with critical infrastructure providers and superintelligence companies. The proposed cybersecurity structure would add a CEO council and give existing ISACs a larger operational role.
ISACs already operate across industry sectors to share threat information. In a16z’s account, they mostly exchange alerts at the chief information security officer level today. The plan would expand their role to include coordinating fixes and mutual aid. It also suggests larger organizations support smaller ones, including utilities assisting city utilities and health systems supporting rural hospitals. These are recommended arrangements, not confirmed commitments from companies.
“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, in the plan
The document does not establish that the White House or any company has accepted the proposal. It remains unclear whether the Super Intelligence Force will adopt the plan, whether a CEO council would be formed, or which operators and vendors would be included. The source also gives no total cost, funding mechanism or detailed schedule for all targets beyond saying top priorities should be contained within six months.
Other questions concern implementation. The plan proposes legal safe harbor and board attestations in place of duplicate audits for public companies, but does not explain the legal terms, enforcement process or how regulators would verify the underlying metrics. It also does not specify how the proposed targets would account for differences in infrastructure, equipment and operational risk across sectors.
a16z’s financial interests are relevant context: the firm invests in frontier AI and security companies, sectors that could benefit from wider adoption of the plan’s proposed tools and participation model. That does not establish a conflict or invalidate the proposal, but the source material does not describe safeguards addressing the firm’s interests. The proposal’s claims about AI capabilities and national risk are attributed assessments, not independently verified findings in the material provided.
Whether the White House Takes It Up
The next significant development would be a response from the White House’s Super Intelligence Force or the infrastructure companies the proposal seeks to involve. If officials choose to pursue it, decisions would be needed on sector targets, CEO membership, agency roles, costs and the legal changes required for information sharing and safe harbor.
Until such steps are announced, the plan remains a private-sector proposal. Readers should look for confirmation of any task force action, named company participation, funding commitments or formal legislative and regulatory proposals. a16z’s publication alone does not establish that the proposed drills, scorecards or six-month targets will be implemented.
Key Questions
What did a16z propose?
a16z proposed a White House-led cybersecurity effort focused on critical operators and shared vendors in power, banking and payments, water, communications and hospitals, with CEOs accountable for sector targets.
What does the 72-hour drill involve?
The plan calls for drills demonstrating that a sector’s operations can continue manually for 72 hours. It does not provide detailed drill procedures in the source material.
Is the plan already U.S. policy?
No. The source describes it as a proposal. It does not confirm adoption by the White House, regulators or participating companies.
Who would oversee the proposed effort?
The plan assigns target-setting and monthly review duties to the White House’s Super Intelligence Force, with a CEO council accountable for results and ISACs coordinating sector work.
What remains unknown about implementation?
The proposal does not state its total cost, confirm participating organizations, detail how legal safe harbor would work or establish whether the White House will take it up.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
