First of all, the WH report on cybersecurity discouraging the use of C/C++ suggests hardware solutions as an alternate or additional approach to produce more resilient IT systems.

Second, there are programming languages that deliver more safe code on the von Neumann architecture than C or C++ do.

Third, the cybersecurity report was written by experts. Starting with an ad hominem argument does not help at all.

And eventually, whereas more recent C++- standards allow for better memory safety in C++, the toolchains available do not deliver those features reliably. At the moment toolchains deliver full C++-17 and only parts of C++20 or C++23. These toolchains lagging behind standardisation discourage C++ developers to make use of the new features and abandon practices established when even the first C++ standard wasn't written yet.

Due to the polemic start of the article I did not bother to read it in full.