logo
Q&A: Meet the conservative working to make environmentalism nonpartisan

Q&A: Meet the conservative working to make environmentalism nonpartisan

Yahoo20-03-2025

Nature is Nonpartisan founder Benji Backer, center, with Director of Communications Amelia Joy, left, and Chief Policy Officer Ben Cassidy, right, pose for a photo on March 18, 2025, in Belle Fourche. (Courtesy of Nature is Nonpartisan)
A national nonprofit working to promote a middle ground on environmentalism launched with an event Thursday in the South Dakota city of Belle Fourche, which advertises itself as the geographic center of the United States.
Benji Backer, 27, of Seattle, is the founder of Nature is Nonpartisan. The self-described conservative environmentalist founded the American Conservation Coalition in 2017 while in college. That conservative group promotes policies like free-market approaches to climate change and environmental policy. In 2024, Backer wrote a book, 'The Conservative Environmentalist,' outlining his vision for right-of-center environmentalism.
With his new group, Backer is bringing people together from across the political spectrum.
Nature Is Nonpartisan's board ranges from people like David Bernhardt, who was secretary of the Department of Interior during the first Trump administration, to Michael Brune, former executive director of the Sierra Club. Partners include the National Wildlife Federation, American Forests, Ducks Unlimited and more.
South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden attended the Belle Fourche event and signed an executive proclamation establishing 'Nature Is Nonpartisan Week' in the state.
Backer said he is critical of Green New Deal-style environmentalism, referring to a swath of proposals to help address climate change and income inequality introduced by progressive lawmakers. He said the movement has become an ineffective political football.
The new nonprofit focuses on bipartisan policies like funding wildlife migration corridors, wetland and forest conservation, and farm practices that pull more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere.
Backer took questions from South Dakota Searchlight ahead of Thursday's event. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
I grew up in the Midwest — I grew up in Wisconsin — and grew up loving the outdoors just like almost every person in this country.
I also grew up a conservative, and I felt very frustrated with the fact that there wasn't really a home for dialogue on the environment that was being done in a nonpartisan way. It was either you subscribe to the Green New Deal-type ideology or you just didn't have a home at all. And the majority of Americans care a lot about the environment, but they don't want radical solutions.
So, our mission is to rebuild the environmental movement, to a movement that represents all Americans, of all political backgrounds — not just the left side of the aisle — and also forges solutions that benefit and work for every American, not just Americans on one side of the aisle.
We want to recreate the legacy that Americans have around the environment. This used to be seen as a nonpartisan issue in America. There used to be many environmental organizations that resembled the breadth of political beliefs in America. That does not exist anymore.
So, we're here in Belle Fourche — because it is the center of the country — to launch from the heart of America an environmental movement that speaks for the heart of America.
Yeah, look, it has been a partisan issue, but that doesn't mean it has to be.
If you look back at history, previous iterations of the environmental movement resembled both sides of the aisle. It had hunters and anglers, it had conservatives, and it also had liberals. It had both sorts of populations represented, and so the solutions represented those communities, too.
My philosophy is that when you're not at the table, you're on the table. When you're not at the table, you're automatically losing. And the majority of Americans are losing with the current environmental movement as we see it. Hunters and anglers, conservatives, used to self-identify as environmentalists. Polling back in 1990 shows nearly 80% of Americans self-identified as environmentalists.
We're here in Belle Fourche — because it is the center of the country — to launch from the heart of America an environmental movement that speaks for the heart of America.
– Benji Backer, founder of Nature is Nonpartisan
And so, it is currently partisan, but it doesn't need to be.
The reality is that the political left owning this issue only allows half of the country to be represented. So, when the other half of the country, conservatives, are running the show, whether that be in the South Dakota Legislature or in D.C., all they're doing is focusing on opposing what the left has proposed because a lot of the times it's out of touch with conservative communities.
It's this political back and forth of, like, either the Green New Deal, or trying to oppose everything about the Green New Deal philosophy. What if there was an approach, that we used to have, where you put landowners, ranchers, farmers, hunters, anglers at the same table with those who care about the environment for other reasons, and created a solution that works for all the people there. That has not happened for decades, but it can happen, and it will happen again.
What we're trying to create is a grassroots movement of Americans from both sides of the aisle who believe the environment is more important, and conserving the environment is more important, than partisan politics.
Now, how we get there is up for debate. But that's a debate we're not even having right now.
'Wild places are worth fighting for': Concern grows for receding South Dakota wetlands
Some people might be more in favor of protecting the environment through private property rights because private property owners tend to take really good care of their environment. Some people might prefer a more public land approach. Then let's have a debate, issue by issue, so we can actually get to solutions.
Right now, our forests are burning at record levels. Right now, biodiversity is decreasing here and around the world. Right now, extreme storms are damaging our country's economy and our communities. And the list goes on and on.
I understand why immigration, guns or some of these other issues get caught up in culture wars and partisan politics: A lot of people have inherently different end goals on those issues.
But on the environment, there's not really anybody in this country that doesn't want clean air, clean water, nature to be protected and biodiversity to be protected — as long as it's not at the expense of humanity and people's communities.
Politicians aren't hearing that message from an environmental organization. They're only hearing a message of doom and gloom, alarmism, kind of extremism, or an opposition to that.
So, we're trying to create a movement that incentivizes politicians to get to the table and find solutions to the environmental problems that are happening, that are real, that are impacting us, and that no one's trying to find solutions to because it's become such a culture warfare issue.
I would say to conservatives, over the next few years, we will prove that we're a movement for all Americans.
I think there's an automatic distrust of the environmental movement that is totally fair and totally to be expected based on how this has progressed as an issue in recent years.
But, we have two options. We can sit on the sidelines and complain about how bad the left's ideas are, or we can sit at the table. We're either on the sidelines complaining and losing or at the table conversing and winning.
I understand the skepticism, but if you look at our board, if you look at our staff, we have some of the most hardcore conservative bona fide leaders on our team and board that you could ever imagine, that validate the fact that conservatives need to have a voice at this discussion, that validate the fact that we are going to represent both sides, not just one — not just greenwashing for the left, but also representing both sides and the priorities they have.
There's nothing more pro-conservative than caring about your local community, about your country and its amazing beauty, and the legacy of conservation that our country has. There's nothing more pro-conservative than engaging in conservation conversations.
I've been building this organization for the last year. I don't even take a salary right now.
We already have diverse funders from across the political spectrum. We have hundreds of donors already and we haven't even launched yet. We have conservative donors, liberal donors. There's not one donor or two donors or three donors that I can point to as people who are, you know, 'buying us out.'
Climate change is one of the most polarizing issues in America right now, and one of the most partisan. I think Americans can and should stand united in our desire to reduce pollution in our atmosphere.
I think we should be focusing on efficiency, and Americans appreciate opportunities to save money and be more efficient, to have more abundant energy choices, to have lower energy prices, which helps scale all different energy sources. People just don't want to be told what to do.
As an organization, we're going to be dedicated to reducing pollution, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but not in a way that hurts people, and in a way that actually benefits communities.
We are going to show politicians what Americans want to be for, rather than what they're against. So, on the topic of climate change, people are for efficient, abundant energy; people are for resilient ecosystems to create adaptation measures in extreme storms; they are for more efficient transportation methods and more fuel-efficient vehicles, as long as it's not more expensive and comes at the cost of their livelihoods. And so that's the sort of approach we're going to take.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Wall Street Journal slams Vance's foreign student stance as ‘false choice'
Wall Street Journal slams Vance's foreign student stance as ‘false choice'

The Hill

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Wall Street Journal slams Vance's foreign student stance as ‘false choice'

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board on Friday slammed recent comments by Vice President Vance on foreign students as a 'false choice' amid tensions between the Trump administration and higher education institutions. In an interview on Newsmax's 'Greg Kelly Reports' late last month, Vance said that an 'idea that American citizens don't have the talent to do great things, that you have to import a foreign class of servants and professors to do these things, I just reject that.' The Journal noted Vance's comments in a Friday opinion piece, alongside other comments in which he said 'we invest in our own people' and that he believes 'that's actually an opportunity for American citizens to really flourish' when it comes to international student visa restrictions. 'This is a classic false choice. Of course the U.S. has talent and should invest in it. But welcoming foreign students doesn't hinder Americans,' the editorial board said in their piece. 'The cold, hard numbers show that too few Americans are pursuing STEM fields to meet the future needs of business and government. Of all U.S. bachelor's degrees, biology and engineering fields make up about 13%,' they added. Earlier this week, limits were placed on foreign student visas at Harvard University by President Trump. 'Admission into the United States to attend, conduct research, or teach at our Nation's institutions of higher education is a privilege granted by our Government, not a guarantee,' Trump said in a Wednesday proclamation restricting the visas. In recent months, the Trump administration has targeted multiple higher education institutions over alleged inaction on campus antisemitism and policies around transgender athletes. 'Does the Trump Administration want to stop illegal immigration, or nearly all legal immigration, including foreign students? The evidence is growing that it wants the latter, which will sharply reduce the human capital the U.S. needs to prosper,' the Journal editorial board wrote. The Hill has reached out to Vance's office for comment.

Where Is Barack Obama?
Where Is Barack Obama?

Atlantic

time29 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

Where Is Barack Obama?

Last month, while Donald Trump was in the Middle East being gifted a $400 million luxury jet from Qatar, Barack Obama headed off on his own foreign excursion: a trip to Norway, in a much smaller and more tasteful jet, to visit the summer estate of his old friend King Harald V. Together, they would savor the genteel glories of Bygdøyveien in May. They chewed over global affairs and the freshest local salmon, which had been smoked on the premises and seasoned with herbs from the royal garden. Trump has begun his second term with a continuous spree of democracy-shaking, economy-quaking, norm-obliterating action. And Obama, true to form, has remained carefully above it all. He picks his spots, which seldom involve Trump. In March, he celebrated the anniversary of the Affordable Care Act and posted his annual NCAA basketball brackets. In April, he sent out an Easter message and mourned the death of the pope. In May, he welcomed His Holiness Pope Leo XIV ('a fellow Chicagoan') and sent prayers to Joe Biden following his prostate-cancer diagnosis. No matter how brazen Trump becomes, the most effective communicator in the Democratic Party continues to opt for minimal communication. His 'audacity of hope' presidency has given way to the fierce lethargy of semi-retirement. Obama occasionally dips into politics with brief and unmemorable statements, or sporadic fundraising emails (subject: 'Barack Obama wants to meet you. Yes you.'). He praised his law-school alma mater, Harvard, for 'rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt' by the White House 'to stifle academic freedom.' He criticized a Republican bill that would threaten health care for millions. He touted a liberal judge who was running for a crucial seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. When called upon, he can still deliver a top-notch campaign spiel, donor pitch, convention speech, or eulogy. Beyond that, Obama pops in with summer and year-end book, music, and film recommendations. He recently highlighted a few articles about AI and retweeted a promotional spot for Air Force Elite: Thunderbirds, a new Netflix documentary from his and Michelle's production company. (Michelle also has a fashion book coming out later this year: 'a celebration of confidence, identity, and authenticity,' she calls it.) Apparently, Barack is a devoted listener of The Ringer 's Bill Simmons Podcast, or so he told Jimmy Kimmel over dinner. In normal times, no one would deny Obama these diversions. He performed the world's most stressful job for eight years, served his country, made his history, and deserved to kick back and do the usual ex-president things: start a foundation, build a library, make unspeakable amounts of money. But the inevitable Trump-era counterpoint is that these are not normal times. And Obama's detachment feels jarringly incongruous with the desperation of his longtime admirers—even more so given Trump's assaults on what Obama achieved in office. It would be one thing if Obama had disappeared after leaving the White House, maybe taking up painting like George W. Bush. The problem is that Obama still very much has a public profile—one that screams comfort and nonchalance at a time when so many other Americans are terrified. 'There are many grandmas and Rachel Maddow viewers who have been more vocal in this moment than Barack Obama has,' Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Institute, told me. 'It is heartbreaking,' he added, 'to see him sacrificing that megaphone when nobody else quite has it.' People who have worked with Obama since he left office say that he is extremely judicious about when he weighs in. 'We try to preserve his voice so that when he does speak, it has impact,' Eric Schultz, a close adviser to Obama in his post-presidency, told me. 'There is a dilution factor that we're very aware of.' 'The thing you don't want to do is, you don't want to regularize him,' former Attorney General Eric Holder, a close Obama friend and collaborator, told me. When I asked Holder what he meant by 'regularize,' he explained that there was a danger of turning Obama into just another hack commentator—' Tuesdays With Barack, or something like that,' Holder said. Like many of Obama's confidants, Holder bristles at suggestions that the former president has somehow deserted the Trump opposition. 'Should he do more? Everybody can have their opinions,' Holder said. 'The one thing that always kind of pisses me off is when people say he's not out there, or that he's not doing things, that he's just retired and we never hear from him. If you fucking look, folks, you would see that he's out there.' From the April 2016 issue: The Obama doctrine Obama's aides also say that he is loath to overshadow the next generation of Democratic leaders. They emphasize that he spends a great deal of time speaking privately with candidates and officials who seek his advice. But unfortunately for Democrats, they have not found their next fresh generational sensation since Obama was elected 17 years ago (Joe Biden obviously doesn't count). Until a new leader emerges, Obama could certainly take on a more vocal role without 'regularizing' himself in the lowlands of Trump-era politics. Obama remains the most popular Democrat alive at a time of historic unpopularity for his party. Unlike Biden, he appears not to have lost a step, or three. Unlike with Bill Clinton, his voice remains strong and his baggage minimal. Unlike both Biden and Clinton, he is relatively young and has a large constituency of Americans who still want to hear from him, including Black Americans, young voters, and other longtime Democratic blocs that gravitated toward Trump in November. 'Should Obama get out and do more? Yes, please,' Tracy Sefl, a Democratic media consultant in Chicago, told me. 'Help us,' she added. 'We're sinking over here.' Obama's conspicuous scarcity while Trump inflicts such damage isn't just a bad look. It's a dereliction of the message that he built his career on. When Obama first ran for president in 2008, his former life as a community organizer was central to his message. His campaign was not merely for him, but for civic action itself—the idea of Americans being invested in their own change. Throughout his time in the White House, he emphasized that 'citizen' was his most important title. After he left office in 2017, Obama said that he would work to inspire and develop the next cohort of leaders, which is essentially the mission of his foundation. It would seem a contradiction for him to say that he's devoting much of his post-presidency to promoting civic engagement when he himself seems so disengaged. To some degree, patience with Obama began wearing thin when he was still in office. His approval ratings sagged partway through his second term (before rebounding at the end). The rollout of the Affordable Care Act in 2013 was a fiasco, and the midterm elections of 2014 were a massacre. Obama looked powerless as Republicans in Congress ensured that he would pass no major legislation in his second term and blocked his nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. 'Obama, out,' the president said in the denouement of his last comedy routine at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, in 2016. In Obama lore, this mic-drop moment would instantly become famous—and prophetic. After Trump's first victory, Obama tried to reassure supporters that this was merely a setback. 'I don't believe in apocalyptic—until the apocalypse comes,' he said in an interview with The New Yorker. Insofar as Obama talked about how he imagined his post-presidency, he was inclined to disengage from day-to-day politics. At a press conference in November 2016, Obama said that he planned to 'take Michelle on vacation, get some rest, spend time with my girls, and do some writing, do some thinking.' He promised to give Trump the chance to do his job 'without somebody popping off in every instance.' But in that same press conference, he also allowed that if something arose that raised 'core questions about our values and our ideals, and if I think that it's necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, then I'll examine it when it comes.' That happened almost immediately. A few days after vowing in his inaugural address to end the 'American carnage' that he was inheriting, Trump signed an executive order banning foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days. The so-called Muslim travel ban would quickly be blocked by the courts, but not before sowing chaos at U.S. points of entry. Obama put out a brief statement through a spokesperson ('the president fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion'), and went on vacation. Trump's early onslaught made clear that Obama's ex-presidency would prove far more complicated than previous ones. And Obama's taste for glamorous settings and famous company—Richard Branson, David Geffen, George Clooney—made for a grating contrast with the turmoil back home. 'Just tone it down with the kitesurfing pictures,' John Oliver, the host of HBO's Last Week Tonight, said of Obama in an interview with Seth Meyers less than a month after the president left office. 'America is on fire,' Oliver added. 'I know that people accused him of being out of touch with the American people during his presidency. I'm not sure he's ever been more out of touch than he is now.' Oliver's spasm foreshadowed a rolling annoyance that continued as Trump's presidency wore on: that Obama was squandering his power and influence. 'Oh, Obama is still tweeting good tweets. That's very nice of him,' the anti-Trump writer Drew Magary wrote in a Medium column titled 'Where the Hell Is Barack Obama?' in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. 'I'm sick of Obama staying above the fray while that fray is swallowing us whole.' Obama did insert himself in the 2024 election, reportedly taking an aggressive behind-the-scenes role last summer in trying to nudge Biden out of the race. He delivered a showstopper speech at the Democratic National Convention and campaigned several times for Kamala Harris in the fall. But among longtime Obama admirers I've spoken with, frustration with the former president has built since Trump returned to office. While campaigning for Harris last year, Obama framed the stakes of the election in terms of a looming catastrophe. 'These aren't ordinary times, and these are not ordinary elections,' he said at a campaign stop in Pittsburgh. Yet now that the impact is unfolding in the most pernicious ways, Obama seems to be resuming his ordinary chill and same old bits. Green, of the Progressive Change Institute, told me that when Obama put out his March Madness picks this year, he texted Schultz, the Obama adviser. 'Have I missed him speaking up in other places recently?' Green asked him. 'He did not respond to that.' ​​(Schultz confirmed to me that he ignored the message but vowed to be 'more responsive to Adam Green's texts in the future.') Being a former president is inherently tricky: The role is ill-defined, and peripheral by definition. Part of the trickiness is how an ex-president can remain relevant, if he wants to. This is especially so given the current president. 'I don't know that anybody is relevant in the Trump era,' Mark Updegrove, a presidential historian and head of the LBJ Foundation, told me. Updegrove, who wrote a book called Second Acts: Presidential Lives and Legacies After the White House, said that Trump has succeeded in creating a reality in which every president who came before is suspect. 'All the standard rules of being an ex-president are no longer applicable,' he said. Still, Obama never presented himself as a 'standard rules' leader. This was the idea that his political rise was predicated on—that change required bold, against-the-grain thinking and uncomfortable action. Clearly, Obama still views himself this way, or at least still wants to be perceived this way. (A few years ago, he hosted a podcast with Bruce Springsteen called Renegades.) From the July 1973 issue: The last days of the president Stepping into the current political melee would not be an easy or comfortable role for Obama. He represents a figure of the past, which seems more and more like the ancient past as the Trump era crushes on. He is a notably long-view guy, who has spent a great deal of time composing a meticulous account of his own narrative. 'We're part of a long-running story,' Obama said in 2014. 'We just try to get our paragraph right.' Or thousands of paragraphs, in his case: The first installment of Obama's presidential memoir, A Promised Land, covered 768 pages and 29 hours of audio. No release date has been set for the second volume. But this might be one of those times for Obama to take a break from the long arc of the moral universe and tend to the immediate crisis. Several Democrats I've spoken with said they wish that Obama would stop worrying so much about the 'dilution factor.' While Democrats struggle to find their next phenom, Obama could be their interim boss. He could engage regularly, pointing out Trump's latest abuses. He did so earlier this spring, during an onstage conversation at Hamilton College. He was thoughtful, funny, and sounded genuinely aghast, even angry. He could do these public dialogues much more often, and even make them thematic. Focus on Trump's serial violations of the Constitution one week (recall that Obama once taught constitutional law), the latest instance of Trump's naked corruption the next. Blast out the most scathing lines on social media. Yes, it might trigger Trump, and create more attention than Obama evidently wants. But Trump has shown that ubiquity can be a superpower, just as Biden showed that obscurity can be ruinous. People would notice. Democrats love nothing more than to hold up Obama as their monument to Republican bad faith. Can you imagine if Obama did this? some Democrat will inevitably say whenever Trump does something tacky, cruel, or blatantly unethical (usually before breakfast). Obama could lean into this hypocrisy—tape recurring five-minute video clips highlighting Trump's latest scurrilous act and title the series 'Can You Imagine If I Did This?' Or another idea—an admittedly far-fetched one. Trump has decreed that a massive military parade be held through the streets of Washington on June 14. This will ostensibly celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary, but it also happens to fall on Trump's 79th birthday. The parade will cost an estimated $45 million, including $16 million in damage to the streets. (Can you imagine if Obama did this?) The spectacle cries out for counterprogramming. Obama could hold his own event, in Washington or somewhere nearby. It would get tons of attention and drive Trump crazy, especially if it draws a bigger crowd. Better yet, make it a parade, or 'citizen's march,' something that builds momentum as it goes, the former president and community organizer leading on foot. This would be the renegade move. Few things would fire up Democrats like a head-to-head matchup between Trump and Obama. If nothing else, it would be fun to contemplate while Democrats keep casting about for their long-delayed future. 'The party needs new rising stars, and they need the room to figure out how to meet this moment, just like Obama figured out how to meet the moment 20 years ago,' Jon Favreau, a co-host of Pod Save America and former director of speechwriting for the 44th president, told me. 'Unless, of course, Trump tries to run for a third term, in which case I'll be begging Obama to come out of retirement.'

Chinese hackers and user lapses turn smartphones into a 'mobile security crisis'
Chinese hackers and user lapses turn smartphones into a 'mobile security crisis'

San Francisco Chronicle​

time39 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Chinese hackers and user lapses turn smartphones into a 'mobile security crisis'

WASHINGTON (AP) — Cybersecurity investigators noticed a highly unusual software crash — it was affecting a small number of smartphones belonging to people who worked in government, politics, tech and journalism. The crashes, which began late last year and carried into 2025, were the tipoff to a sophisticated cyberattack that may have allowed hackers to infiltrate a phone without a single click from the user. The attackers left no clues about their identities, but investigators at the cybersecurity firm iVerify noticed that the victims all had something in common: They worked in fields of interest to China's government and had been targeted by Chinese hackers in the past. Foreign hackers have increasingly identified smartphones, other mobile devices and the apps they use as a weak link in U.S. cyberdefenses. Groups linked to China's military and intelligence service have targeted the smartphones of prominent Americans and burrowed deep into telecommunication networks, according to national security and tech experts. It shows how vulnerable mobile devices and apps are and the risk that security failures could expose sensitive information or leave American interests open to cyberattack, those experts say. 'The world is in a mobile security crisis right now,' said Rocky Cole, a former cybersecurity expert at the National Security Agency and Google and now chief operations officer at iVerify. 'No one is watching the phones.' U.S. authorities warned in December of a sprawling Chinese hacking campaign designed to gain access to the texts and phone conversations of an unknown number of Americans. 'They were able to listen in on phone calls in real time and able to read text messages,' said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois. He is a member of the House Intelligence Committee and the senior Democrat on the Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, created to study the geopolitical threat from China. Chinese hackers also sought access to phones used by Donald Trump and running mate JD Vance during the 2024 campaign. The Chinese government has denied allegations of cyberespionage, and accused the U.S. of mounting its own cyberoperations. It says America cites national security as an excuse to issue sanctions against Chinese organizations and keep Chinese technology companies from the global market. 'The U.S. has long been using all kinds of despicable methods to steal other countries' secrets,' Lin Jian, a spokesman for China's foreign ministry, said at a recent press conference in response to questions about a CIA push to recruit Chinese informants. U.S. intelligence officials have said China poses a significant, persistent threat to U.S. economic and political interests, and it has harnessed the tools of digital conflict: online propaganda and disinformation, artificial intelligence and cyber surveillance and espionage designed to deliver a significant advantage in any military conflict. Mobile networks are a top concern. The U.S. and many of its closest allies have banned Chinese telecom companies from their networks. Other countries, including Germany, are phasing out Chinese involvement because of security concerns. But Chinese tech firms remain a big part of the systems in many nations, giving state-controlled companies a global footprint they could exploit for cyberattacks, experts say. Chinese telecom firms still maintain some routing and cloud storage systems in the U.S. — a growing concern to lawmakers. 'The American people deserve to know if Beijing is quietly using state-owned firms to infiltrate our critical infrastructure,' U.S. Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich. and chairman of the China committee, which in April issued subpoenas to Chinese telecom companies seeking information about their U.S. operations. Mobile devices have become an intel treasure trove Mobile devices can buy stocks, launch drones and run power plants. Their proliferation has often outpaced their security. The phones of top government officials are especially valuable, containing sensitive government information, passwords and an insider's glimpse into policy discussions and decision-making. The White House said last week that someone impersonating Susie Wiles, Trump's chief of staff, reached out to governors, senators and business leaders with texts and phone calls. It's unclear how the person obtained Wiles' connections, but they apparently gained access to the contacts in her personal cellphone, The Wall Street Journal reported. The messages and calls were not coming from Wiles' number, the newspaper reported. While most smartphones and tablets come with robust security, apps and connected devices often lack these protections or the regular software updates needed to stay ahead of new threats. That makes every fitness tracker, baby monitor or smart appliance another potential foothold for hackers looking to penetrate networks, retrieve information or infect systems with malware. Federal officials launched a program this year creating a 'cyber trust mark' for connected devices that meet federal security standards. But consumers and officials shouldn't lower their guard, said Snehal Antani, former chief technology officer for the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command. 'They're finding backdoors in Barbie dolls,' said Antani, now CEO of a cybersecurity firm, referring to concerns from researchers who successfully hacked the microphone of a digitally connected version of the toy. Risks emerge when smartphone users don't take precautions It doesn't matter how secure a mobile device is if the user doesn't follow basic security precautions, especially if their device contains classified or sensitive information, experts say. Mike Waltz, who departed as Trump's national security adviser, inadvertently added The Atlantic's editor-in-chief to a Signal chat used to discuss military plans with other top officials. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had an internet connection that bypassed the Pentagon's security protocols set up in his office so he could use the Signal messaging app on a personal computer, the AP has reported. Hegseth has rejected assertions that he shared classified information on Signal, a popular encrypted messaging app not approved for the use of communicating classified information. China and other nations will try to take advantage of such lapses, and national security officials must take steps to prevent them from recurring, said Michael Williams, a national security expert at Syracuse University. 'They all have access to a variety of secure communications platforms,' Williams said. "We just can't share things willy-nilly.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store