https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-cloud-fedramp-cybersecurity-government ProPublica Journalism for the people, not for profit. DONATE Skip to content Menu Donate Close Donate Search ProPublica: [ ] Search Topics * Racial Justice * Health Care * Politics * Criminal Justice * more... Browse by Place * Midwest * Northwest * South * Southwest * Texas Type * Graphics & Data * Newsletters * Series * Videos * Local Reporting Network * Electionland Info * About Us * Impact * Jobs & Fellowships * Contact Us Follow ProPublica * Bluesky * Instagram * Facebook * (Twitter) * YouTube * Threads * LinkedIn * RSS Red, menacing cursors surround a U.S. flag that has the Microsoft logo instead of a blue square with stars. The Microsoft logo is partly open, revealing a black hole that the cursors are streaming into. Illustration by Shoshana Gordon/ProPublica Technology Federal Cyber Experts Thought Microsoft's Cloud Was "a Pile of Shit." They Approved It Anyway. by Renee Dudley, with research by Doris Burke March 18, 2026, 6:00 am Share Change Appearance Change Appearance [Auto ] Republish Republish This Story for Free Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for your interest in republishing this story. You are free to republish it so long as you do the following: * You have to credit ProPublica and any co-reporting partners. In the byline, we prefer "Author Name, Publication(s)." At the top of the text of your story, include a line that reads: "This story was originally published by ProPublica." You must link the word "ProPublica" to the original URL of the story. * If you're republishing online, you must link to the URL of this story on propublica.org, include all of the links from our story, including our newsletter sign up language and link, and use our PixelPing tag. * If you use canonical metadata, please use the ProPublica URL. For more information about canonical metadata, refer to this Google SEO link. * You can't edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. (For example, "yesterday" can be changed to "last week," and "Portland, Ore." to "Portland" or "here.") * You cannot republish our photographs or illustrations without specific permission. Please contact [email protected]. * It's okay to put our stories on pages with ads, but not ads specifically sold against our stories. You can't state or imply that donations to your organization support ProPublica's work. * You can't sell our material separately or syndicate it. This includes publishing or syndicating our work on platforms or apps such as Apple News, Google News, etc. * You can't republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually. (To inquire about syndication or licensing opportunities, contact [email protected].) * You can't use our work to populate a website designed to improve rankings on search engines or solely to gain revenue from network-based advertisements. * We do not generally permit translation of our stories into another language. * Any website our stories appear on must include a prominent and effective way to contact you. HTML [

Federal Cyber Ex] Copy HTML [20240416-KAHN-Tech-Project-0189_maxWidth_] Series: Zero Trust: Inside Microsoft's Cybersecurity Failures More in this series ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they're published. Reporting Highlights * "Cloud First": To move federal agencies to the cloud, the government created a program known as FedRAMP, whose job was to ensure the security of new technology. * Security Breakdown: ProPublica found that FedRAMP authorized a Microsoft product called GCC High to handle sensitive government data, despite years of concerns about its security. * Potential Conflict of Interest: The government relies, in part, on third-party firms to vet cloud technology, but those firms are hired and paid by the company being assessed. These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story. In late 2024, the federal government's cybersecurity evaluators rendered a troubling verdict on one of Microsoft's biggest cloud computing offerings. The tech giant's "lack of proper detailed security documentation" left reviewers with a "lack of confidence in assessing the system's overall security posture," according to an internal government report reviewed by ProPublica. Or, as one member of the team put it: "The package is a pile of shit." For years, reviewers said, Microsoft had tried and failed to fully explain how it protects sensitive information in the cloud as it hops from server to server across the digital terrain. Given that and other unknowns, government experts couldn't vouch for the technology's security. Such judgments would be damning for any company seeking to sell its wares to the U.S. government, but it should have been particularly devastating for Microsoft. The tech giant's products had been at the heart of two major cybersecurity attacks against the U.S. in three years. In one, Russian hackers exploited a weakness to steal sensitive data from a number of federal agencies, including the National Nuclear Security Administration. In the other, Chinese hackers infiltrated the email accounts of a Cabinet member and other senior government officials. The federal government could be further exposed if it couldn't verify the cybersecurity of Microsoft's Government Community Cloud High, a suite of cloud-based services intended to safeguard some of the nation's most sensitive information. Yet, in a highly unusual move that still reverberates across Washington, the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, or FedRAMP, authorized the product anyway, bestowing what amounts to the federal government's cybersecurity seal of approval. FedRAMP's ruling -- which included a kind of "buyer beware" notice to any federal agency considering GCC High -- helped Microsoft expand a government business empire worth billions of dollars. "BOOM SHAKA LAKA," Richard Wakeman, one of the company's chief security architects, boasted in an online forum, celebrating the milestone with a meme of Leonardo DiCaprio in "The Wolf of Wall Street." Wakeman did not respond to requests for comment. It was not the type of outcome that federal policymakers envisioned a decade and a half ago when they embraced the cloud revolution and created FedRAMP to help safeguard the government's cybersecurity. The program's layers of review, which included an assessment by outside experts, were supposed to ensure that service providers like Microsoft could be entrusted with the government's secrets. But ProPublica's investigation -- drawn from internal FedRAMP memos, logs, emails, meeting minutes, and interviews with seven former and current government employees and contractors -- found breakdowns at every juncture of that process. It also found a remarkable deference to Microsoft, even as the company's products and practices were central to two of the most damaging cyberattacks ever carried out against the government. This is not security. This is security theater. Tony Sager, former NSA computer scientist FedRAMP first raised questions about GCC High's security in 2020 and asked Microsoft to provide detailed diagrams explaining its encryption practices. But when the company produced what FedRAMP considered to be only partial information in fits and starts, program officials did not reject Microsoft's application. Instead, they repeatedly pulled punches and allowed the review to drag out for the better part of five years. And because federal agencies were allowed to deploy the product during the review, GCC High spread across the government as well as the defense industry. By late 2024, FedRAMP reviewers concluded that they had little choice but to authorize the technology -- not because their questions had been answered or their review was complete, but largely on the grounds that Microsoft's product was already being used across Washington. Today, key parts of the federal government, including the Justice and Energy departments, and the defense sector rely on this technology to protect highly sensitive information that, if leaked, "could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect" on operations, assets and individuals, the government has said. "This is not a happy story in terms of the security of the U.S.," said Tony Sager, who spent more than three decades as a computer scientist at the National Security Agency and now is an executive at the nonprofit Center for Internet Security. For years, the FedRAMP process has been equated with actual security, Sager said. ProPublica's findings, he said, shatter that facade. "This is not security," he said. "This is security theater." The U.S. Capitol building at night with a red light in the corner. Despite a "lack of confidence in assessing" the security of Microsoft's GCC High, FedRAMP authorized the product anyway. Alex Wong/Getty Images ProPublica is exposing the government's reservations about this popular product for the first time. We are also revealing Microsoft's yearslong inability to provide the encryption documentation and evidence the federal reviewers sought. The revelations come as the Justice Department ramps up scrutiny of the government's technology contractors. In December, the department announced the indictment of a former employee of Accenture who allegedly misled federal agencies about the security of the company's cloud platform and its compliance with FedRAMP's standards. She has pleaded not guilty. Accenture, which was not charged with wrongdoing, has said that it "proactively brought this matter to the government's attention" and that it is "dedicated to operating with the highest ethical standards." Microsoft has also faced questions about its disclosures to the government. As ProPublica reported last year, the company failed to inform the Defense Department about its use of China-based engineers to maintain the government's cloud systems, despite Pentagon rules stipulating that "No Foreign persons may have" access to its most sensitive data. The department is investigating the practice, which officials say could have compromised national security. Microsoft has defended its program as "tightly monitored and supplemented by layers of security mitigations," but after ProPublica's story published last July, the company announced that it would stop using China-based engineers for Defense Department work. In response to written questions for this story and in an interview, Microsoft acknowledged the yearslong confrontation with FedRAMP but also said it provided "comprehensive documentation" throughout the review process and "remediated findings where possible." "We stand by our products and the comprehensive steps we've taken to ensure all FedRAMP-authorized products meet the security and compliance requirements necessary," a spokesperson said in a statement, adding that the company would "continue to work with FedRAMP to continuously review and evaluate our services for continued compliance." But these days, ProPublica found, there aren't many people left at FedRAMP to work with. The program was an early target of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency, which slashed its staff and budget. Even FedRAMP acknowledges it is operating "with an absolute minimum of support staff" and "limited customer service." The roughly two dozen employees who remain are "entirely focused on" delivering authorizations at a record pace, FedRAMP's director has said. Today, its annual budget is just $10 million, its lowest in a decade, even as it has boasted record numbers of new authorizations for cloud products. The consequence of all this, people who have worked for FedRAMP told ProPublica, is that the program now is little more than a rubber stamp for industry. The implications of such a downsizing for federal cybersecurity are far-reaching, especially as the administration encourages agencies to adopt cloud-based artificial intelligence tools, which draw upon reams of sensitive information. The General Services Administration, which houses FedRAMP, defended the program, saying it has undergone "significant reforms to strengthen governance" since GCC High arrived in 2020. "FedRAMP's role is to assess if cloud services have provided sufficient information and materials to be adequate for agency use, and the program today operates with strengthened oversight and accountability mechanisms to do exactly that," a GSA spokesperson said in an emailed statement. The agency did not respond to written questions regarding GCC High. A "Cloud First" World About two decades ago, federal officials predicted that the cloud revolution, providing on-demand access to shared computing via the internet, would usher in an era of cheaper, more secure and more efficient information technology. Moving to the cloud meant shifting away from on-premises servers owned and operated by the government to those in massive data centers maintained by tech companies. Some agency leaders were reluctant to relinquish control, while others couldn't wait to. In an effort to accelerate the transition, the Obama administration issued its "Cloud First" policy in 2011, requiring all agencies to implement cloud-based tools "whenever a secure, reliable, cost-effective" option existed. To facilitate adoption, the administration created FedRAMP, whose job was to ensure the security of those tools. FedRAMP's "do once, use many times" system was intended to streamline and strengthen the government procurement process. Previously, each agency using a cloud service vetted it separately, sometimes applying different interpretations of federal security requirements. Under the new program, agencies would be able to skip redundant security reviews because FedRAMP authorization indicated that the product had already met standardized requirements. Authorized products would be listed on a government website known as the FedRAMP Marketplace. On paper, the program was an exercise in efficiency. But in practice, the small FedRAMP team could not keep up with the flood of demand from tech companies that wanted their products authorized. The slow approval process frustrated both the tech industry, eager for a share in the billions of federal dollars up for grabs, and government agencies that were under pressure to migrate to the cloud. These dynamics sometimes pitted the cloud industry and agency officials together against FedRAMP. The backlog also prompted many agencies to take an alternative path: performing their own reviews of the products they wanted to adopt, using FedRAMP's standards. It was through this "agency path" that GCC High entered the federal bloodstream, with the Justice Department paving the way. Initially, some Justice officials were nervous about the cloud and who might have access to its information, which includes highly sensitive court and law enforcement records, a Justice Department official involved in the decision told ProPublica. The department's cybersecurity program required it to ensure that only U.S. citizens "access or assist in the development, operation, management, or maintenance" of its IT systems, unless a waiver was granted. Justice's IT specialists recommended pursuing GCC High, believing it could meet the elevated security needs, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal matters. Pursuant to FedRAMP's rules, Microsoft had GCC High evaluated by a so-called third-party assessment organization, which is supposed to provide an independent review of whether the product has met federal standards. The Justice Department then performed its own evaluation of GCC High using those standards and ruled the offering acceptable. A smiling woman with long brown hair wearing a pink shirt and silver necklace poses in front of a U.S. flag.Melinda Rogers, former chief information officer for the Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice archives By early 2020, Melinda Rogers, Justice's deputy chief information officer, made the decision official and soon deployed GCC High across the department. It was a milestone for all involved. Rogers had ushered the Justice Department into the cloud, and Microsoft had gained a significant foothold in the cutthroat market for the federal government's cloud computing business. Moreover, Rogers' decision placed GCC High on the FedRAMP Marketplace, the government's influential online clearinghouse of all the cloud providers that are under review or already authorized. Its mere mention as "in process" was a boon for Microsoft, amounting to free advertising on a website used by organizations seeking to purchase cloud services bearing what is widely seen as the government's cybersecurity seal of approval. That April, GCC High landed at FedRAMP's office for review, the final stop on its bureaucratic journey to full authorization. Microsoft's Missing Information In theory, there shouldn't have been much for FedRAMP's team to do after the third-party assessor and Justice reviewed GCC High, because all parties were supposed to be following the same requirements. But it was around this time that the Government Accountability Office, which investigates federal programs, discovered breakdowns in the process, finding that agency reviews sometimes were lacking in quality. Despite missing details, FedRAMP went on to authorize many of these packages. Acknowledging these shortcomings, FedRAMP began to take a harder look at new packages, a former reviewer said. This was the environment in which Microsoft's GCC High application entered the pipeline. The name GCC High was an umbrella covering many services and features within Office 365 that all needed to be reviewed. FedRAMP reviewers quickly noticed key material was missing. The team homed in on what it viewed as a fundamental document called a "data flow diagram," former members told ProPublica. The illustration is supposed to show how data travels from Point A to Point B -- and, more importantly, how it's protected as it hops from server to server. FedRAMP requires data to be encrypted while in transit to ensure that sensitive materials are protected even if they're intercepted by hackers. But when the FedRAMP team asked Microsoft to produce the diagrams showing how such encryption would happen for each service in GCC High, the company balked, saying the request was too challenging. So the reviewers suggested starting with just Exchange Online, the popular email platform. "This was our litmus test to say, 'This isn't the only thing that's required, but if you're not doing this, we are not even close yet,'" said one reviewer who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal matters. Once they reached the appropriate level of detail, they would move from Exchange to other services within GCC High. It was the kind of detail that other major cloud providers such as Amazon and Google routinely provided, members of the FedRAMP team told ProPublica. Yet Microsoft took months to respond. When it did, the former reviewer said, it submitted a white paper that discussed GCC High's encryption strategy but left out the details of where on the journey data actually becomes encrypted and decrypted -- so FedRAMP couldn't assess that it was being done properly. A Microsoft spokesperson acknowledged that the company had "articulated a challenge related to illustrating the volume of information being requested in diagram form" but "found alternate ways to share that information." Rogers, who was hired by Microsoft in 2025, declined to be interviewed. In response to emailed questions, the company provided a statement saying that she "stands by the rigorous evaluation that contributed to" her authorization of GCC High. A spokesperson said there was "absolutely no connection" between her hiring and the decisions in the GCC High process, and that she and the company complied with "all rules, regulations, and ethical standards." The Justice Department declined to respond to written questions from ProPublica. A Fight Over "Spaghetti Pies" As 2020 came to a close, a national security crisis hit Washington that underscored the consequences of cyber weakness. Russian state-sponsored hackers had been quietly working their way through federal computer systems for much of the year and vacuuming up sensitive data and emails from U.S. agencies -- including the Justice Department. At the time, most of the blame fell on a Texas-based company called SolarWinds, whose software provided hackers their initial opening and whose name became synonymous with the attack. But, as ProPublica has reported, the Russians leveraged that opening to exploit a long-standing weakness in a Microsoft product -- one that the company had refused to fix for years, despite repeated warnings from one of its engineers. Microsoft has defended its decision not to address the flaw, saying that it received "multiple reviews" and that the company weighs a variety of factors when making security decisions. In the aftermath, the Biden administration took steps to bolster the nation's cybersecurity. Among them, the Justice Department announced a cyber-fraud initiative in 2021 to crack down on companies and individuals that "put U.S. information or systems at risk by knowingly providing deficient cybersecurity products or services, knowingly misrepresenting their cybersecurity practices or protocols, or knowingly violating obligations to monitor and report cybersecurity incidents and breaches." Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said the department would use the False Claims Act to pursue government contractors "when they fail to follow required cybersecurity standards -- because we know that puts all of us at risk." A woman with chin-length brown hair in a blue blazer looks toward the camera. Abstract blue and red light patterns blur in the foreground and background.Former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. After Russian state-sponsored hackers stole sensitive data from U.S. agencies, Monaco said the Department of Justice would hold government contractors accountable for failing to uphold cybersecurity standards. Stefani Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images But if Microsoft felt any pressure from the SolarWinds attack or from the Justice Department's announcement, it didn't manifest in the FedRAMP talks, according to former members of the FedRAMP team. The discourse between FedRAMP and Microsoft fell into a pattern. The parties would meet. Months would go by. Microsoft would return with a response that FedRAMP deemed incomplete or irrelevant. To bolster the chances of getting the information it wanted, the FedRAMP team provided Microsoft with a template, describing the level of detail it expected. But the diagrams Microsoft returned never met those expectations. "We never got past Exchange," one former reviewer said. "We never got that level of detail. We had no visibility inside." In an interview with ProPublica, John Bergin, the Microsoft official who became the government's main contact, acknowledged the prolonged back-and-forth but blamed FedRAMP, equating its requests for diagrams to a "rock fetching exercise." "We were maybe incompetent in how we drew drawings because there was no standard to draw them to," he said. "Did we not do it exactly how they wanted? Absolutely. There was always something missing because there was no standard." A Microsoft spokesperson said without such a standard, "cloud providers were left to interpret the level of abstraction and representation on their own," creating "inconsistency and confusion, not an unwillingness to be transparent." But even Microsoft's own engineers had struggled over the years to map the architecture of its products, according to two people involved in building cloud services used by federal customers. At issue, according to people familiar with Microsoft's technology, was the decades-old code of its legacy software, which the company used in building its cloud services. One FedRAMP reviewer compared it to a "pile of spaghetti pies." The data's path from Point A to Point B, the person said, was like traveling from Washington to New York with detours by bus, ferry and airplane rather than just taking a quick ride on Amtrak. And each one of those detours represents an opportunity for a hijacking if the data isn't properly encrypted. Other major cloud providers such as Amazon and Google built their systems from the ground up, said Sager, the former NSA computer scientist, who worked with all three companies during his time in government. Microsoft's system is "not designed for this kind of isolation of 'secure' from 'not secure,'" Sager said. A Microsoft spokesperson acknowledged the company faces a unique challenge but maintained that its cloud products meet federal security requirements. "Unlike providers that started later with a narrower product scope, Microsoft operates one of the broadest enterprise and government platforms in the world, supporting continuity for millions of customers while simultaneously modernizing at scale," the spokesperson said in emailed responses. "That complexity is not 'spaghetti,' but it does mean the work of disentangling, isolating, and hardening systems is continuous." The spokesperson said that since 2023, Microsoft has made "security-first architectural redesign, legacy risk reduction, and stronger isolation guarantees a top, company-wide priority." Assessors Back-Channel Cyber Concerns The FedRAMP team was not the only party with reservations about GCC High. Microsoft's third-party assessment organizations also expressed concerns. The firms are supposed to be independent but are hired and paid by the company being assessed. Acknowledging the potential for conflicts of interest, FedRAMP has encouraged the assessment firms to confidentially back-channel to its reviewers any negative feedback that they were unwilling to bring directly to their clients or reflect in official reports. In 2020, two third-party assessors hired by Microsoft, Coalfire and Kratos, did just that. They told FedRAMP that they were unable to get the full picture of GCC High, a former FedRAMP reviewer told ProPublica. "Coalfire and Kratos both readily admitted that it was difficult to impossible to get the information required out of Microsoft to properly do a sufficient assessment," the reviewer told ProPublica. The back channel helped surface cybersecurity issues that otherwise might never have been known to the government, people who have worked with and for FedRAMP told ProPublica. At the same time, they acknowledged its existence undermined the very spirit and intent of having independent assessors. A spokesperson for Coalfire, the firm that initially handled the GCC High assessment, requested written questions from ProPublica, then declined to respond. A spokesperson for Kratos, which replaced Coalfire as the GCC High assessor, declined an interview request. In an emailed response to written questions, the spokesperson said the company stands by its official assessment and recommendation of GCC High and "absolutely refutes" that it "ever would sign off on a product we were unable to fully vet." The company "has open and frank conversations" with all customers, including Microsoft, which "submitted all requisite diagrams to meet FedRAMP-defined requirements," the spokesperson said. Kratos said it "spent extensive time working collaboratively with FedRAMP in their review" and does not consider such discussions to be "backchanneling." FedRAMP, however, was dissatisfied with Kratos' ongoing work and believed the firm "should be pushing back" on Microsoft more, the former reviewer said. It placed Kratos on a "corrective action plan," which could eventually result in loss of accreditation. The company said it did not agree with FedRAMP's action but provided "additional trainings for some internal assessors" in response to it. The Microsoft spokesperson told ProPublica the company has "always been responsive to requests" from Kratos and FedRAMP. "We are not aware of any backchanneling, nor do we believe that backchanneling would have been necessary given our transparency and cooperation with auditor requests," the spokesperson said. In response to questions from ProPublica about the process, the GSA said in an email that FedRAMP's system "does not create an inherent conflict of interest for professional auditors who meet ethical and contractual performance expectations." GSA did not respond to questions about back-channeling but said the "correct process" is for a third-party assessor to "state these problems formally in a finding during the security assessment so that the cloud service provider has an opportunity to fix the issue." FedRAMP Ends Talks A silhouette of a person wearing a shoulder bag is surrounded by shadow. Behind the person is a large building full of windows and a blue sky.FedRAMP is housed under the General Services Administration within the federal government. Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images The back-and-forth between the FedRAMP reviewers and Microsoft's team went on for years with little progress. Then, in the summer of 2023, the program's interim director, Brian Conrad, got a call from the White House that would alter the course of the review. Chinese state-sponsored hackers had infiltrated GCC, the lower-cost version of Microsoft's government cloud, and stolen data and emails from the commerce secretary, the U.S. ambassador to China and other high-ranking government officials. In the aftermath, Chris DeRusha, the White House's chief information security officer, wanted a briefing from FedRAMP, which had authorized GCC. The decision predated Conrad's tenure, but he told ProPublica that he left the conversation with several takeaways. First, FedRAMP must hold all cloud providers -- including Microsoft -- to the same standards. Second, he had the backing of the White House in standing firm. Finally, FedRAMP would feel the political heat if any cloud service with a FedRAMP authorization were hacked. DeRusha confirmed Conrad's account of the phone call but declined to comment further. Within months, Conrad informed Microsoft that FedRAMP was ending the engagement on GCC High. We can't even quantify the unknowns, which makes us very uncomfortable. FedRAMP reviewer of GCC High "After three years of collaboration with the Microsoft team, we still lack visibility into the security gaps because there are unknowns that Microsoft has failed to address," Conrad wrote in an October 2023 email. This, he added, was not for FedRAMP's lack of trying. Staffers had spent 480 hours of review time, had conducted 18 "technical deep dive" sessions and had numerous email exchanges with the company over the years. Yet they still lacked the data flow diagrams, crucial information "since visibility into the encryption status of all data flows and stores is so important," he wrote. If Microsoft still wanted FedRAMP authorization, Conrad wrote, it would need to start over. A FedRAMP reviewer, explaining the decision to the Justice Department, said the team was "not asking for anything above and beyond what we've asked from every other" cloud service provider, according to meeting minutes reviewed by ProPublica. But the request was particularly justified in Microsoft's case, the reviewer told the Justice officials, because "each time we've actually been able to get visibility into a black box, we've uncovered an issue." "We can't even quantify the unknowns, which makes us very uncomfortable," the reviewer said, according to the minutes. Microsoft and the Justice Department Push Back Microsoft was furious. Failing to obtain authorization and starting the process over would signal to the market that something was wrong with GCC High. Customers were already confused and concerned about the drawn-out review, which had become a hot topic in an online forum used by government and technology insiders. There, Wakeman, the Microsoft cybersecurity architect, deflected blame, saying the government had been "dragging their feet on it for years now." Meanwhile, to build support for Microsoft's case, Bergin, the company's point person for FedRAMP and a former Army official, reached out to government leaders, including one from the Justice Department. The Justice official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter, said Bergin complained that the delay was hampering Microsoft's ability "to get this out into the market full sail." Bergin then pushed the Justice Department to "throw around our weight" to help secure FedRAMP authorization, the official said. A man with short black hair and goatee and wearing glasses and a suit slightly smiles in front of a U.S. flag and another flag.John Bergin in 2019, while serving as deputy assistant secretary of the Army for financial information management. He was later hired by Microsoft and served as the company's liaison with FedRAMP during the GCC High debate. Defense Visual Information Distribution Service That December, as the parties gathered to hash things out at GSA's Washington headquarters, Justice did just that. Rogers, who by then had been promoted to the department's chief information officer, sat beside Bergin -- on the opposite side of the table from Conrad, the FedRAMP director. Rogers and her Justice colleagues had a stake in the outcome. Since authorizing and deploying GCC High, she had received accolades for her work modernizing the department's IT and cybersecurity. But without FedRAMP's stamp of approval, she would be the government official left holding the bag if GCC High were involved in a serious hack. At the same time, the Justice Department couldn't easily back out of using GCC High because once a technology is widely deployed, pulling the plug can be costly and technically challenging. And from its perspective, the cloud was an improvement over the old government-run data centers. Shortly after the meeting kicked off, Bergin interrupted a FedRAMP reviewer who had been presenting PowerPoint slides. He said the Justice Department and third-party assessor had already reviewed GCC High, according to meeting minutes. FedRAMP "should essentially just accept" their findings, he said. Then, in a shock to the FedRAMP team, Rogers backed him up and went on to criticize FedRAMP's work, according to two attendees. In its statement, Microsoft said Rogers maintains that FedRAMP's approach "was misguided and improperly dismissed the extensive evaluations performed by DOJ personnel." Bergin did not dispute the account, telling ProPublica that he had been trying to argue that it is the purview of third-party assessors such as Kratos -- not FedRAMP -- to evaluate the security of cloud products. And because FedRAMP must approve the third-party assessment firms, the program should have taken its issues up with Kratos. "When you are the regulatory agency who determines who the auditors are and you refuse to accept your auditors' answers, that's not a 'me' problem," Bergin told ProPublica. The GSA did not respond to questions about the meeting. The Justice Department declined to comment. Pressure Mounts on FedRAMP If there was any doubt about the role of FedRAMP, the White House issued a memorandum in the summer of 2024 that outlined its views. FedRAMP, it said, "must be capable of conducting rigorous reviews" and requiring cloud providers to "rapidly mitigate weaknesses in their security architecture." The office should "consistently assess and validate cloud providers' complex architectures and encryption schemes." But by that point, GCC High had spread to other federal agencies, with the Justice Department's authorization serving as a signal that the technology met federal standards. It also spread to the defense sector, since the Pentagon required that cloud products used by its contractors meet FedRAMP standards. While it did not have FedRAMP authorization, Microsoft marketed GCC High as meeting the requirements, selling it to companies such as Boeing that research, develop and maintain military weapons systems. But with the FedRAMP authorization up in the air, some contractors began to worry that by using GCC High, they were out of compliance. That could threaten their contracts, which, in turn, could impact Defense Department operations. Pentagon officials called FedRAMP to inquire about the authorization stalemate. The Defense Department acknowledged but did not respond to written questions from ProPublica. Rogers also kept pressing FedRAMP to "get this thing over the line," former employees of the GSA and FedRAMP said. It was the "opinion of the staff and the contractors that she simply was not willing to put heat to Microsoft on this" and that the Justice Department "was too sympathetic to Microsoft's claims," Eric Mill, then GSA's executive director for cloud strategy, told ProPublica. Authorization Despite a "Damning" Assessment In the summer of 2024, FedRAMP hired a new permanent director, government technology insider Pete Waterman. Within about a month of taking the job, he restarted the office's review of GCC High with a new team, which put aside the debate over data flow diagrams and instead attempted to examine evidence from Microsoft. But these reviewers soon arrived at the same conclusion, with the team's leader complaining about "getting stiff-armed" by Microsoft. "He came back and said, 'Yeah, this thing sucks,'" Mill recalled. A smiling man with a large white beard wearing white-rimmed glasses and a black hoodie.Pete Waterman, FedRAMP director hired in 2024 FedRAMP While the team was able to work through only two of the many services included in GCC High, Exchange Online and Teams, that was enough for it to identify "issues that are fundamental" to risk management, including "timely remediation of vulnerabilities and vulnerability scanning," according to a summary of the team's findings reviewed by ProPublica. Those issues, as well as a lack of "proper detailed security documentation" from Microsoft, limit "visibility and understanding of the system" and "impair the ability to make informed risk decisions." The team concluded, "There is a lack of confidence in assessing the system's overall security posture." A Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement that the company "never received this feedback in any of its communications with FedRAMP." When ProPublica read the findings to Bergin, the Microsoft liaison, he said he was surprised. "That's pretty damning," Bergin said, adding that it sounded like language that "would've generally been associated with a finding of 'not worthy.' If an assessor wrote that, I would be nervous." Despite the findings, to the FedRAMP team, turning Microsoft down didn't seem like an option. "Not issuing an authorization would impact multiple agencies that are already using GCC-H," the summary document said. The team determined that it was a "better value" to issue an authorization with conditions for continued government oversight. While authorizations with oversight conditions weren't unusual, arriving at one under these circumstances was. GCC High reviewers saw problems everywhere, both in what they were able to evaluate and what they weren't. To them, most of the package remained a vast wilderness of untold risk. Nevertheless, FedRAMP and Microsoft reached an agreement, and the day after Christmas 2024, GCC High received its FedRAMP authorization. FedRAMP appended a cover report to the package laying out its deficiencies and noting it carried unknown risks, according to people familiar with the report. It emphasized that agencies should carefully review the package and engage directly with Microsoft on any questions. "Unknown Unknowns" Persist Microsoft told ProPublica that it has met the conditions of the agreement and has "stayed within the performance metrics required by FedRAMP" to ensure that "risks are identified, tracked, remediated, and transparently communicated." But under the Trump administration, there aren't many people left at FedRAMP to check. While the Biden-era guidance said FedRAMP "must be an expert program that can analyze and validate the security claims" of cloud providers, the GSA told ProPublica that the program's role is "not to determine if a cloud service is secure enough." Rather, it is "to ensure agencies have sufficient information to make these risk decisions." The problem is that agencies often lack the staff and resources to do thorough reviews, which means the whole system is leaning on the claims of the cloud companies and the assessments of the third-party firms they pay to evaluate them. Under the current vision, critics say, FedRAMP has lost the plot. "FedRAMP's job is to watch the American people's back when it comes to sharing their data with cloud companies," said Mill, the former GSA official, who also co-authored the 2024 White House memo. "When there's a security issue, the public doesn't expect FedRAMP to say they're just a paper-pusher." When there's a security issue, the public doesn't expect FedRAMP to say they're just a paper-pusher. Eric Mill, former GSA executive director for cloud strategy Meanwhile, at the Justice Department, officials are finding out what FedRAMP meant by the "unknown unknowns" in GCC High. Last year, for example, they discovered that Microsoft relied on China-based engineers to service their sensitive cloud systems despite the department's prohibition against non-U.S. citizens assisting with IT maintenance. Officials learned about this arrangement -- which was also used in GCC High -- not from FedRAMP or from Microsoft but from a ProPublica investigation into the practice, according to the Justice employee who spoke with us. A Microsoft spokesperson acknowledged that the written security plan for GCC High that the company submitted to the Justice Department did not mention foreign engineers, though he said Microsoft did communicate that information to Justice officials before 2020. Nevertheless, Microsoft has since ended its use of China-based engineers in government systems. Former and current government officials worry about what other risks may be lurking in GCC High and beyond. The GSA told ProPublica that, in general, "if there is credible evidence that a cloud service provider has made materially false representations, that matter is then appropriately referred to investigative authorities." Ironically, the ultimate arbiter of whether cloud providers or their third-party assessors are living up to their claims is the Justice Department itself. The recent indictment of the former Accenture employee suggests it is willing to use this power. In a court document, the Justice Department alleges that the ex-employee made "false and misleading representations" about the cloud platform's security to help the company "obtain and maintain lucrative federal contracts." She is also accused of trying to "influence and obstruct" Accenture's third-party assessors by hiding the product's deficiencies and telling others to conceal the "true state of the system" during demonstrations, the department said. She has pleaded not guilty. There is no public indication that such a case has been brought against Microsoft or anyone involved in the GCC High authorization. The Justice Department declined to comment. Monaco, the deputy attorney general who launched the department's initiative to pursue cybersecurity fraud cases, did not respond to requests for comment. She left her government position in January 2025. Microsoft hired her to become its president of global affairs. A company spokesperson said Monaco's hiring complied with "all rules, regulations, and ethical standards" and that she "does not work on any federal government contracts or have oversight over or involvement with any of our dealings with the federal government." Corrections Filed under -- Technology Who owns ProPublica? No one. The story you just read was made possible by our readers. We hope it inspires you to support ProPublica, so we can continue producing investigations that shine a light on power, uncover the truth and drive real change. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom dedicated to nonpartisan, evidence-based journalism that holds power accountable. Founded in 2008 to address the decline in investigative reporting, we've spent over 15 years uncovering injustice, corruption, and abuse of power -- work that is slow, expensive and more critical than ever to our democracy. With eight Pulitzer Prizes and reforms sparked in state and local governments, businesses, institutions and more, our reporting ensures that the public interest comes first. Today, the stakes are higher than ever. From ethics in our government offices, to reproductive health care, to the climate crisis and beyond, ProPublica remains on the front lines of the stories that matter most. Your gift helps us keep the powerful accountable and the truth accessible. Join over 90,000 supporters nationwide in standing up for investigative journalism that informs, inspires, and creates lasting impact. Thank you for making this work possible. DONATE TO PROPUBLICA Contributors * Renee Dudley + X + Bluesky + LinkedIn I am a ProPublica reporter focused on technology, cybersecurity and business. More Stories: Renee Dudley Have a Tip for a Story? I'm interested in the intersection of Big Tech and national security. If you've worked in tech or government, or otherwise have tips about this area, please get in touch. [renee-dudl] * Doris Burke + LinkedIn I cover corporate wrongdoing. More Stories: Doris Burke Need to Get in Touch? Please do reach out, either by email or securely on Signal. [20190703-d] What We're Watching During Donald Trump's second presidency, ProPublica will focus on the areas most in need of scrutiny. Here are some of the issues our reporters will be watching -- and how to get in touch with them securely. Photo of Donald Trump at a podium seen through a crowd in the foreground. Learn more about our reporting team. We will continue to share our areas of interest as the news develops. Photo of Sharon Lerner Sharon Lerner I cover health and the environment and the agencies that govern them, including the Environmental Protection Agency. Contact me Photo of Andy Kroll Andy Kroll I cover justice and the rule of law, including the Justice Department, U.S. attorneys and the courts. Contact me Photo of Melissa Sanchez Melissa Sanchez I report on immigration and labor, and I am based in Chicago. Contact me Photo of Jesse Coburn Jesse Coburn I cover housing and transportation, including the companies working in those fields and the regulators overseeing them. Contact me Photo of an truck with a large screen advertisement that reads: Are (were) you a government worker? ProPublica journalists want to hear from you. Signal: 917-512-0201 propublica.org/tips If you don't have a specific tip or story in mind, we could still use your help. Sign up to be a member of our federal worker source network to stay in touch. Slide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3 Slide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6 More in Technology More in Technology [20260129-faa-letter] FAA Warns Airlines About Safety Risks From Rocket Launches, Urges "Extreme Caution" [122225-spacex-promo-final] "We're Too Close to the Debris" [Tech-Project-Defense-Law-Lead] Trump Signs Defense Bill Prohibiting China-Based Engineers in Pentagon IT Work [Realpage-Impact-Settlement] DOJ and RealPage Agree to Settle Rental Price-Fixing Case [tech-project-dod-impact-FINAL] Pentagon Bans Tech Vendors From Using China-Based Personnel After ProPublica Investigation [GettyImages-2220718203_maxHeight_3000_maxWidth_3000] Pentagon Warns Microsoft: Company's Use of China-Based Engineers Was a "Breach of Trust" Most Read * [20260225-Gordon-fed-ramp-tech-project-3x2_maxHeight_3000_maxWidth_3000] Federal Cyber Experts Thought Microsoft's Cloud Was "a Pile of Shit." They Approved It Anyway. * [20260228-Maney-Court-Ordered-C-Sections-035] They Didn't Want to Have C-Sections. A Judge Would Decide How They Gave Birth. * [Oklahoma_oil_maxHeight_3000_maxWidth_3000] Oil Regulators Found Hundreds of Wells Violating Oklahoma Rules. Then They Ignored Their Findings. * [pratje_probublicanda__040_preview_maxWidth_3000_maxHeight_3000_ppi_72_embedColorProfile_true_quality_95] The Trump Administration's "Disturbing" New Legal Strategy to Prosecute Border Crossers Is Taxing Courts and Testing the Law * [terror-boss-promo] "The Intern in Charge": Meet the 22-Year-Old Trump's Team Picked to Lead Terrorism Prevention Stay informed with the Daily Digest. Email Address: [ ] Sign Up Investigative Journalism in the Public Interest (c) Copyright 2026 Pro Publica Inc. Sites * ProPublica * Local Reporting Network * Texas Tribune Partnership * Electionland Sections * Topics * Series * Videos * News Apps * Get Involved * The Nerd Blog * @ProPublica * Events Info * About * Board and Advisors * Officers and Staff * Diversity * Jobs and Fellowships * Media Center * Reports * Impact * Awards * Corrections Policies * Code of Ethics * Advertising Policy * Gift Acceptance * Privacy Policy Follow * Newsletters * iOS and Android * RSS Feed More * Send Us Tips * Steal Our Stories * Browse via Tor * Contact Us * Donate * More Ways to Give Journalism That Holds Power to Account Sign up for ProPublica's Big Story newsletter and get our latest stories delivered straight to your inbox. Please enter your email address: [ ] Get the Newsletter Subscribe