I think I'd be more worried that he might discourage investments that could help Amazon better protect its foreign customers against U.S. and partners' espionag

I think I'd be more worried that he might discourage investments that could help Amazon better protect its foreign customers against U.S. and partners' espionage efforts. Or perhaps affect Amazon's procurement with non-transparent motives. Suppose these is a certain microarchitectural vulnerability in one vendor's hardware but not another's. If Amazon could be induced to buy the vulnerable hardware over the non-vulnerable hardware, that could help people who knew about the vulnerability spy on AWS customers. Or if there were a company to be rewarded or punished for its decision to cooperate or not to cooperate with some covert activity, the reward or punishment could be done through procurement decisions. Or perhaps affect Amazon's lobbying at home or abroad about privacy legislation or something. (It's not obvious to me whether the danger is particularly greater from a former DIRNSA than from someone with undisclosed connections to a spy agency. Maybe Alexander's recommendations would get extra scrutiny!)