Former President Donald Trump called on Microsoft to fire Lisa Monaco, whom he described as the company’s head of global affairs, insisting that her previous senior posts in national security render her continued employment unjustified. Trump wrote on his social media that Monaco has access to classified information and demanded that Microsoft fire her “immediately.”
What Prompted the Demand from Trump to Microsoft
Trump’s telephone call focuses on Monaco’s lengthy experience in federal law enforcement and national security. He pointed to her prior service as a senior official in Democratic administrations and argued that any job touching corporate policy, government relations, or geopolitical risk would be unworkable if it exposed her to confidential information. He also claimed that her security credentials were stripped earlier this year, which could not be independently confirmed at the time of his statement.
The move ratchets up a wide-ranging clash between the White House and big technology companies over their role in policy issues, such as defense procurement and national security policy. Activist allies wasted no time boosting the message online, with some even calling on the administration to review or do away with Microsoft’s government contracts — further evidence that personnel battles can quickly J’accuse their way into procurement politics.
Who Is Lisa Monaco and What Roles Has She Held
Monaco is a career national security official and prosecutor. She was White House homeland security and counterterrorism adviser during the Obama administration and later served as a deputy attorney general in the Biden administration. The Senate confirmed her on a wide bipartisan vote to that post, a testament to her regard across administrations and on Capitol Hill.
At the Justice Department, Monaco managed some of the country’s highest-profile portfolios, including those related to counterintelligence and cybercrime. She was instrumental in launching the department’s task force on ransomware in 2021, leading high-profile takedowns and seizures against criminal organizations and sanctionable entities. That experience, spanning the realms of law enforcement, intelligence, and cyber policy, would be incredibly valuable for any corporate global affairs organization.
What It Means For Microsoft And Government Work
Microsoft is at the heart of U.S. government technology modernization, federal cloud infrastructure, and the fight against cyberattacks.
The Pentagon’s Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability program, for instance, issued contracts to several providers with a collective maximum value of $9 billion; Microsoft is one of them. The company also runs specialized cloud environments for sensitive workloads, and it has FedRAMP High and DoD Impact Level authorizations across portions of Azure.
That footprint also leaves Microsoft more vulnerable to political crosswinds than its rivals. A public dispute involving a senior policy or government relations official — the dispute doesn’t even have to be real, but merely perceived — calls into question how the company conducts classified work, resolves conflicts of interest, and works with federal customers. It also lands as scrutiny of Microsoft’s own security posture has sharpened in the wake of high-profile intrusions. Following the Storm-0558 incident, a report by the Cyber Safety Review Board, established by the Department of Homeland Security to provide independent analysis and recommendations on cybersecurity to U.S. industry and government operators, found fault lines in Microsoft’s security culture that led to companywide changes and new security promises in 2024.
Against that backdrop, pressure to oust a global affairs chief—could be interpreted by agencies and lawmakers as part of a wider campaign to test Microsoft’s governance and accountability. Simply the implication that a corporate executive has outsized access to government secrets is sensitive for federal partners and compliance officers overseeing classified programs.
How Clearances And Corporate Access Actually Work
Security clearances are issued by federal agencies and governed by a need-to-know principle. Positions in the private sector, however, do not automatically provide access to classified information; access must be determined by an agency on a program- or facility-by-facility basis. The denial of clearances is generally a matter for the adjudication and day-to-day administration of clearances through agency classification systems and the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, although presidents have sweeping authority over such clearance actions.
Compliance regimes are strict for companies with national security contracts. Facilities clearances, insider threat programs, and foreign ownership, control, or influence reviews all serve to ensure a company’s senior leadership can’t just waltz out of the office carrying sensitive information. In practice, a “global affairs” person is in charge of policy strategy, government engagement, export controls, and cross-border data issues — not operational access to classified systems.
Political Pressure on Big Tech Is Gaining Traction
Trump’s action fits a pattern of putting direct, public pressure on technology companies during high-stakes policy fights. Previous flashpoints have included encryption battles against Apple, efforts to compel corporate divestitures over national security worries, and public condemnations of social platforms’ content moderation. The stakes are significant: Microsoft spent more than $10 million on federal lobbying in 2023, OpenSecrets reported, demonstrating its regulatory and procurement reach.
Activists and political allies are escalating the current tiff in cyberspace, with some critics invoking Microsoft’s leadership and multinational reach. Those calls shed light on how attacks on personnel can quickly shift to broader narratives about patriotism, supply chains, and the trustworthiness of federal vendors — especially in an election-fueled environment.
What to Watch Next for Microsoft, Monaco, and D.C.
Key signals will be whether Microsoft addresses the demand in public, whether lawmakers open inquiries into corporate security governance, and whether federal customers review engagement protocols with senior corporate policy executives. For now, the episode highlights a fundamental tension in the modern relationship between tech and the state: As companies become all but indispensable to national security, the politics around who advises them — and how — grows more combustible.
