logo
Swatting hoaxer admits to scheme targeting dozens of members of Congress and social media influencers

Swatting hoaxer admits to scheme targeting dozens of members of Congress and social media influencers

CBS News2 days ago

Thomasz Szabo was an invisible menace, according to federal prosecutors. His alleged targets: They are quite visible.
Szabo, a Romanian national, has pleaded guilty to leading a scheme to target dozens of politicians and social media influencers with a wave of "swatting" attacks.
According to court filings, Szabo began building a network of "swatters" in 2018 to unleash havoc on public figures in the United States.
In a swatting hoax, a false emergency call is made to police to lure a SWAT team to a target's home. The swatting call often falsely claims a mass shooting or hostage situation is underway, so as to create an exceptionally large police response and raise the risk of a confrontation at the victim's home.
According to the Justice Department, "Szabo made false reports to U.S. law enforcement including a threat in December 2020 to commit a mass shooting at New York City synagogues, and a threat in January 2021 to detonate explosives at the U.S. Capitol and kill the President-elect"—likely referring to Joe Biden.
A plea agreement reviewed by CBS News said Szabo's co-conspirators also targeted at least 25 members of Congress or their families, six executive branch officials and Cabinet members, judges, members of the media and at least two dozen former government officials.
He was extradited from Romania late last year and will be sentenced on federal conspiracy and threat charges in October.
According to the court filings, Szabo's conspiracy sought to victimize targets with large audiences and social media followings, amplifying the impact of the attacks. "The defendant sought to target those who would react publicly to having been swatted." His plea agreement said Szabo's conspiracy would target "streamers" who were broadcasting or speaking to an audience online during the attacks.
Among those who say they were targeted was a prolific conservative social media figure known as "Catturd," who posted earlier this week to his 3 million X followers, "This is the guy who swatted me the first three times."
Szabo publicized his "swatting" activity to his followers and encouraged them to engage in similar behavior, court documents say. Prosecutors said, "One of (his) subordinates bragged to Szabo: 'I did 25+ swattings today," and, 'creating massive havoc in [A]merica. $500,000+ in taxpayers wasted in just two days."
Szabo sought to find and inspire others to execute swattings, according to the Justice Department.
Former Department of Homeland Security Undersecretary of Intelligence John Cohen told CBS News, "Increasingly, swatters are doing more than just incentivizing or inspiring attacks. We are seeing the posting of content that is intended to give people detailed instructions on how to carry out the activity."
Cohen said the technology and techniques employed by swatters are becoming more sophisticated and potent. "If a swatting call involves reporting a fictitious active shooter event, they'll use artificial intelligence-generated sound effects depicting the sounds of gunfire. That's meant to give it credibility," Cohen said.
In Szabo's case, prosecutors alleged he used an internet-based phone platform to execute some hoaxes, which could mask identifying information about Szabo or his co-conspirators.
Although charging documents do not name which members of Congress were targeted and disrupted by Szabo or his co-conspirators, several lawmakers have publicly acknowledged being victims of recent swatting attacks across the country.
In a 2023 case spotlighted by CBS News, then-Rep. Brandon Williams, a central New York Republican, said the swatting happened on Christmas Day at his home. Williams told CBS News, "I organized my family in the kitchen and told them to hang out and keep their hands visible," to avoid any confusion by officers when police arrived. Williams said the swatting attack put his family in danger. After the police came inside to confirm the call was a hoax, Williams said he began packing the deputies bags with his holiday cookies.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, has publicly posted about a series of recent swatting incidents, including one on Christmas Day 2023, the same day Williams was targeted. Greene wrote on social media at the time, "I was just swatted. This is like the 8th time. On Christmas with my family here. My local police are the GREATEST and shouldn't have to deal with this."
Two other high-profile swatting victims from December 2023: Special Counsel Jack Smith and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who prosecuted and oversaw one of the federal criminal cases against President Trump, respectively.
Swatting has vexed law enforcement for years — wasting police resources and, in at least one 2017 case unrelated to Szabo, ending in a fatal police shooting. Authorities are also contending with a rise in threats against public officials — from lawmakers to judges and prosecutors — including an eerie and menacing trend in which judges are sent unsolicited pizza orders, indicating that some unknown person knows their personal address.
Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a statement about Szabo's guilty plea in federal court in Washington, D.C.
"This defendant led a dangerous swatting criminal conspiracy, deliberately threatening dozens of government officials with violent hoaxes and targeting our nation's security infrastructure from behind a screen overseas," Bondi said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Cuts to care: The price mothers and children will pay
Cuts to care: The price mothers and children will pay

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Cuts to care: The price mothers and children will pay

HONOLULU (KHON2) — Congress continues to discuss possible cuts to Medicaid and many in Hawaii are concerned about the potential impacts. Some officials warn pregnant women and children could be hit the hardest. Those who rely on the service for themselves and their children also fear the worst. On Aug. 8, 2023, wildfires rip through the Lahaina community forcing thousands to flee. Mairey Garcia, then 10 weeks pregnant with her second child, made it out alive with her husband and daughter. Wanted man arrested after 'crime spree' leads to officer-involved shooting 'We live in Maui, for almost 16 years,' she said. 'Thinking and looking back after the fire, I don't want to think about it anymore.' They lost everything. Uprooting her family and relocating after the devastation on Maui she dealt with so many stressors and the added responsibility of another baby on the way. Garcia said having Aloha Care medical coverage was a huge weight off her shoulders. 'It's the only thing I have that time to support my babies and my family as well, because I can't afford to get a medical,' she Feb. 23, 2024 she gave birth to a healthy baby girl. 'Aloha Care has been there for me from the very start. It's been a blessing for me,' Garcia said. She is not alone. According to Aloha Care CEO Francoise Culley-Trotman, 1,500 moms delivered babies last year covered by Aloha Care. With 70,000 members it's the states second largest medicaid-medicare health plan. But if a bill to cut more than $600 billion in funding for Medicaid passes congress in the coming weeks, many will lose that lifeline. Download the free KHON2 app for iOS or Android to stay informed on the latest news 'The Republican tax bill makes the biggest cuts to Medicaid in history, meaning many people on Med-QUEST will lose coverage and hospitals and clinics may be forced to reduce services or close altogether,' U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz said in a statement. 'These cuts will disproportionately impact pregnant women and children.' 'This issue goes beyond just our membership or even the Quest recipients to what happens to our state and our ability to take care of people,' Culley-Trotman explained. She said cuts this extreme will increase preterm births and impact the long term health of mothers. 'Just an overall worsening of maternal and infant statistics in our state,' she added. For Garcia, it's personal. She worries about what will happen to her family and had this message for lawmakers. 'Please don't pass the bill,' she said. 'Because a lot of people need help and and rely on this program.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Trump and Musk break up, and Washington holds its breath
Trump and Musk break up, and Washington holds its breath

Boston Globe

time17 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump and Musk break up, and Washington holds its breath

He accused Trump of betraying promises to cut federal spending, shared a suggestion that the president should be impeached and claimed without evidence that the government was concealing information about his association with infamous pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Perhaps most viciously, Musk insisted that Trump wouldn't have won last year's election without his help. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump, not one to slouch from a fight, could hold back no longer. He posted that Musk had been 'wearing thin,' that he had 'asked him to leave' his administration, that the tech titan had 'gone CRAZY.' Advertisement Maybe, Trump threatened, he should save taxpayer money by canceling government contracts and subsidies for Musk's companies. Bad blood with high stakes On and on it went, as liberals savored the spectacle of their most despised political opponents clawing at each other's digital throats and conservatives reeled at the prospect of having to pick sides. Laura Loomer, a right-wing provocateur and conspiracy theorist, saw an opportunity to position herself as the voice of reason. Advertisement 'This fight should be taken offline,' she said — on social media, of course. The question now is whether Trump and Musk find some way to step back from a battle that is tearing apart one of the most consequential relationships in modern American politics. If they don't, there's little telling how far the fallout could spread from a collision between the world's most powerful man and its wealthiest. At stake are the future of Musk's companies, including electric automaker Tesla and rocket manufacturer SpaceX; government programs that rely on the billionaire entrepreneur's technology; legislation for advancing tax cuts and Trump's other priorities in Congress; Republican chances in next year's midterm elections; and an entire political ecosystem that has orbited around Trump and Musk's deteriorating partnership. 'It's like India and Pakistan,' said Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana, referring to two nuclear-armed nations that recently skirmished along their border. 'It just escalates and neither one of them seem to back down and understand the strength of each other.' Opposites attracted (for a time) Trump and Musk were always an odd pairing, with contrasting world views and deep generational and stylistic differences. Trump, 78, comes from old-school New York real estate and never appears in public without a suit and tie unless he's on the golf course. Before running for president, he became a household name as a reality television star. Musk, 53, is an immigrant from South Africa who struck it rich in Silicon Valley. In addition to running Tesla and SpaceX, Musk owns the social media company X. He's fashioned himself as a black-clad internet edgelord, and his wealth vastly outstrips Trump's. Advertisement But Trump and Musk are kindred spirits in other ways. They're experts at generating attention who enjoy stirring the pot by riling up their opponents. Each has sought more power to accomplish existential quests. Trump assails the federal 'deep state' that resisted him during his first term, while Musk warns about the country going bankrupt from excessive spending and promotes an interplanetary future powered by his rocket technology. Musk endorsed Trump after the Republican candidate was nearly assassinated in Butler, Pennsylvania, and he began spending millions to support him. His social media megaphone was a powerful addition to Trump's comeback campaign, magnifying his efforts to court tech leaders and young, very online men. Trump rarely tolerates sharing the spotlight, but he seemed enamored with his powerful backer, mentioning him in stump speeches and welcoming him onstage at rallies. After the election, Musk was a fixture around Mar-a-Lago, posing for photos with Trump's family, joining them for dinner, sitting in on meetings. Instead of growing tired of his 'first buddy,' Trump made plans to bring Musk along to Washington, appointing him to lead a cost-cutting initiative known as the Department of Government Efficiency. Cracks emerge Musk tried to establish himself as the president's omniscient and omnipresent adviser. He held court in Cabinet meetings, slept over in the Lincoln Bedroom and helped himself to caramel ice cream from the White House kitchen. The federal bureaucracy practically trembled before Musk, who oversaw layoffs and downsizing with his team of acolytes and engineers embedded in various agencies. Musk appeared thrilled at his opportunity to tinker with the government and exulted in his bromance with Trump, posting on Feb. 7 that he loved the president 'as much as a straight man can love another man.' Advertisement Trump returned the favor on March 11, allowing Musk to line up Tesla vehicles on the White House driveway as his company was struggling with declining sales. Trump made a show of choosing a cherry red electric car for himself. But cracks were emerging, especially as Trump pursued tariffs that could raise costs for Musk's businesses. Musk said Peter Navarro, the president's trade adviser, was 'truly a moron' and 'dumber than a sack of bricks' on April 8. The billionaire entrepreneur, who had never before worked in public service, seemed to be souring on government. He suggested there wasn't enough political will, either in Congress or in the White House, to adequately reduce spending. Trump started signaling that it was time for him to leave even though Musk said he would be willing to stay. Shortly before announcing his departure, Musk said he was 'disappointed' by legislation that Trump called the 'big beautiful bill' because it would increase the deficit. The measure includes tax cuts, more money for border security and changes to Medicaid that would leave fewer people with health insurance. 'I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful,' Musk said. 'But I don't know if it could be both.' The criticism didn't prevent Trump from giving Musk a send-off in the Oval Office, where he presented his outgoing adviser with a ceremonial key. 'Elon is really not leaving,' Trump said. 'He's going to be back and forth.' Musk said, 'I'll continue to be visiting here and be a friend and adviser to the president.' The implosion comes hard and fast It's hard to imagine that now. Advertisement Musk escalated his attacks on the legislation Tuesday, calling it a 'disgusting abomination,' and Trump tried to fend off the criticism. 'He hasn't said bad about me personally, but I'm sure that will be next,' the president said Thursday in the Oval Office during a meeting with the German chancellor. It was. Musk quickly took to X to vent his anger at Trump, saying his tariffs 'will cause a recession in the second half of this year' and accusing him of lying. He also said it was 'very unfair' that the legislation would eliminate tax incentives for electric vehicles. Trump fired back in real time as he tried to maintain momentum for his legislation, which faces a difficult debate in the Senate. 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago,' the president posted. 'This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress.' Meanwhile, some of Trump's allies plotted revenge. Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser who hosts an influential conservative podcast, said the president should direct the U.S. government to seize SpaceX. He also encouraged Trump to investigate allegations that Musk uses drugs and 'go through everything about his immigration status' in preparation for potential deportation. 'We'll see how good Elon Musk takes a little of that pressure,' Bannon said, 'because I happen to think a little of that pressure might be coming.'

Supreme Court rewrites NEPA rules—changing the game for environmental reviews
Supreme Court rewrites NEPA rules—changing the game for environmental reviews

Fast Company

time28 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

Supreme Court rewrites NEPA rules—changing the game for environmental reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways, and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions —until now. In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game. Whether the effects are good or bad depends on the viewer's perspective. Either way, there is a new interpretation in place for the law that is the centerpiece of the debate about permitting—the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, known as NEPA. Taking a big-picture look NEPA requires federal agencies to document and describe the environmental effects of any proposed action, including construction of oil pipelines, renewable energy, and other infrastructure projects. Only after completing that work can the agency make a final decision to approve or deny the project. These reports must evaluate direct effects, such as the destruction of habitat to make way for a new highway, and indirect effects, such as the air pollution from cars using the highway after it is built. Decades of litigation about the scope of indirect effects have widened the required evaluation. As I explain it to my students, that logical and legal progression is reminiscent of the popular children's book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, in which granting a request for a cookie triggers a seemingly endless series of further requests—for a glass of milk, a napkin, and so on. For the highway example, the arguments went, even if the agency properly assessed the pollution from the cars, it also had to consider the new subdivisions, malls, and jobs the new highway foreseeably could induce. The challenge for federal agencies was knowing how much of that potentially limitless series of indirect effects courts would require them to evaluate. In recent litigation, the question in particular has been how broad a range of effects on and from climate change could be linked to any one specific project and therefore require evaluation. With the court's ruling, federal agencies' days of uncertainty are over. Biggest NEPA case in decades On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court (minus Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had recused himself) decided the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the first major NEPA dispute before the court in 20 years. At issue was an 85-mile rail line a group of developers proposed to build in Utah to connect oil wells to the interstate rail network and from there transport waxy crude oil to refineries in Louisiana, Texas, and elsewhere. The federal Surface Transportation Board reviewed the environmental effects and approved the required license in 2021. The report was 637 pages long, with more than 3,000 pages of appendices containing additional information. It acknowledged but did not give a detailed assessment of the indirect 'upstream' effects of constructing the rail line—such as spurring new oil drilling—and the indirect 'downstream' effects of the ultimate use of the waxy oil in places as far-flung as Louisiana. In February 2022, Eagle County, Colorado, through which trains coming from the new railway would pass, along with the Center for Biological Diversity appealed that decision in federal court, arguing that the board had failed to properly explain why it did not assess those effects. Therefore, the county argued, the report was incomplete and the board license should be vacated. In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and held that the agency had failed to adequately explain why it could not employ 'some degree of forecasting' to identify those impacts and that the board could prevent those effects by exercising its authority to deny the license. The railway developers appealed to the Supreme Court, asking whether NEPA requires a federal agency to look beyond the action being proposed to evaluate indirect effects outside its own jurisdiction. A resounding declaration Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a ringing, table-pounding lecture about courts run amok. Kavanaugh did not stop to provide specific support for each admonition, describing NEPA as a ' legislative acorn ' that has 'grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development.' He bemoaned the 'delay upon delay' NEPA imposes on projects as so complicated that it bordered 'on the Kafkaesque.' In his view, 'NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents.' He called for 'a course correction . . . to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense.' His opinion reset the course in three ways. First, despite the Supreme Court having recently reduced the deference courts must give to federal agency decisions in other contexts, Kavanaugh wrote that courts should give agencies strong deference when reviewing an agency's NEPA effects analyses. Because these assessments are 'fact-dependent, context-specific, and policy-laden choices about the depth and breadth of its inquiry . . . (c)ourts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.' Second, Kavanaugh crafted a new rule saying that the review of one project did not need to consider the potential indirect effects of other related projects it could foreseeably induce, such as the rail line encouraging more drilling for oil. This limitation is especially relevant, Kavanaugh emphasized, when the effects are from projects over which the reviewing agency does not have jurisdiction. That applied in this case, because the board does not regulate oil wells or oil drilling. And third, Kavanaugh created something like a 'no harm, no foul' rule, under which 'even if an [environmental impact statement] falls short in some respects, that deficiency may not necessarily require a court to vacate the agency's ultimate approval of a project.' The strong implication is that courts should not overturn an agency decision unless its NEPA assessment has a serious flaw. The upshot for the project at hand was that the Supreme Court deferred to the board's decision that it could not reliably predict the rail line's effects on oil drilling or use of the oil transported. And the fact that the agency had no regulatory power over those separate issues reinforced the idea that those concerns were outside the scope of the board's required review. A split court Although Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that she would have reached the same end result and upheld the agency permit, her proposed test is far narrower. By her reading, the federal law creating the Surface Transportation Board restricted it from considering the broader indirect effects of the rail line. But her finding would be relevant only for any federal agencies whose governing statutes were similarly restrictive. By contrast, Kavanaugh's 'course correction' applies to judicial review of NEPA findings for all federal agencies. Though the full effects remain to be seen, this decision significantly changes the legal landscape of environmental reviews of major projects. Agencies will have more latitude to shorten the causal chain of indirect effects they consider, and to exclude them entirely if they flow from separate projects beyond the agency's regulatory control. Now, for example, if a federal agency is considering an application to build a new natural gas power plant, the review must still include its direct greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on the climate. But emissions that could result from additional gas extraction and transportation projects to fuel the power plant, and any climate effects from whatever the produced electricity is used for, are now clearly outside the agency's required review. And if the agency voluntarily decided to consider any of those effects, courts would have to defer to its analysis, and any minor deficiencies would be inconsequential.

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