U.S. calls reported threats by pro-Iran hackers to release Trump-tied material a ‘smear campaign'
WASHINGTON — Pro-Iran hackers have threatened to release emails supposedly stolen from people connected to U.S. President Donald Trump, according to a news report, a move that federal authorities call a 'calculated smear campaign.'
The United States has warned of continued Iranian cyberattacks following American strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and the threats those could pose to services, economic systems and companies.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said late Monday that the threat to expose emails about Trump is 'nothing more than digital propaganda' meant to damage Trump and other federal officials.
'A hostile foreign adversary is threatening to illegally exploit purportedly stolen and unverified material in an effort to distract, discredit, and divide,' CISA spokeswoman Marci McCarthy wrote in a social media post, linking to a report from Reuters about the threat. 'These criminals will be found, and they will be brought to justice.'
Reuters reported that it contacted the alleged hackers online. They told the news organization that it held a large cache of emails from Trump chief of staff Susie Wiles, other top advisers and porn actor Stormy Daniels, to whom a hush money payment led to Trump's criminal conviction.
Federal prosecutors charged three Iranians last year on allegations of hacking into Trump's presidential campaign. Hackers also targeted the campaign of Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and unsuccessfully tried to leak material supposedly taken from Trump to Democrats and members of the media.
The threat to release more hacked emails was reported the same day that CISA, the FBI and National Security Agency issued a public bulletin warning that hacking groups supportive of Tehran may attack U.S. interests despite a fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel.
The hackers, authorities warned, could seek to disrupt or disable critical infrastructure systems such as utilities, transportation and economic hubs. They also could target defense contractors or other American companies with ties to Israel, the agencies said.
The bulletin outlined recommendations, including the use of regular software updates and strong password management systems to shore up digital defenses.
Hackers backing Tehran have targeted U.S. banks, defense contractors and energy companies following American strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities — but so far have not caused widespread disruptions.
David Klepper, The Associated Press
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
8 minutes ago
- CTV News
Elon Musk wants to create a new political party. Building rockets may be easier
(Elon Musk looks on during a news conference with U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on May 30. Allison Robbert/AFP/Getty Images via CNN Newsource) Elon Musk has started multiple successful companies that have accomplished incredible technological feats. His latest ambition may be significantly more difficult to achieve: starting a new American political party for the masses. Citing his disappointment in U.S. President Donald Trump and his massively expensive domestic policy bill, Musk said he would form the 'America party' the day after the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' passes, if Congress approves it. Musk has called Democrats and Republicans the 'uniparty' because government deficits have risen dramatically under administrations and Congresses controlled by both parties. He says he wants to build a fiscally conservative party that reins in spending – although he's presented few other details of what the party's platform might be. Experts in campaign finance and political science say there's a reason no third party has ever truly successfully challenged America's two-party system: It is financially and legally difficult to create a new party, and voters and candidates are hesitant to join. 'Third-party movements in the US have generally arisen out of some sort of set of deep-seated grievances,' Emory University political science professor Alan Abramowitz told CNN. 'It was not just some wealthy person who's decided they wanted to start a third party.' It's not clear how much if any preparation has been done to stand up the party. A spokesperson for Musk's political action committee, America PAC, declined to comment. A senior White House official brushed off Musk's criticism of the bill. 'No one really cares what he says anymore,' the source said. Two Republicans close to the White House said that it was also unclear how Musk's threats might play out in the midterm elections. 'Of course, members don't want to be primaried,' one of the sources said. 'It's unclear if he's actually going to get involved. A few weeks ago he apologized and called Trump.' Musk may be the richest person on Earth, but he could also encounter some financial resistance himself. Former DOGE adviser and Trump supporter James Fishback said he is launching his own super PAC to counter Musk's money in congressional races. Fishback, who runs an investment firm, said he will provide $1 million in initial funding to the super PAC, which will be called FSD PAC, an abbreviation for Full Support for Donald. He told CNN that the super PAC will work to back Trump's agenda 'and against anyone who threatens to sabotage that agenda,' including Musk. Legal hurdles American political parties are governed by laws and rules not just from the Federal Election Commission but also from the states, including around which parties can appear on ballots. 'The system is sort of set up to almost make it impossible for third parties to be successful,' Abramowitz said. Funding a new party has its own hurdles. The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2022 set strict limits on donations to political parties. The current limit is just under $450,000 spread across different party purposes. Musk would need thousands of co-donors to help him fund his party, said Lee Goodman, an attorney and former chair of the FEC. 'One very wealthy individual cannot capitalize a new national political party, the way he might start a business, because of federal contribution limits,' Goodman told CNN. 'The prospect of a wealthy founder seed funding a national party to participate in federal elections around the country is not feasible in the current regulatory system.' Bradley Smith, another former FEC chair and who is now a law professor at Capital University Law School, said there are some ways around the current regulations. 'There is some case law suggesting that some of the organizational activities of a party and starting a party right can be funded with larger contributions, until it actually qualifies for party status under the election commission regulations,' Smith said, but he noted it's complex and difficult to do. 'You can fund super PACs all you want. But you can't fund a political party, as a strange part of American law,' he added. Super PACs are not legally allowed to coordinate spending with parties or candidates, although previous candidates have tested these limits, as nothing prohibits coordination when the information is shared publicly. 'Coordination has, in fact, become commonplace,' the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center has said. Then there's getting on the actual ballots. States have different rules, such as requiring a certain number of signatures. 'It would take years and might require changes in laws around the country that currently favor two major political parties,' Goodman noted Political hurdles Beyond the legal and logistical hurdles, there's convincing candidates to join and voters to cast their ballots for them. Despite varying approval levels, party loyalties remain strong, Abramowitz said, especially among Republicans, who have coalesced around Trump. 'The biggest obstacle is just that it's very difficult to convince people to vote for a third-party candidate because the argument is always 'you're wasting your vote. You're voting for someone who has no chance of winning elections,'' Abramowitz said. Candidates may also be wary. Democrats are unlikely to run under the America Party because 'Democrats hate Elon Musk,' Abramowitz said. And Republicans 'have clearly shown that they're much more attached to Donald Trump than they are to Elon Musk.' Republicans highly approve of Trump, according to CNN Chief Data Analyst Harry Enten's aggregation of available polling data. Some 90 precent of Republicans approve of Trump's performance thus far in this presidency, and he is doing better in approval ratings five months into the presidency than former Republican presidents. And in 96 per cent of the 2024 primary races where Trump endorsed, those candidates won. If creating a new political party proves too difficult, Musk could still hold a lot of sway through his super PAC, to which he can send unlimited funds. That PAC can then support independent candidates, who could also have an easier time getting on ballots. 'Independent spending, individually or via a super PAC, remains the most legal and practical mechanism for a wealthy individual to have a say in national politics,' Goodman said. Article written by Hadas Gold, CNN CNN's Kristen Holmes and Fredreka Schouten contributed reporting.
CTV News
11 minutes ago
- CTV News
Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul delivers remarks following a hearing before Dane County Wisconsin Judge Diane Schlipper, which challenges a feticide law in Madison, Wis., May 4, 2023. (John Hart/Wisconsin State Journal via AP, File) MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother 'intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child.' It was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending. Todd Richmond, The Associated Press
Vancouver Sun
18 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
Paramount to pay $16 million in settlement with Trump over '60 Minutes' interview
In a case seen as a challenge to free speech, Paramount has agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump over the editing of CBS' ' 60 Minutes' interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in October. Paramount told media outlets the money will go to Trump's future presidential library, not to the president himself. It said the settlement did not involve an apology. Trump's lawyer said the president had suffered 'mental anguish' over the editing of the interview by CBS News, while Paramount and CBS rejected his contention that it was edited to enhance how Harris sounded. They had sought to get Trump's lawsuit dismissed. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. There was no immediate word from the White House about the settlement of the case, which Trump filed in Amarillo, Texas. The case has been closely watched by advocates for press freedom and by journalists within CBS, whose lawyers called Trump's lawsuit 'completely without merit' and promised to vigorously fight it after it was filed. In early February, '60 Minutes' released a full, unedited transcript of the interview. Under the settlement reached with help of a mediator, Paramount agreed that '60 Minutes' will release transcripts of future interviews of presidential candidates, 'subject to redactions as required for legal and national security concerns,' CBS News cited the statement as saying. Trump, who did not agree to be interviewed by '60 Minutes' during the campaign, protested editing where Harris is seen giving two different answers to a question by the show's Bill Whitaker in separate clips aired on '60 Minutes' and 'Face the Nation' earlier in the day. CBS said each reply came within Harris' long-winded answer to Whitaker, but was edited to be more succinct. The president's lawyer, Edward Andrew Paltzik, said that caused confusion and 'mental anguish,' misleading voters and causing them to pay less attention to Trump and his Truth Social platform. Paramount and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone were seeking the settlement with Trump, whose administration must approve the company's proposed merger with Skydance Media. CBS News President and CEO Wendy McMahon and '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens, who both opposed a settlement, have resigned in recent weeks. The Freedom of the Press Foundation, a media advocacy group that says it is a Paramount shareholder, has said that it would file a lawsuit in protest if a settlement was reached. In December, ABC News settled a defamation lawsuit by Trump over statements made by anchor George Stephanopoulos, agreeing to pay $15 million toward Trump's presidential library rather than engage in a public fight. Meta reportedly paid $25 million to settle Trump's lawsuit against the company over its decision to suspend his social media accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
