Senators from both parties Thursday probed Trump administration officials about whether federal agencies and foreign governments are coordinated enough in the battle against scammers, something witnesses told the Foreign Relations Committee they were working to remedy.

At least 13 federal agencies have authorities to counter scams, raising questions about whether someone needs to be in charge of all those efforts. And while there was some bipartisan sentiment at Thursday’s hearing that the Trump administration has taken good actions to battle scammers, both lawmakers and administration officials said that scam operations have demonstrated that cracking down on them in one place often just leads to them going elsewhere.

Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., compared the situation to an international initiative that gained prominence in the 1990s to counter drug trafficking, Joint Interagency Task Force South.

“Given that today’s scam centers are similarly transnational, combining cybercrime, human trafficking, money laundering and cryptocurrency, has the threat reached the point that we should establish a comparable multinational coordination mechanism?” he asked.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., focused on federal coordination: She paraphrased a former federal official who said, “there is nobody that is heading that effort up across agencies. We need to treat this like combat, and so we need somebody in charge.”

Shaheen, the top Democrat on the panel, is a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Scam Compound Accountability and Mobilization (SCAM) Act, which seeks to unify federal efforts on the subject.

A State Department official told Shaeen scammers were a national security priority for President Donald Trump, and that his executive order on the topic sought to tackle coordination.

“I do understand that this is a whole-of-government approach, and many agencies are focused on this,” said David Bedard, deputy assistant secretary at State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs “The Action plan that was directed by the president is currently in the interagency review process to deconflict some of the concerns that you have raised. We certainly think the task force that will be implanted through the executive order will solve the problems you might be referencing.”

There’s also an international plan under the task force, he said. Currently, the administration shares intelligence on scammers with foreign allies, and Interpol has “productive” channels to work through there and is setting up its own task force, Bedard said, but there are concerns about other countries taking similar, duplicative action.

There have been signs of progress on the international front, Bedard and another State Department witness told the panel.

Michael DeSombre, assistant secretary at the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said Trump has raised the subject with Chinese President Xi Jinping, and that China has used its influence in Asia as its own citizens have become scam victims. Still, there’s been more progress in countries where the United States has stronger relations, such as Cambodia, than in those where ties aren’t as close, like Burma and Laos.

In Cambodia, one key has been pursuing scam center bosses first and foremost, Bedard said.

The post Capitol Hill wants to know if executive branch, foreign allies coordinated enough to combat scams appeared first on CyberScoop.

The UK’s AI Security Institute said that their AI research system took “unsanctioned” actions over the internet to engage in “sustained, potentially harmful activity directed at real people.”

According to a blog post and technical report released Tuesday, the organization noticed “unusual data transfers” leaving their research systems through the pseudo-anonymous Tor network on July 28. The models, which included Anthropic’s Mythos 5 and OpenAI’s GPT-5.6-Sol models, were being tested for their cybersecurity capabilities.

Like the OpenAI and Anthropic incidents before it, the offending agents were attempting to solve a challenge. On 10 of 122 runs taken by two models, they took a combined 19 malicious actions, including attempting to insert malicious code into a real open-source software project and creating fake online identities to contact human maintainers and press them to approve it.

It also inserted malicious prompt injection instructions in places “where it reasoned that other automated AI systems might pick them up and execute them.” Sometimes multiple agents would collaborate on a task, with one model leaving public messages or notes for the other on GitHub.

However, AISI said their incident differs in one critical way.

“Importantly, this was not a case of a model escaping its secure test environment, or ‘sandbox,’” the institute wrote in an unsigned blog. “As was standard in our cyber testing, we had intentionally permitted internet access, and model-provider cyber classifiers were deliberately disabled – conditions that do not reflect how frontier models are made available to the public.”

The institute said that while their own design and evaluation choices “to some degree” enabled the malicious behavior, the models still displayed “novel, potentially deceptive behaviors” and were executed “to an extent and severity that we did not anticipate.”

The same day, OpenAI acknowledged AISI and another third-party cybersecurity tester,  private firm Irregular, had recently reported incidents where their models exceeded “beyond their intended testing boundaries.”

That included GPT-5.6-Sol reusing GitHub tokens left by another agent to attempt to recover accounts and to access a DNS server that contained malicious payloads meant to exploit a software vulnerability.

The setup did not work, there is no evidence any real resolver queried it, and the infrastructure was removed when the evaluation ended,” the company wrote in an unsigned blog post Tuesday.

OpenAI said it would review its own third-party testing procedures to focus on higher risk evaluations, assess requests by third-parties to enable internet access, stop conditions and other features for their models.

The incident with Irregular occurred on July 29 during a Capture-the-Flag cybersecurity evaluation of OpenAI’s models. Due to a “misconfiguration” the models were allowed to access the public internet, where they encountered and exploited a real domain, mistakenly believing it was still in a test environment.

OpenAI said an investigation by Irregular is ongoing, but also found that the models had found and used credentials for the site at one point. The blog also references other additional potential cybersecurity incidents.

“Irregular has informed us that all of the issues identified pertaining to the incident are no longer active and relevant safeguards were added to the testing environment,” the blog said. “Irregular has also communicated about related incidents involving other labs from the same testing environment.”

CyberScoop has reached out to Irregular for comment.

The incidents were made public the same day that the White House met with Anthropic, Open AI and other frontier AI companies to preview a new framework for evaluating models before they’re released publicly. Some media outlets have reported that after an executive order, export controls and other actions, the administration does not plan to make the new framework public.

The post AISI, OpenAI report more ‘unsanctioned’ model hacks appeared first on CyberScoop.

President Donald Trump blamed Minnesota Friday for the cyberattacks its water systems have suffered in recent days, saying the state was “behind it.”

Trump said the state being “incompetent” was the issue, but it wasn’t clear whom he thought actually conducted cyberattacks that U.S. investigators have attributed to Iran — if, perhaps, somehow Minnesota incompetently cyberattacked itself. The White House referred a request for clarification back to Trump’s remarks.

“I think that Minnesota is behind it,” Trump told reporters Friday. “Because they’re grossly incompetent. I don’t think there was an Iranian cyberattack. I think Minnesota ought to get its act together.”

The White House also didn’t clarify whom the president believed was behind similar attacks in other states, when asked for comment. Trump has repeatedly used federal power aggressively in Minnesota, a state led by Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat who was on the ticket that ran against him in 2024 as the vice presidential nominee. Trump also has downplayed Iranian attacks amid the war he launched against the nation with Israel in February.

A number of cyber experts quickly pushed back on Trump’s comments after he made them.

“Victim blaming in cyber is so 2000 and late,” cybersecurity pioneer Chris Wysopal, Veracode co-founder and chief security evangelist, said on the Bluesky social media platform. Said Jake Williams, a member of the IANS faculty: “His own intelligence services are attributing this to Iran.”

Andy Jabbour — founder and CEO of Gate 15, a cybersecurity firm which provides support to the water sector — told CyberScoop that, “speaking candidly, I’m not even sure what he was actually saying or suggesting Minnesota’s government did or didn’t do.”

“Attribution is tricky business,” he continued, referencing recent alerts from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and others. “But logically, given an ongoing war with Iran, recent statements made by Iran-aligned threat groups, with assessments that the recent activity is aligned with recent CISA warnings, given yesterday’s statements from CISA and the FBI, random unsubstantiated allegations aimed at political opponents seem reckless and are a disservice to the American people.”

Walz struck back at Trump in a Facebook post, noting steps from his Department of Government Efficiency to slash federal funding. CISA has shrunken considerably under Trump, and his administration has pushed states to defend against cyberattacks that feds once countered.

“Trump knows exactly who is responsible for this attack, and knows that other states were hit too,” Walz said. “This is what modern warfare looks like, and it further illustrates there’s no plan to win a war with Iran.”

“DOGE took an axe to CISA and left the U.S. exposed to cyber attacks,” he continued. “Thankfully, our experts in Minnesota were able to identify the vulnerability quickly and work with local communities to stop it.”

A spokesperson for Minnesota IT Services, a state agency that has been responding to the water cyberattacks, declined to address Trump’s remarks.

“We remain focused on supporting affected communities, securing critical infrastructure and coordinating with local partners and federal officials as the investigation continues,” the spokesperson, Emily Zimmer, told CyberScoop. “We will not comment on political statements or speculate about attribution.”

Other cyber professionals declined to comment directly on Trump’s remarks, but offered thoughts on who was behind the attacks and their motives.

Bryson Bort, CEO and founder of Scythe said the evidence supports the attribution with Iran, and that it looks like hackers there found something they could exploit on the internet and seized the chance.

“This was a target of opportunity,” said Bort, co-founder of the ICS Village, a non-profit advancing awareness of industrial control system security; such systems are common in the water sector. “It wasn’t that Minnesota did something as a state to raise Iran’s ire.”

Cynthia Kaiser, a former top FBI cyber official, said that when the bureau conducts attributions, it looks at technical indicators but also who has the capability, who has conducted similar attacks in the past and what the purpose of the attacks is.

“Iran ticks all these kinds of things,” Kaiser, now senior vice president at cybersecurity firm Halcyon, told CyberScoop. “My view is, if it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, I strongly suspect it’s a duck. I’d be shocked if we found out it wasn’t Iran.”

Just last week, CISA updated an advisory about how Iranian hackers were targeting programmable logic controllers in the water sector and other sectors, a warning that the water industry’s information sharing and analysis center said it believed.

“WaterISAC is confident in our government partners’ assessment that the confirmed activity is aligned with the joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) AA26-097A ‘Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across U.S. Critical Infrastructure’ published and recently updated by CISA,” Tom Dobbins, executive director, WaterISAC, told CyberScoop. “We have evidence of earlier attacks from Iran even before this current conflict. Cyber attacks are the most viable way that Iran can directly attack our homeland, and it is logical that they would do so, especially given the challenges of absolute attribution.”

The water sector is often viewed as one of the most vulnerable critical infrastructure sectors, and Dobbins called on Congress to provide funding to provide funding for the ISAC.

Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., also took issue with Trump’s comments.

“The President provided an unserious response that is beneath the dignity of the office he holds. Iran’s purported cyberattack on Minnesota’s water infrastructure must be taken as a serious threat to our national security.  Smith said in a statement, adding that she’s been in touch with CISA and the FBI and was grateful to Minnesota’s IT experts. “The entire situation serves as a stark reminder of the danger this war puts us in the longer it drags on.”

Fellow Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar had earlier been in touch with Sean Cairncross, the national cyber director and a Minnesota native, about the incident.

Trump has previously displayed a laissez-faire view toward other cyberattacks on the United States, such as when he’s been asked about Chinese and Russian cyberattacks and Trump shrugs them off as something America does, too.

He also has cast doubt before on his government officials’ assessments of who’s responsible for cyberattacks on the United States, such as when he asserted China rather than Russia was behind the landmark SolarWinds breach.

Updated 8/3/2026: with comments from Minnesota’s senators.

The post Trump blames Minnesota for cyberattacks on water sector, drawing pushback from cyber world appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency published a guidebook for federal agencies Thursday to aid them on managing security risks with open-source software, touching on topics like patching and open-source AI models.

An executive order President Joe Biden signed and that President Donald Trump amended ordered CISA and other agencies to issue open-source security recommendations to federal agencies. But the guidance is also timely, given a recent slew of attacks on open-source software (OSS).

“As part of our statutory mission, CISA remains laser-focused on enhancing the nation’s cybersecurity by collaborating with government, industry and the open-source community to understand and securely use OSS,” said Chris Butera, acting executive assistant director for cybersecurity. “CISA encourages federal civilian agencies to review this guide and implement the principles and practices to improve risk management, better execute their mission, and better serve the public.” 

The document, “Open Source Software: Security Principles and Practices,” touts the advantages of open-source software — which anyone can use, modify and share — as offering benefits in efficiency, cost, security transparency and more, but notes that it also has unique tradeoffs.

“All software carries risk, and OSS is no more or less risky than other software. The key distinction is that, with OSS, agencies can directly assess code quality and security, rather than relying solely on vendor assurances,” the guidance reads. “OSS is increasingly intertwined with emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. Agencies that adapt to OSS’s unique characteristics will position themselves to meet future challenges and leverage new innovations.”

The guidance says that agencies need to take steps to evaluate the trustworthiness of an OSS project before approving an OSS component for use, and track OSS in their asset management repositories. It details how agencies should deal with patching, including when there’s a new OSS vulnerability that doesn’t have one. It offers advice on how agencies might contribute to OSS projects, produce them and secure rights for government reuse of code when contracting for custom software development. And it explains how it should approach open-weight AI models.

“Agencies should approach ‘open source’ AI systems differently from other OSS because open source licenses for AI software do not require the level of transparency needed to evaluate the trustworthiness of the software,” the guidance states.

Æva Black, an open-source security expert and former OSS lead at CISA, said she applauded her former agency for the guidance, telling CyberScoop that it “demonstrates a grounded understanding of the global, diverse, and participatory nature of open source software development, and provides essential guidance for federal agencies to safely use open soure during a crucial moment.” 

She singled out its recommendations on the risks of deploying unverifiable open-weight AI models on sensitive networks.

“Due to recent advances in AI, particularly in large language models capable of finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities, vulnerability management is facing a global crisis,” she said. “Many proprietary software vendors are using this as an opportunity to spread ‘fear, uncertainty, and doubt’ about open source in order to capture public attention, and, I presume, public money — but when used responsibly and maintained collaboratively, I believe open source software is, and will remain, the safest and most cost-effective means for building large scale public infrastructure.” 

CISA has produced a bevy of security guidance and updated advisory materials this week: on the creation of software bills of materials written in conjunction with other agencies and allied governments that won praise from experts; on the isolation of vital operational technology during a crisis, also written with other agencies and allied governments; and the release of updated secure cloud configuration baselines for Google Workspace.

The post CISA issues recommendations to federal agencies on open-source software security appeared first on CyberScoop.

One of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in the quantum race will be the supply chain, given how diffuse it is, a top White House official said Wednesday.

“Supply chain is one of the biggest challenges in my mind, and really, the challenge with the quantum supply chain is that quantum is not defined by a single hardware platform,” said Brad Blakestad, director of the National Quantum Coordination Office within the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

“If you look at the quantum computing technologies, the quantum sensing technologies, the networking — those are all different,” he said in a webinar hosted by Inside Cybersecurity and USTelecom. “And even within computing, there’s seven different modalities that use completely different components. So we have this not just one monolithic supply chain, but just a bunch of different supply chains that are kind of intertwined in various ways.”

Blakestad made his remarks a little more than a month after President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on quantum computing. He referenced proposed ways to address the supply chain challenge in one of the orders.

“The other major issue or challenge that we face right now is that we’re on the cusp of quantum exploding from a commercialization perspective, but we’re not quite there yet,” he said. “So there’s not the funding, the revenue coming from large-scale quantum companies at this point to really make the supply chain as robust as you would want. So thinking about it from the government perspective, it’s just [that] there are too many places that I would want to bolster and not enough funding to do it.”

Blakestad touted steps to help that along such as the government buying widgets from a company that makes them to certain specifications, or prize challenges.

The quantum supply chain isn’t just diffuse in the United States, an International Institute for Strategic Studies policy paper noted Wednesday. It’s “inherently international: no single country dominates the supply chain, whether specialised materials, cryogenic equipment, hardware, software, fabrication or algorithms,” the authors, Dongyoun Cho and Maria Shagina, wrote.

And a March report from the Center for a New American Security identified strengthening the quantum supply chain as pivotal to the United States seizing the benefits of the technology, citing gaps in the U.S. supply chain and reliance on foreign suppliers such as China and Russia. 

Supply chain wasn’t the only obstacle Blakestad mentioned as looming large.

“The encryption challenge is a real challenge, and we want to make sure that we are aware of when quantum computers will ultimately get to a scale that they start having these sorts of implications and move as quickly as we can,” he said. “So, just by owning the technologies, by owning the workforce, by making the United States the place that people want to come to be on the cutting edge of this technology, I think that kind of addresses both of those issues, and that’s what makes it so critical.”

Another difficulty is measuring progress, Blakestad said: “It’s also very, very hard to benchmark, and to know that you’re actually doing what you’re supposed to, what you are intending to do.”

The post Supply chain challenges loom large in quantum race, White House official says appeared first on CyberScoop.

Industry groups who spoke at town halls hosted by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency about a pending cyber incident notification regulation had a few consistent messages:

We want this to apply to fewer of us. We don’t want to report to you on as many incidents. We want to give you less information when we do. 

CISA last week published transcripts from the town halls, where the agency sought feedback on the delayed rule for the 2022 Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act — perhaps the most significant cyber legislation Congress has ever passed. That law required critical infrastructure owners to report major cyberattacks to the federal government within 72 hours, and ransomware payments within 24 hours.

The law was designed to let the feds share information about significant incidents more widely to prepare other would-be victims. CISA published a proposed rule on the law in 2024 to define terms like “covered cyber incident” and more, and industry groups have persistently registered their objections since then.

CISA missed the October 2025 deadline for finalizing the rule, then missed a May reset target date, and now the administration says the rule will be completed in September.

Some industry sources told CyberScoop they consider that unlikely. Most also haven’t received any indications from CISA about how much of the town hall feedback it intends to embrace, they said.

Companies, incidents, information 

Those town hall comments over the course of four June dates were often very direct.

“The rule includes too many companies,” said Grant MacIntyre, director of regulatory affairs and senior attorney at the Auto Care Association. CISA estimated that more than 300,000 entities will be subject to its requirements.

Some industries advocated for their removal entirely, such as two different groups representing elements of the insurance sector. Some sought to reduce the number affected within their sector, such as the Nuclear Energy Institute wanting the list cut down to those already subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission cybersecurity reporting requirements.

While CISA wrote the regulation with the intention to avoid overburdening small businesses, some feared it wouldn’t work that way in practice.

“The current approach where an entity qualifies either by size or by sector effectively negates the intended limitation on small businesses,” said Douglas Leigh, vice president of legislative affairs for the Alliance for Chemical Distribution. “In chemical distribution, even small entities could be swept in under multiple cyber categories.”

Where the rule specifies what kind of data organizations should report in a major incident, CISA should “seek to collect the least amount of information possible in the easiest to report fashion to facilitate information accuracy and reporting speed,” said Samantha Burch, vice president of technology public policy at government affairs at AHIP, a health insurance industry trade association.

Many, for instance, argued the report should not include information on the affected entities’ security measures.

Others worried about what kind of incidents would trigger reporting requirements.

“My big concern is that you’re going to be asking us to report incidents on every time some foreign entity tickles our firewall, whether they do anything or not, if they just do a ping or a search,” said Tim Pospisil, chief security officer for Nebraska Public Power District. “And that could be extremely burdensome.”

Industry Expectations

One industry representative told CyberScoop that CISA’s willingness to hold town halls, combined with the Trump administration strategy emphasizing “common sense regulation,” was a good sign about where the rule might be heading.

‘They are not picking up on the Biden administration’s approach and tweaking it. They’re thinking, ‘What are the specific pieces of information we need during a cyber incident to help critical infrastructure companies respond?’” said Henry Young, senior director of policy for the Business Software Alliance. “In general, industry is optimistic that what we’ll end up with are a few of the most important pieces of information, so that in the emergency, companies can act quickly and actually respond to an incident rather than completing lots of paperwork.”

But multiple industry sources said they haven’t gotten many indications about CISA’s intentions. Nor are they optimistic CISA can meet the September target date in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

“It could slip,” one said. “But I think they’re going to try.”

That industry source said they’d like to see a proposal from CISA before it cements anything forever.

Another industry source said it’s hard to trust the September date given past CISA delays, some of which aren’t CISA’s fault, such as dealing with multiple government shutdowns. Some of the delays trace to the Trump administration, given the massive cuts to CISA’s personnel.

Congress is also getting impatient.

The House Appropriations Committee “is concerned about delays in publishing the final CIRCIA rule and urges CISA to finalize it promptly following stakeholder review and feedback,” the panel wrote in the committee report for its fiscal 2027 Department of Homeland Security spending bill.

It’s a much different world than when CISA began writing the rule, something the agency also has to take into account now.

“AI has fundamentally changed the playing field,” the source said. “When this was set up, we didn’t even have the first generation of ChatGPT. We’re now in a mythos class environment.” That’s changed “how quickly we can identify threats, mitigate them, the level of human intervention, potential machine engagement.”

While CISA might have good intentions, past interactions give cause for skepticism about how capable it is of working collaboratively with industry, the source said.

Another industry source said conversations with CISA suggest the agency will look to simplify the regulation to keep it smaller and narrower, then potentially build upon it later.

From CISA’s mouth

Nick Andersen, the acting director of CISA, talked about his overarching intentions with CIRCIA at the town halls.

“CISA does not view CIRCIA as simply a check-the-box compliance exercise,” Andersen said at one. “CIRCIA will enhance visibility into the cyberthreat landscape to enable a robust national early warning capability for critical infrastructure. By quickly reporting covered cyber incidents and ransom payments to CISA, we will be able to provide timely and actionable defensive and eviction measures to your network defenders.”

Asked by CyberScoop about next steps for CIRCIA, and how it might incorporate the industry feedback, a spokesperson provided a statement.

“CISA recognizes the importance of CIRCIA, however, multiple funding lapses impacted CISA’s ability to conduct rulemaking activity for CIRCIA. CISA continues to work on the final rule,” the spokesperson said, adding that 1,200 critical infrastructure stakeholders attended the town halls.  “CISA will continue to communicate updates on the CIRCIA rulemaking process and timeline through CISA.gov/CIRCIA and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.”

The post Industry’s message on CIRCIA: Please ask us fewer questions about cyberattacks appeared first on CyberScoop.

Seven out of 10 federal cyber regulations requiring written reports to federal agencies are duplicated elsewhere, a report from a government watchdog found in a report to Congress Wednesday.

And so far, efforts to de-conflict haven’t had much success, the report from the Government Accountability Office concluded.

At the request of two top lawmakers, the GAO examined federal cyber regulations at 37 agencies. It counted 80 out of 117 rules that “either contain the same kind of reporting requirement applicable to a sector or the same reporting requirement as at least one other regulation.”

The desire to harmonize those conflicting rules gathered steam under the Biden administration, as it undertook a more aggressive push to regulate cybersecurity than prior administrations. It has continued into the second Trump administration.

The GAO scrutinized regulations that required the private sector to report cybersecurity incidents, plans and reviews to federal agencies, as part of a study sought by House Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., and the top Democrat on the Senate counterpart to Garbarino’s panel, Gary Peters, D-Mich.

In some cases, a single critical infrastructure sector could have duplication with several agencies. For example, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has been working on a regulation stemming from the 2022 Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA), which would require critical infrastructure owners and operators to report when they are the victims of major attacks or make ransomware payments.

Elements of the financial services sector might fall under one of 15 preexisting cybersecurity reporting rules, depending on the agency that has oversight, but they may also be subject to the pending CIRCIA rules, GAO noted.

A 2024 national security memorandum tasked the Office of the National Cyber Director and the Department of Homeland Security to harmonize conflicting regulations, and both agencies made some progress on those goals.

But the executive branch paused some of those efforts after Trump issued an executive order in March of last year while the administration conducted a study of the 2024 memo, a study that was still underway as of last month, according to the GAO.

As such, on harmonization, “many past federal efforts have experienced delays and made limited progress,” the GAO concluded in its report Wednesday, its latest on the topic. 

Congress has also looked at ways to streamline cybersecurity regulations.

GAO’s study was focused only on federal rules. BreachRx, a cyber incident response firm, published its own report Wednesday looking at major cyber incidents and how overlapping regulatory reporting obligations came into play, folding in regulations from states and other sources.

The post Most federal cybersecurity reporting rules are duplicative, study finds appeared first on CyberScoop.

A top White House technology official is accusing a Chinese company of distilling Anthropic’s models to create their own AI product.

Michael Kratsios, who leads the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, claimed that Moonshot AI, a Beijing, China-based AI company, had distilled Anthropic’s recently-released Fable model to develop its own K3 model.

“To do this they developed a sophisticated internal platform to conduct large scale distillation against U.S. models, allowing them to quickly switch between multiple methods of access to avoid detection,” Kratsios wrote on X Wednesday.

Kratsios also said the company has used GB300 servers – either newly acquired or through Thailand – to train its AI models.

“The United States strongly supports the free and fair development of AI, including a thriving competitive ecosystem that spans frontier models, specialized systems, open-source frameworks, and open-weight models,” Kratsios continued. “Legitimate AI distillation used to create smaller, more efficient models plays a vital role in this open innovation ecosystem. However, large-scale, covert industrial distillation aimed at stealing proprietary U.S. technology and undermining American research is unacceptable.”

Kratsios did not provide details on how the U.S. government learned that K3 had been distilled from Anthropic’s model. 

Frontier AI companies in the U.S. have pressed policymakers to make it more difficult for third-parties to copy or duplicate advanced commercial models, calling it a form of intellectual property theft.

On their website, Moonshot AI describes its Kimi K3 model as the first open 2.8 trillion parameter model, and promotes its lower token costs while still delivering near-frontier performance. 

“While its overall performance still trails the most powerful proprietary models, Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol, Kimi K3 demonstrated frontier-level performance across our evaluation suite, consistently outperforming other tested models,” the company said on its website. 

A request for comment sent to Moonshot AI was not returned before this article’s publication. 

Piyush Sharma, CEO of Tuskira, an AI cybersecurity detection and response company, said distillation of AI models allows developers many of a model’s core capabilities. He pointed to another example when Anthropic earlier this year accused Chinese company Alibaba of distilling their Claude AI model.

According to Anthropic, the campaign used 25,000 fraudulent accounts to run 28.8 million interactions on Claude over six weeks. Given that kind of volume “the goal was clearly replication,” he said. 

“When a model has learned to reason through software weaknesses, security gaps, and attack paths, copying its behavior also copies that analytical capability,” said Sharma.

In April, Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee and Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich., Chair of the Select Committee on China, announced they were conducting a joint investigation into the integration of Chinese AI models.

The committees said the inquiry will also focus on “examining a pattern of conduct by [Chinese]-based AI laboratories involving the large-scale theft of proprietary capabilities from American frontier AI systems through adversarial distillation” as well as “ the redistribution of those stolen capabilities as open-weight models available for global download, and the incorporation of PRC-origin models into products used daily by hundreds of thousands of American developers and engineers.”

Western governments and industry accuse Chinese companies of routinely stealing their technology, intellectual property and other trade secrets, often with the tacit support of Beijing. The copying of AI models would continue a long and established tradition of Chinese-sponsored intellectual property theft.

However, while distillation attacks by foreign governments or companies on U.S. frontier companies can have real national security implications, it’s still a fraught question of where policymakers should draw the line.

The AI industry, which includes not just frontier companies but large businesses with their own bespoke models, smaller proprietary startups and a vibrant open-source ecosystem, routinely share and use third-party data, including critical code and training sets for AI models.

Further, U.S. frontier AI companies have built and trained their world leading models in large part by crawling the open internet, ingesting content created and produced by others. Critics (and multiple ongoing lawsuits) argue that AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic built their empires on data and content from others, taken almost entirely without consent or compensation.

The post White House accuses Chinese company of distilling Anthropic’s Fable appeared first on CyberScoop.

After a year and a half spent downplaying calls for AI safety regulations, the Trump administration has sharply reversed course, embracing a level of government scrutiny of frontier AI systems before public release–a far stricter stance than the Biden administration took.

An executive order designed to be friendly to the AI industry was meant to let the federal government briefly review some new models on a voluntary basis.

When the Trump administration, suddenly and without much warning, slapped export controls on Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 in response to private sector threat intelligence reporting, the U.S. AI industry officially entered its regulatory era.

But key questions and gaps remain. It’s not clear why the administration drew the line where it did, or whether they will move it again in the future.

While newer models like Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak do have stronger cybersecurity capabilities, the private sector reports the administration relied on describe capabilities already available in older commercial, open-source and Chinese models that nearly anyone can access.

CyberScoop spoke with current users of the latest frontier models, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT 5.5 and Fable 5, to learn more about what these models are currently capable of in offensive and defensive cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity experts and former government officials say the administration may be playing catch up on threats that have been building for years as it has more fully realized the national security implications of the technology.

Are the models breaking new ground or just breaking things? 

Users of Chat GPT 5.5, introduced this past April, and Fable 5 tell CyberScoop those models have been largely helpful to their work, even as they complained about high token usage and safety guardrails that hinder,  but don’t meaningfully prevent, defensive cyber tasks.

Eyal Webber Zvik, chief strategy officer at Cato Networks, a cloud and cybersecurity network provider in OpenAI’s Trusted Access in Cyber program, said they use GPT 5.5 and later OpenAI models to scan and triage internal codebases for vulnerabilities, test new safeguards and provide “highly autonomized service” to their customers.

Zvik wouldn’t disclose how many bugs 5.5 has found but said the company’s view is that it helps both find bugs that humans missed and rank which ones to patch based on factors like each bug’s exploitability.

“It is now a native part of our development environment and cycles, and we use those models to scale our entire codebase and make sure what we release into the service that our customers use to run their networks and network security has the least likelihood of having any vulnerabilities that can be exploited,” said Zvik.

John Hopper, vice president of engineering at SpecterOps, an identity security company, said newer models like GPT 5.5 are sharper and more persistent in pursuing their tasks.

“That can be a good or bad thing,” he noted.

One metric that SpecterOps tracks is how long it can keep a particular agent working before it moves off task or fails. That metric “matters a lot” because the longer an agent works without human help , the more agents a single operator can run at once.

Hopper said this provides defenders with immense value, and pushed back on the idea that the offensive capabilities the models offer are automatically more beneficial to malicious hackers. There is “a modicum of grounding that the industry needs when we talk about these models.”

“Yes, AI frontier tools will lower the barrier of entry, but these problems have always existed,” he said. “I don’t actually believe that AI is going to remove the needle in the haystack problem, but by howdy, using my two hands to find that damn needle, compared to using a backhoe, I can tell you which one I’d rather be driving.”

Eran Kinsbruner, vice president of product marketing at software security firm Checkmarx, told CyberScoop that later models like OpenAI’s Codex Security and GPT 5.5 are noticeably easier to set up and run with local systems, even for less technical users. That alone gives them an edge over many cybersecurity tools where interoperability is a constant concern.

However, GPT 5.5 burns through tokens at a much faster rate. He recalled one instance of using it to scan a medium-sized repository in three different programming languages.

“After 26 minutes I almost ran out of tokens, and it didn’t provide anything, just created a threat model for me and told me you want to buy more tokens?” he said.

In other instances, some of the scan results he received were not comprehensive.

Further, he expressed frustration with some of the guardrails designed to prevent risk – like only allowing users to scan local files but not code repositories like GitHub – “makes not too much sense” given how often developers must work with remote code.

Those kinds of guardrails – which can prevent models or developers from injecting malicious code or prompting into their models – sit at the heart of the debate in Washington D.C. and around the world. Some users feel differently about their utility.

Kinsbruner said that doesn’t make sense for organizations like his, which work with thousands of different enterprise organizations with  thousands of different code repositories spread across the internet.

“I cannot imagine how large-scale developers could just jump into this solution and make it an enterprise-grade, enterprise-level, de facto cybersecurity solution” out of it, said Kinsbruner.

OpenAI did not respond to a request from CyberScoop for an interview on GPT 5.5. The company has since released another model, GPT 5.6, that they said is more efficient at token use.

The White House’s crash course in AI cyber risk 

 The White House keeps changing its line on whether and how the U.S. government should limit the release of commercial frontier models. The shift comes from lessons learned since coming into office in Jan. 2025. Trump threw out Biden-era regulations meant to steer the industry toward safer models. Top officials like Vice President JD Vance argued against restricting industry progress.

Less than two years later, administration officials worry about the impact of speed and scale – two things AI excels at – in cyberspace.

According to Will Loucks, senior director of intelligence at the Office of the National Cyber Director, over the past two years the number of exposed and known vulnerabilities has shot up. Threat actors exploit those flaws faster before defenders can fix them. Once inside, the time from initial access to full network control shrinks.

“So in other words, every stage of the cyber operations lifecycle that a threat actor has to move through to get to a victim network and achieve an outcome, they’re just moving through more quickly faster,” said Loucks at a July 16 event in Washington D.C.

Speaking about AI in particular, Loucks said one of the defining characteristics of the technology is its ability to lower barriers for threat actors.

“Sometimes speed and volume have a threatening aspect alone, even if sophistication isn’t quite increasing in the same way, and the reason for that is because it places pressure on defenders…to triage alerts more quickly,” he said.

Jordan Rae Kelly, former director for cyber and incident response on the White House’s National Security Council during Trump’s first term, told CyberScoop that the changes over the past two years reflect the lessons the White House has learned on the issue since returning to office.

In the early days of this administration, Kelly said, “there is a sense and a spirit that the Biden administration was limiting AI and there was a kind of a rip-it-all-off [attitude], everybody go and do whatever, we will be the biggest and boldest and brightest.”

“I love that talking point, but I think what you’ve seen is probably an education over the last 19 months, where people [in the White House] have said that’s a challenging premise to put into place, knowing about the potential downsides and capabilities,” she added.

Michael Daniel, former White House cyber coordinator under President Barack Obama, thinks the horse may already be out of the barn.

Daniel, now head of the Cyber Threat Alliance, a membership nonprofit group focused on cyber threat information sharing between industry and government, said his members report that AI is being used to do things “faster and at a slightly bigger scale” but aren’t yet seeing the flood of exploitation that analysts have warned about. Not yet.

“I think what we’re seeing right now [and] talking about is ‘okay, where are the step changes [in the cyber threat landscape] actually going to occur?” said Daniel. “Are we and when will we see the explosion in vulnerability reporting from these Mythos-like capabilities? That’s what’s really got their attention right now.”

But Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak models are restricted to select organizations, and neither has publicly released its most powerful cybersecurity models to the public. That dynamic won’t last.

The UK’s AI Security Institute estimates that open source and foreign LLM models are between 4-7 months behind frontier U.S. models. In that setting, it’s hard to stop the development of AI models worldwide through export controls or other limits.

“It’s not like we’re buying ourselves five to ten years on this,” he said. “We’re not, and so I’m not sure the impact on the defenders who are trying to obey the law is worth whatever small hiccup we cause for our adversaries.”

Kelly said there’s merit to the administration’s current position, even if it took time to get there. Many federal cybersecurity procedures that operated even a decade ago – such as a Vulnerabilities Equities Process that could take days or weeks to consider the pros and cons of keeping an exploit – are no longer practical.

“All of that work to some degree, is out the window, because you can’t meet with the regularity you would need to meet to adjudicate vulnerabilities that are being found in seconds and exploited in minutes,” said Kelly.

But Kelly and others say that’s also because AI capabilities in cybersecurity are developing faster than policymakers can react, even in the best of times.

Key questions remain and the administration’s balance between national security and backing domestic industry will likely shift  in response to new events.  The administration wants a framework that can predict and manage the risks of AI models today and tomorrow. That may be harder than it sounds.

“Do I think they’ve been clear? No,” said Kelly. “But I think it’s a place where clarity is really hard to achieve.”

The post Where’s the Trump administration line on AI regulation? appeared first on CyberScoop.

An annual spy policy bill would authorize a cyberthreat intelligence sharing pilot program for state and local governments, and order an outside assessment of how intelligence agencies are currently sharing that information with those jurisdictions.

The House Intelligence Committee approved fiscal 2027 intelligence authorization legislation Monday that also includes provisions on election security and that are meant to boost intelligence community (IC) usage of artificial intelligence for cyber and other purposes.

The measure’s language on state and local information sharing come amid widespread frustration with Trump administration cutbacks on such aid from the federal government, with the president taking explicit action to shift more responsibility for cyber defenses to the local level.

Under the pilot program, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) would pick one state to receive monthly briefings from the ODNI, Department of Homeland Security, FBI and others to receive monthly briefings on “timely, specific, and actionable information regarding cyber threats” in unclassified form. After a year, the ODNI would then provide a report on the viability of a wider briefing program for state and local governments.

The bill requires the ODNI to produce a strategy on information sharing with states and local areas, and would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct an assessment of the state of such sharing now, including a summary of relevant agencies’ current efforts, how the agencies deconflict those efforts and what kind of obstacles security clearances pose to improving information sharing.

Trump’s pick to serve as DNI, Jay Clayton, emphasized his desire to focus on cyber threat information sharing as part of his Senate vetting last week, but some in the GOP are also pushing to significantly reduce the size of his office.

National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross has also talked about creating pilot programs for cyber threat information sharing with state and local governments, but there’s been little movement on that initiative.

During committee deliberation, panel Democrats won adoption of a trio of election security amendments.

An amendment from the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, would require the intelligence community to publish an unclassified assessment of foreign intelligence threats to the 2026 midterms. Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado’s amendment would partially withhold funding for the ODNI until Congress gets overdue reports it had required on the 2024 and 2026 elections. And  Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania’s amendment would “protect analysts from retribution by IC leadership for working on intelligence products related to foreign influence in US elections,” according to a news release.

The Democrats’ push arrives shortly after President Donald Trump delivered a primetime address seeking to bolster his long-debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

According to a Republican summary of the bill, it includes provisions for “significantly increasing funding for expanded access and use of frontier AI models for intelligence and cyber missions,” to codify and expand the role of the Artificial Intelligence Security Center at the National Security Agency and strengthen information sharing on AI threats.

“This year’s [bill] balances strong transparency and accountability measures while equipping the IC with the resources needed to combat the ever-evolving threats from our adversaries around the world, with a particularly strong focus on the global AI race,” said House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark.

Another assessment that the bill orders would come from the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy on foreign cyberthreats to critical energy infrastructure, including their intent and risks.

The trend in Congress is for lawmakers to incorporate the annual intelligence authorization bill, or some of its provisions, into the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which often reaches the president’s desk at the end of each calendar year.

The post House intel bill includes provisions on state and local threat intelligence, election security, AI appeared first on CyberScoop.

The head of a key federal government AI testing lab is leaving his post just months after taking over.

A Department of Commerce spokesperson confirmed to CyberScoop that Chris Fall is stepping down as director of the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, and his position is being backfilled.

“Following Chris’s departure, NIST Director Dr. Arvind Raman will continue to oversee CAISI and will serve as Acting CAISI Director,” the spokesperson said in a statement to CyberScoop.

Further details about the circumstances behind Fall’s departure were not provided. Axios, which first reported the departure, cited sources saying that Fall resigned.

The Center for AI Standards and Innovation has quietly become a key hub for the federal government to assess potential threats and harms that AI systems can pose to cybersecurity and national security. 

Early in the Trump administration, the center began informally working with frontier AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic to test their models for threats, like their offensive hacking skills, assistance with building biological or nuclear weapons and other dangerous capabilities.

Fall was tapped to lead the center in April, and his departure just three months later comes as the White House has elevated the work of the center as one of the key means for determining which frontier AI models do — and do not — represent a step change in cyber or other capabilities compared to what’s available today.

Fall previously held other government posts, including as director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, assistant director for defense programs at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and acting chief scientist at the Office of Naval Research.

The post Director of Commerce AI standards office out after three months appeared first on CyberScoop.

State and local officials and election security experts largely panned a Thursday night primetime speech by President Donald Trump, saying it was reflective of White House “desperation” to find any credible evidence to support their claims that U.S. elections have been rigged against the two-term president.

While the White House teased explosive new claims about the potential compromise of U.S. elections by China, Trump’s speech was a rehash of claims that both have no supporting evidence and have been repeatedly debunked when investigated. 

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research and a former voting and civil rights attorney at the Department of Justice, said none of Trump’s claims or allegations were new or substantively different from previous theories he’s been espousing over the past six years.

“The White House promised a bombshell and they delivered a dud,” Becker said on a call with reporters Friday. “There was nothing that even calls into question past elections — certainly not the 2020 election.”

The administration declassified a huge tranche of documents from the intelligence agencies, and news outlets continue to sift through them, but thus far nothing has been found that remotely validates the administration’s claims about foreign interference from China costing Trump the 2020 election.

In fact, some of the most relevant documents found at this point have supported the opposite conclusion, with agencies assessing that while China engaged in influence campaigns around the election, it was not attempting to outright interfere with U.S. election infrastructure, hack voting machines or manipulate ballots.

John Solomon, a former journalist and opinion writer at The Hill brought in by the White House to lead the investigation, also told reporters Thursday that his search hasn’t turned up evidence that the 2020, 2022 or 2024 elections were affected by fraud.

The one new major claim by Trump — that the Department of Homeland Security determined hundreds of thousands of noncitizens were registered to vote across four states — is almost certainly false or overinflated, given that it contradicts post-election state audits that have routinely found single or double-digit numbers of noncitizens registered to vote within a single state across multiple elections.

Over the past six years, similar claims by GOP secretaries of state and political activists purporting to find mass numbers of noncitizens registered to vote have turned out to be grossly inflated due to shoddy data analysis, and the vast majority of cases involving “suspected noncitizens” turn out to be U.S. citizens who are legally registered to vote.

The White House has provided little to no information on the methodology used to flag and identify supposed noncitizen voters, other than alluding to the use of “commercial data” and federal databases. A federal court recently ordered DHS to dismantle the SAVE database, its primary database for verifying the citizenship status of U.S. voters, because it was unreliable and violated longstanding privacy laws. 

 Apart from DHS admitting its own data on citizenship is incomplete, Becker said using a list that relies on matching voter files with commercial data is not a reliable way of determining citizenship.

“It is impossible to take a public voter file with very little information that is uniquely identified, like a driver’s license number, and compare it to a commercial database and say for sure the Maria Rodriguez or the John Lee or the Shawn O’Hara you have on that is the same person,” he said.

Election officials also responded forcefully. Nevada Democratic Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar said that Trump has spent a decade attempting to manufacture a crisis around voter fraud and the president’s speech Thursday night was an extension of that effort. 

“As Nevada’s chief elections officer, it’s my job to call balls and strikes — so when the President lies, I am obligated to call him out,” Aguilar said in a statement. “The facts have not changed: Nevada’s elections are among the safest, most secure and accessible in the nation.”

It’s not just Democrats that have objected to the administration’s efforts. GOP states have gone to court to block the Department of Justice from obtaining their voter data, and Idaho’s Republican secretary of state responded to a DOJ letter threatening prosecution of election officials as “not well met” and potentially illegal under state ethics laws. 

Trump’s speech potentially casts additional light on recent White House decisions, such as firing all three commissioners on the Election Assistance Commission. The agency helps certify voting machines for security, and all three commissioners have served across administrations and maintain close relationships with state and local election officials.  

Pamela Smith, CEO of the nonprofit Verified Voting, said that while the EAC can’t take certain actions that need commissioner approval, “critical functions like voting system testing and certification can continue under the existing framework and should not be affected.”

In 2020, Trump’s initial claims of widespread election fraud were undercut by leaders at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which said there was no evidence the election was compromised. The removal of EAC commissioners could represent an attempt to preempt any efforts to rebut or criticize White House claims that elections and voting machines have been compromised.

Some have worried that Trump could use the speech as a pretext to declare a national emergency or cancel elections.

Tom Lopach, CEO of the Voter Participation Center, said “you don’t dismantle election security infrastructure if you’re serious about protecting elections.”

“You dismantle it if you’re planning to claim, without evidence, that the system failed you,” he said. 

While Becker takes Trump’s broadsides against state election authority seriously, he also said it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that, in his view, the administration is losing the argument across the board.

More than a dozen federal courts have unanimously rejected the federal government’s attempts to forcibly obtain state voter data, while other courts have rejected core pieces of his election-related executive orders. State officials have publicly — and at times, angrily — pushed back on the administration’s demands as blatant federal overreach. 

Becker predicted that such an act would be quickly shot down by courts as well, noting that the U.S. has never canceled or postponed an election in its 250-year history, including when British troops were marauding on American soil during the War of 1812 or even at the height of the Civil War.

It’s important not to conflate the White House’s bluster and intentions with its actual authorities or capability to seize control of U.S. elections.

“This is what panic and desperation look like,” Becker said. “They’ve had 18 months in total control of the federal government and they have found nothing that would support President Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, and so they’re just trying to grab as much garbage as they can and throw it up against the wall, and it’s not sticking.”

The post State officials, election experts pan Trump speech: ‘This is what desperation looks like’ appeared first on CyberScoop.

A total of eight cyber personnel have served in a program that began in 2022 to rotate workers between federal agencies to bolster the workforce, a watchdog report said Thursday.

Over the life of the Federal Rotational Cyber Workforce program that effectively went away last year, 13 agencies offered 106 positions and received 634 applications, according to the Government Accountability Office. Eight workers won approval to participate.

The goal of the Office of Personnel Management-led program, established by bipartisan legislation, was that “participating employees develop knowledge and skills that they can bring back to their home agencies,” as the GAO noted.

A couple major factors account for the low participation, the study found. One was the sharp decline in eligible advertised positions: 75 in 2023, 31 in 2024 and none in 2025 or 2026.

As of December of last year, OPM said it planned to advertise positions on Connect.gov, but this year OPM said it didn’t do so and wouldn’t be advertising positions due to “budgetary constraints,” according to the report.

“OPM officials stated that they do not anticipate any agencies offering positions in 2026, and that OPM does not intend to invest resources in advertising and managing the program going forward,” the report reads. “As a result, OPM officials stated that the agency does not intend to post advertised positions in 2026.”

The other major factor was that even though there were 634 applications, OPM said there were issues with many of the applicants, including that they were underqualified, didn’t obtain necessary approval in advance of applying or were contractors who weren’t eligible.

Additionally, “It was often easier for agencies to allow employees to serve cyber rotations within their own agency,” OPM reported.

OPM evaluated possible shortcomings in implementing the program in late 2024 and developed plans for improving it, but never followed up on them, the GAO said. As of next summer the program will officially end, OPM said.

The program isn’t the only one that feds have tried to implement to address the persistent gap in cybersecurity skills and experience. Nor is it the only one to fall on hard times in President Donald Trump’s second term, as the administration slashed budgets at agencies and forced out cyber personnel.

The post Program to rotate cyber personnel through federal agencies saw little use appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration unveiled its new federal clearinghouse for sharing AI cyber threat information between the government and private sector, and said the project is already receiving threat intelligence on cybersecurity vulnerabilities and prioritizing patching.

Created last month through a White House executive order, “Gold Eagle” will be managed by the Department of the Treasury, with contributions from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Defense, as well as open-source software providers, critical infrastructure operators and industry.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the Treasury Department is working hand in hand with the private sector to safeguard our financial institutions, close vulnerabilities, and protect the integrity of the U.S. financial system,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in a statement. “Treasury, along with our partner agencies, will continue to harness frontier AI capabilities to stay ahead of our adversaries and defend the American people from emerging threats.”

Gold Eagle is meant to help both public and private organizations find, fix and patch vulnerabilities found using AI tools before they’re discovered and exploited by bad actors. The work will involve using AI to find cybersecurity vulnerabilities in victim systems and software, and Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said it would also further explore ways for the technology to be leveraged for cyber defense.

A senior White House official told reporters on a background call that closed source models from frontier AI models, including Anthropic’s Mythos, will be used to discover vulnerabilities.

White House officials said they worked with the Software Engineering Institute, SEI at Carnegie Mellon University to develop a new platform, the Vulnerability Information and Coordination Environment – or VINTS – to receive third-party reports on AI-discovered vulnerabilities. According to the White House, the system has already begun collecting intelligence on vulnerabilities and prioritizing patches.

“I think on the early side of this, we have seen that the scale of vulnerability discovery, particularly with users of new technology to scan their system, is something that is a step function change [than] we’ve seen seen before,” the official said.

As AI models have improved at carrying out core cybersecurity-related tasks – like scanning code for vulnerabilities or developing proof-of-concept exploit code – cybersecurity experts and policymakers have become increasingly worried. The modern internet is rife with insecure code, misconfigurations and other mistakes that can be identified and exploited faster than ever before using AI tools.

Vulnerabilities in open-source software can be both widespread and hidden, as many commercial software products on the market rely on open-source code but few bother to document it. When hackers compromised a logging tool in the Log4J open-source Apache software library in 2021, it required a massive, multi-month coordination effort by CISA, the private sector and other stakeholders to find and fix affected pieces of software.

The White House official said the work of Gold Eagle is reflective of the administration’s “full support” of U.S. open-source software providers and maintainers.

Open source tools are “vital to systems that run throughout our country and daily life,” a senior administration official said, speaking to reporters on background. “It is being maintained by a talented group of people and entities and we will do everything we can to support the strength of that community.”

Michael Daniel, former White House cyber coordinator under President Barack Obama, told CyberScoop that AI is still so new that policymakers continue to observe its impact and adapt. While some existing communication channels for sharing cybersecurity threat information could probably be duplicated for tracking AI threats, there is still much for policymakers to learn more about the technology, the kind of threats it produces and its ecosystem of stakeholders.

“It may turn out at the end of the day that phishing is still phishing, and the fact that now you’ve got AI tools doing it, it’s still phishing. Or there may be something fundamentally different about it that we need to figure out how to combat and share information around,” he said.

The post White House details ‘Gold Eagle’ clearinghouse for AI cyber threats appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration’s abrupt firing of Election Assistance Commission commissioners last week and a Department of Justice warning threatening states with criminal prosecution have created new legal peril for officials who run, administer and secure elections.

The EAC is an obscure but important agency that oversees testing and standards for voting machines, including around security. While federal certification is voluntary, states have until now relied upon their stamp of approval when purchasing voting machines. 

On July 10, Democratic Commissioners Ben Hovland and Thomas Hicks were fired by the White House, while reports indicate that a third Commissioner, Republican Christy McCormick, resigned. While Congress mandated the commission be bipartisan, the Supreme Court has recently given the President broad authority to fire executive branch officials at will.

In an interview with NPR, Hovland said he worried the firings would further erode trust that the commission was working in a bipartisan manner.

“And as you eliminate things – or if you get rid of commissioners, for example – or as you eliminate some of these other sort of safeguards or norms, it certainly strains the system,” said Hovland. “And it certainly also likely causes people to lose faith in our democracy and in the process and their confidence in our elections. And that’s very concerning.”

A letter also sent last week to all 50 states by the DOJ said the department will investigate and prosecute any election official “who knowingly retains non-citizens on the state’s voter registration list or facilitates noncitizens in receiving and casting ballots.”

CyberScoop spoke with several Secretaries of State who said that the number one threat facing elections in their state is not from a foreign country or AI but their own federal government. 

Tobias Read, the Democratic Secretary of State for Oregon, told CyberScoop that his office is focused on providing the state’s 36 county clerks with the resources and support they need to carry out a smooth election. But he acknowledged that his office is “playing defense in a lot of ways [from] the intrusion from the federal government” that continues to assert its authority over local elections.

“If the president were actually serious about election security, he would be sending more resources to local election officials and bolstering the system rather than cutting it,” said Read.

This year, several counties in Oregon will offer voters access to a new ballot tracking system that provides text or email updates when a voter’s ballot is moving through mail and has been certified.  Reed estimated at “pennies per voter per election” and called it a good option for cash-strapped counties to assure voters their ballots are secure and properly tracked.

At the same time, Read said federal agencies like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency – which once regularly deployed cybersecurity and technical expertise to help states fix vulnerabilities and share threat intelligence – have largely gone quiet.

Oregon ranks in the top ten states for voter participation and relies heavily on mail-in voting.  However, state officials like Read lack confidence in the US Postal Service. Though a recent Supreme Court decision blocked an executive order giving the service control over mail-in ballot distribution, officials like Read are urging voters to take other measures to use drop boxes instead as a  safer alternative to ensure their vote is counted.

Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s Secretary of State and a Democrat running for reelection, said his office is focused on primary elections and processing the mail ballots that have been arriving “for a while.”

After Iranian hackers defaced Arizona’s candidate bio portal last year, Fontes moved to fill a widening gap: the Trump administration’s withdrawal of federal foreign interference training and support. His office is now directly supporting local jurisdictions on election security while coordinating more closely with state law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and other states.

But it’s being done with a fraction of the resources and coordination that the federal government brought to bear under both the Biden and first Trump administrations. While Fontes said he maintains positive personal relationships within the Department of Homeland Security, his office does not have a formal relationship with CISA.

“We’ve hobbled together a loose and often informal network of information sharing – that doesn’t violate any rules, it doesn’t break any laws – but it is certainly not anywhere near as robust as it would be if we had a responsible federal agency that was interested in the security of American elections,” said Fontes.

He said even if CISA offered such services today, he wouldn’t accept it, citing the lack of trust between states and the Trump administration.

“They have proven through their actions that they don’t want to be effective partners in protecting the American electorate and protecting American voters,” said Fontes. “Because of that, the clear answer, the only sensible answer for someone like me, would be to say ‘No, I don’t want the help of people I cannot trust.’ People who have demonstrably and explicitly threatened me and local election administrators of all political stripes with criminal prosecution.”

After this story’s initial publication, CISA acting director Nick Andersen said the agency remains committed working with “with critical infrastructure owners and operators to assist them in securing both the physical security and cybersecurity of the systems and assets that support the nation’s election process.”

“We provide state and local election officials, upon request, no-cost voluntary services such as the sharing of threat information, technical expertise, vulnerability scanning, and resilience-building support,” said Andersen in a statement sent to CyberScoop. “Our regional teams assist partners across the country by assessing risks, helping entities bolster defenses and improve resilience, and responding promptly to threats. We are committed to supporting state and local elections officials to protect election infrastructure and safeguard our democracy.”

Secretaries of State in Colorado, Nevada, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and others have also called the DOJ letters an attempt at federal intimidation of election officials. 

Others, like West Virginia Republican Secretary of State Kris Warner, have reiterated their refusal to hand over state voter data. On Monday, a federal judge upheld his right to do so. 

Warner wrote to the DOJ in response to say the state was “available to discuss our existing voter registration list maintenance” but “West Virginia law prohibits the disclosure of sensitive personally identifiable information contained in voter registration records.”

It’s leading some states to take new precautions. 

Read said he was working with Oregon county officials to make sure “county clerks have the number of their county counsel on speed dial” and know how to distinguish between a legitimate and illegitimate federal warrant or subpoena.

Additionally, FBI raids of election offices around the country to seize ballots records related to the 2020 and 2024 elections have been a cause for Read’s concern. By state law, Oregon and other states must keep copies of the ballot records and other election data they receive from counties for a certain time according to state law, after which they must eventually archive or destroy them according to ballot retention schedules.

Read emphasized that “it’s important to destroy those ballots at the appropriate time,”  The Trump administration has used the raids to further the impression of electoral fraud, despite the absence of credible evidence. 

“We can see when people are not on top of that, then you expose yourself to other vulnerabilities like the federal government seizing those ballots in Maricopa County [Arizona] and Fulton County [Georgia] as well,” said Read.

A former CISA official estimated that on Election Day in 2024, more than 1,000 representatives from federal, state and local governments, election technology vendors and other election stakeholders sat together in a room to communicate and coordinate.

Less than two years later, Read called his office’s interactions with CISA “minimal.” He recalled that upon taking office as Secretary of State in Jan 2025, one of his first conversations was with one of CISA’s regional advisors. A week later, those advisors were summarily fired by the Trump administration.

UPDATE: 7/14/2026, 11:15 a.m.: Updated with comments from CISA acting director Nick Andersen.

The post States are building their own election defense networks as federal support evaporates  appeared first on CyberScoop.

Anthropic has announced its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models will once again be available to the public as it has reached an agreement with the Commerce Department to deploy the AI models with new guardrails and classifiers meant to address jailbreaks.

In a blog posted Tuesday, Anthropic said that export controls that prevented their sale to foreign companies and individuals have been lifted after weeks of negotiation with the White House and Commerce Department. The company has also restored access to the model for U.S. users.

The export controls were put in place after the Trump administration became alarmed by a threat intelligence report from Amazon claiming to have jailbroken Fable’s cybersecurity capabilities.

On X, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick appeared to confirm that the restrictions would be lifted.

“Over the past two weeks, we have worked closely with Anthropic to analyze and approve Fable 5 to ensure alignment across the US Government and strengthen America’s leadership in AI,” Lutnick wrote.

The administration levied the export controls after becoming concerned that the release of Fable 5 would lead to the model being jailbroken, giving users access to cybersecurity and other capabilities that Anthropic has said could wreak havoc on the open internet if  placed in the wrong hands. The Amazon report convinced administration officials that such jailbreaks were on the immediate horizon.

However, one oddity of the administration’s decision is that the capabilities described in the Amazon report, by all accounts, are not cutting-edge. Scanning code and breaking down how to exploit vulnerabilities for a user is already possible with existing models.

Anthropic confirmed that, saying that further testing found that equivalent and lesser models like ChatGPT 5.5, Claude Opus 4.8 and Kimi K2.7 could identify the same vulnerabilities as Fable did in the Amazon report, while a half dozen existing models were able to produce the same proof of concept code as Fable.

Crucially, Anthropic reiterated that they have yet to see a jailbreak that affects the model’s restrictions on cybersecurity and biology work, though they did call this instance “a borderline case.” Indeed, some cybersecurity professionals have publicly complained that existing safety guardrails on Fable 5 blocked many routine defensive cybersecurity work in addition to malicious use cases.

“Importantly, the reported technique did not expose any unique Mythos-level cyber capabilities,” the blog continued. “The behavior reflected a borderline case for Fable 5’s safeguards…there are some tasks that are unlikely to be dangerous but are nonetheless blocked by the safeguards out of an abundance of caution. The reported technique allowed access to one such behavior, but it only involved routine defensive cybersecurity work.”

Anthropic said it has trained new safety classifiers to target and block the behaviors described in the Amazon report and notify users when it happens, and that the new safeguards have been stress tested by the federal Center for AI Standards and Innovation. The new classifiers will block the techniques “99.9%” of the time, but Anthropic said they’re not expected to block all lower risk routine cyberdefense capabilities, just the most harmful ones.

The restrictions will likely make it even harder to use Fable 5 for defensive cybersecurity. One effect the company expects is that more “benign” requests for routine coding and debugging tasks will be flagged by the system.

Christopher Padilla, former Assistant Secretary for Commerce for export administration in the George W. Bush administration, said that while it’s “good news” the controls have ultimately been lifted, the Trump administration’s AI policy stumbles over the past two years illustrate “the risks of ad hoc, transactional policymaking.”

In a LinkedIn post, Padilla called the Trump administration’s approach chaotic and unpredictable — the opposite of the clear, consistent rules industry depends on. While Vice President J.D. Vance mocked AI safety regulations in a speech in Europe last year, the administration has quietly partnered with OpenAI and Anthropic on voluntary national security testing, especially as frontier models began showing advanced automation and cyberattack capabilities.

That national security arrangement was supposedly codified in a White House executive order last month, shaped heavily by industry boosters who feared regulatory delays would slow U.S. development. But days after Fable’s release, Commerce imposed new export controls on Anthropic’s models anyway.

Padilla called proposed AI safety regulations by the Biden administration “flawed and overly complex” but nevertheless predictable compared to the status quo. Instead of replacing those proposed regulations with their own vision, the Trump White House has been “to put it mildly, all over the place on AI policy.”

“The same BIS that stopped Fable and Mythos has a permissive policy for exporting high-end AI semiconductors to China — in exchange for a cut of the take,” said Padilla, referencing the Trump administration’s lifting of export controls on advanced AI chips. “This is not a smart way to make policy. Bad for industry competitiveness and for national security.”

The post US lifting export control restrictions on Anthropic’s Mythos, Fable appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Department of Homeland Security is bringing back a key cybersecurity information sharing effort with critical infrastructure, more than a year after the Trump administration shuttered an existing nerve center between government and private sector.

The Alliance of National Councils for Homeland Operational Resilience – Critical Infrastructure program, first reported by CyberScoop in January, is meant to replace the function of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council.

CIPAC was a federal advisory body that allowed agencies like the FBI, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the intelligence community to interact with key owners and operators of water, power, internet and telecommunications to coordinate on cyberattacks and digital vulnerabilities.

ANCHOR will fulfill a similar role.

“ANCHOR-CI will provide forums through which cybersecurity, law enforcement, intelligence, national security, and other government representatives at the federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial levels may engage representatives of private sector entities and critical infrastructure owners and operators in reviewing the current threat environment, discussing potential vulnerabilities, and forming recommendations on securing a more resilient critical infrastructure and cyberspace,” DHS wrote in a federal register notice set to publish July 1.

ANCHOR-CI will be managed by CISA, which will appoint members to the council from industry, trade associations, state and local governments and other sources.

The body will consist of four types of different councils: one focused on federally designated critical infrastructure sectors, cross-sector councils to deal with emerging threats like cyber attacks or zero-day vulnerabilities, critical infrastructure industry councils and regional coordinating councils.

As CyberScoop reported, a key difference between CIPAC and ANCHOR-CI will be the way key meetings will be exempt from public transparency laws.

“In recognition of the sensitive nature of the subject matter involved regarding the assessment and mitigation of security and operational risks through whole-of government coordination, and strong partnership with the private sector that is required to ensure the security and resilience of critical infrastructure, the Secretary hereby exempts ANCHOR-CI from The Federal Advisory Committee Act,” the notice states.

The disbanding of CIPAC under then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem was part of a larger dismantling of DHS advisory bodies set up under previous presidential regimes. Critical infrastructure owners and operators felt blindsided by the move and many found themselves without access to the kind of federally-enabled threat intelligence and cybersecurity support that had become a staple of U.S. cyber defense over the past decade.

A source told CyberScoop that new Secretary Markwayne Mullin was sympathetic to concerns from critical infrastructure owners and operators that they felt abandoned by DHS under Noem’s leadership, and was determined to make efforts to repair that relationship.

The restoration of information sharing services under ANCHOR-AI is one part of that effort.

Representative Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, called ANCHOR “a welcome step” toward strengthening operational partnerships between industry and CISA at a time when China and other adversaries are using AI and other tools to target U.S. critical infrastructure.

“The abrupt elimination of CIPAC last year caused unnecessary confusion and strain in these coordination efforts, and I appreciate Secretary Mullin prioritizing this partnership moving forward and for recognizing the importance of rebuilding CISA’s cybersecurity workforce,” said Garbarino in a statement to CyberScoop.

According to a former CISA official, ANCHOR-CI gives the CISA director more authority over the makeup and direction of the organization than under CIPAC.

Bob Kolasky, who ran the National Risk Management Agency at CISA, said the new organizational structure for ANCHOR “really puts CISA  in the position of having authority over who participates,” a change from CIPAC, when the private sector and other sector risk management agencies were given autonomy to choose their representatives.

“Previous iterations of CIPAC and the way it was operationalized leaned heavily on the idea that private sector coordinating councils were self-governed and self-organized, and the DHS Secretary and the CISA Director…managed the overall partnership structure,” said Kolasky, now senior vice president of critical infrastructure at Exiger. “They were not given the authority to make decisions on who would participate in that partnership structure.”

Under previous administrations, CISA officials frequently partnered with industry to build trusted lines of communication and work on cross sectoral cybersecurity initiatives. Most of these efforts were voluntary – a reflection of the agency’s limited regulatory mandate but also of CISA’s view that they were the nation’s risk advisor, not its manager.

Kolasky said some there remain unanswered questions from the information released so far in the Federal Register notice, including how the CISA director would choose representatives and what role other sector risk management agencies would play influencing ANCHOR. He said “what is important is consistent processes” that ensure membership isn’t dependent on being in the good graces of a particular agency or administration.

“I want it to be a partnership structure between industry and government and not something that is completely operated and mandated by the government,” said Kolasky.

The post DHS to unveil replacement council for critical infrastructure cybersecurity appeared first on CyberScoop.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right of states to accept mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day, but can arrive up to five days later through the mail system.

The case stems from a lawsuit brought by the Republican National Committee against Mississippi and its Secretary of State, arguing they could not legally count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they are postmarked on or before that same day. The RNC argued that federal law defines “elections” and “Election Day” as the casting and receiving of ballots by that day.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected that argument, stating that “nothing in the federal Election-Day statutes require ballots to be received by election day.”

“The federal Election-Day statutes do not preempt Mississippi’s law because the defining element of an ‘election’ has always been the electorate’s choice of candidate,” wrote Barrett.

Barrett, joined by Justices John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Jackson Brown, noted that other federal voting statutes like the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act explicitly say that state law governs when ballots must be received, not the federal government. 

Further, while Congress inserted the phrase “Election Day” and specifies it as a Tuesday in its most recent update, it also allows states to modify that period of voting in response to certain force majeure events, like the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the Constitution requires voting to take place by a certain time, the review of those legally cast votes does not need to conclude at the same time.

“The Constitution requires the ‘Day on which [the electors] shall give their Votes’ to be ‘the same throughout the United States,’ but says nothing about the day for receipt,” wrote Barrett. “The Constitution thus envisions a system in which receipt of votes is necessarily divorced from voting. And it sets the crucial, uniform day as the day of voting while leaving receipt to happen later. The federal Election-Day statutes follow the same pattern.”

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the ruling upholds the principle that “the election is completed for the voter at the moment they complete their ballot, not the moment that some administrative election official receives that ballot or reviews that ballot.”

It also validates more than a hundred years of state autonomy in setting their own rules regarding the receipt of election ballots.

“This case was about who gets to make that determination,” said Becker. “And as the founders intended, as is clearly laid out in the elections clause of the Constitution, the states get to make that determination about when those ballots should be delivered by the postal service and be counted.”

Still, Becker bemoaned the slow, steady politicization of the issue, and said in conversations many election officials were anxious about the case and relieved to see a victory, albeit a narrow one.

“I’ll be honest with you, in any other era this case should have been a 9-0 [decision],” said Becker. “This is a slam dunk, the states clearly have the authority to do this, they’ve been doing this for decades and decades.”

The ruling likely forecloses major changes to the way states receive or accept mail-in ballots before the midterm elections, but Becker does expect some states to seek legislative changes to align their state laws with the five-day post-election timeline blessed by the court.

14 states and Washington D.C. have state laws that allow any ballot to be received up to five days after Election Day or longer, while more than 30 allow military and overseas ballots to arrive after Election Day. Election experts have said ruling that such ballots were invalid could have upended decades of voting precedent and procedures for American voters at home and abroad.

Michael McNulty, director of Issue One Policy, a nonprofit focused on money in politics and elections, said had the court ruled the other way, it would have created chaos for election administration in more than a dozen states that accept such ballots, forcing them to move ballot receipt deadlines, redesign procedures and conduct large scale voter education campaigns without any additional funding.

The Supreme Court “rightly rejected an attempt to reinterpret federal law to force sweeping last-minute changes to election systems across the country and discard legally cast ballots.”

Pamela Smith, CEO of Verified Voting, a nonprofit focused on promoting secure election technologies, said the ruling should give relief to voters who rely on mail or absentee voting.

“This ruling ensures that a postal delay outside of any voter’s control does not erase a lawfully cast ballot and supports election officials’ ability to capture the will of voters,” said Smith.

Post-election audits and investigations have consistently shown voter fraud in the U.S. is exceedingly rare, and that mail-in ballots are not any more susceptible to fraud than other forms of voting.

Nevertheless, states accepting mail-in ballots past Election Day has been a politically charged subject since the 2020 election, when then-incumbent President Donald Trump was defeated by Joe Biden in part on the strength of late-arriving mail ballots that heavily swung in Biden’s favor.

In the years since, both Trump and the GOP more broadly have cast late arriving mail ballots as inherently suspicious, untrustworthy and opaque.

Those beliefs have persisted.

In their dissent, Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the decision “leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections.”

“Mail voting also presents a greater opportunity for voter manipulation, a more vulnerable chain of ballot custody, and a diminished ability to detect improprieties in real time,” Alito wrote on behalf of the minority. “Today’s decision compounds these vulnerabilities. Allowing absentee ballots to pour in over the days and weeks after election day, by which point preliminary election returns are being publicly reported, creates greater opportunity for fraud and risks further undermining the public’s confidence in election integrity.”

The post Supreme Court approves mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day  appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Federal Communications Commission approved new rules Thursday that boost cybersecurity regulations for the nation’s emergency alert systems and update security rules for the nation’s undersea cables.

The new rule would overhaul two national emergency systems, the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts, to better protect against hijacking attacks from malicious actors.

The EAS is a national public warning system that state and local authorities use to disseminate information related to weather events, AMBER alerts and other emergencies via radio and television broadcasting stations. The WEA handles much of the same messaging via text.

A compromise of either system by a foreign government, cybercriminal group or other rogue actor could be used to sow chaos and disinformation in calmer times, or impede coordination efforts in the face of a genuine emergency. Any vulnerability in systems like the Emergency Alert System “can have serious consequences,” said FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty in a statement after the vote.

“That is why it has been appropriate for the Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the EAS framework by focusing on the security of the system itself,” Trusty continued. “As cybersecurity threats continue to evolve, EAS participants must take appropriate steps to safeguard the infrastructure that supports the delivery of life-saving alerts.”

The new rules amount to basic – but still critical – cyber hygiene practices for users accessing and updating the EAS and WEA systems. They must use strong passwords, quickly install security patches from vendors and use firewalls to limit access to their equipment.

The rule also creates a new authentication ID system to verify alerts before they’re submitted and avoid duplicate or unauthorized alerts from spreading.

Another rule passed by the Commission Thursday provided the first comprehensive update to the FCC’s submarine cable regulations in decades, and moves to tighten cybersecurity requirements in some areas while loosening them in others.

It exempts some undersea cable providers from submitting to stringent national security licensing reviews needed to land and operate cables that touch U.S. territory.

The review, called “Team Telecom,” is an interagency body led by the Department of Justice’s Foreign Investment Review Section and other federal agencies that advise the FCC on the national security implications of their telecom policies.

The new rules would presumptively exempt applications for undersea cable licensees when the provider can self-certify to “high security standards” that are “structured to increase certainty, predictability, and faster timelines for the licensing process.”

“Currently, all submarine cable applications get referred to Team Telecom…the changes adopted would exempt applications from applicants that have operated cables without incident, can certify to the highest national security standards, and agree to ongoing oversight and monitoring,” the FCC said in a release.

Other parts of the rule give the FCC greater oversight of critical functions within undersea cable operations. Owners and operators of submarine line terminal equipment, who connect submarine cables to land-based facilities in the U.S., will be subject to a new licensing requirement.

The rule also moves to update safeguards meant to address vulnerabilities related to principal equipment, third-party service providers, and other areas of concern in the undersea cable supply chain.

The post FCC passes new cybersecurity rules for emergency systems, undersea cables appeared first on CyberScoop.

A federal judge in Massachusetts struck down major sections of a Trump administration executive order  that would have restricted mail-in ballots through the U.S. Postal Service and required states to adopt federally approved voter lists.

The ruling Thursday from Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts found those parts of the order were unconstitutional, while declaring another section that directs federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute noncompliant state and local officials legally nonbinding.

Talwani wrote that the U.S. Constitution empowers States and Congress in different roles but “does not grant the President any specific power over elections.”

While the White House has cited the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and Civil Rights-era voting laws as justification, Talwani found those laws do not authorize the government to regulate state voter registration practices.

“Notably, nowhere in HAVA does Congress prescribe who should be included on State voter lists,” Talwani wrote. “Further, neither in HAVA nor any other federal statute does Congress authorize the federal government to create their own voting database. Instead, Congress, consistent with the Constitution, has left that authority to the States alone.”

Talwani also declined to remove President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as named defendants in the suit, rejecting the administration’s argument that the court could not regulate or intrude upon the president’s’ constitutional authority “in the performance of his official duties.”

“Contrary to Defendants assertion, Presidential action is not inherently unreviewable,” Talwani wrote.

The order, issued in March, instructs the Homeland Security secretary, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to compile lists of American voters for each state, including their supposed citizenship status.

To build the lists, the agencies would rely on the controversial Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database that DHS has been building under the Trump administration, as well as Social Security and federal citizenship and naturalization records.

Those lists would then be sent to states, most of which have already refused similar Trump administration efforts to control voter registration.. The order instructs the Department of Justice to investigate  and prosecute  state and local election officials who issue  ballots to ineligible voters. 

The order also requires mail-in ballots to be sent in special barcoded envelopes for tracking. Crucially, it demands states provide lists of voters eligible for mail-in voting, and threatens to deny ballots to states that refuse. It also claims the attorney general is entitled to withhold federal funding from noncompliant states.

Talwani found that states have shown they already have a rigorous voter registration and verification process to ensure non-citizens and other ineligible voters aren’t able to vote in U.S. elections, and have laws in place to investigate and prosecute those who do.

Executive branch lawyers argued the order was merely an internal federal directive that does not impedestate authorities. But Talwani noted that states like Connecticut were already pulling staff from critical activities, such as translating election materials required under the Voting Rights Act, to develop compliance plans for the order.

Nearly half of the states in the lawsuit have already purchased mail-in ballots for this election cycle that are out of compliance with the Postal Service’s envelope and design standards.

Despite a string of losses in the courts and Congress, the White House has continued to assert broad authority over the way states and localities administer elections.

The Department of Justice has sued dozens of states to force them to hand over sensitive voter data. In the 10 cases decided so far, states have won every one.

In their opinions, judges cited the executive branch’s lack of inherent authority to create state voter lists. Others accused the DOJ of misusing Civil Rights-era laws designed to protect Black and minority voters,  creating an “unreliable” database that would disenfranchise  legitimate voters.

The Massachusetts ruling comes to the same conclusion, with Talwani writing “it is clear that the federal agencies charged with compiling Confirmed Citizen Lists lack the ability to create complete and accurate lists of the U.S. citizens residing in every State.”

On Wednesday, Trump canceled a signing ceremony for a bipartisan housing bill in an attempt to pressure  congressional Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act, which would implement many of the same changes to U.S. elections. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he considered passage of the bill to be a “National Emergency.”

The post Federal court rules Trump election-focused executive order illegal appeared first on CyberScoop.