Iranian hackers ‘may still conduct malicious cyber activity,’ US agencies warn
boonchai wedmakawand/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — Iranian-affiliated cyber actors and hacktivist groups “may still conduct malicious cyber activity,” according to a joint bulletin from U.S. law enforcement agencies.
“Based on the current geopolitical environment, Iranian-affiliated cyber actors may target U.S. devices and networks for near-term cyber operations,” the bulletin from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), FBI, NSA and Defense Department says.
“Defense Industrial Base (DIB) companies, particularly those possessing holdings or relationships with Israeli research and defense firms, are at increased risk. Hacktivists and Iranian-government-affiliated actors routinely target poorly secured U.S. networks and internet-connected devices for disruptive cyberattacks,” according to the bulletin.
All of this comes after Israel and Iran “declared ceasefire and ongoing negotiations towards a permanent solution,” according to the alert.
“Over the past several months, Iranian-aligned hacktivists have increasingly conducted website defacements and leaks of sensitive information exfiltrated from victims,” the alert says. “These hacktivists are likely to significantly increase distributed denial of service (DDoS) campaigns against U.S. and Israeli websites due to recent events.”
The alert says that it hasn’t just been over the past few months that Iranian cyber actors have been active. The agencies point to numerous instances in 2023 and 2024 when the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) compromised Israeli-backed technology, and after the start of the conflict between Hamas and Israel, IRGC-backed actors carried out cyber attacks as a form of protest.
“Activities like website defacements, leakage of sensitive information, and distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) campaigns against U.S. websites have been common attack methods in the past,” the alert says.
In a statement, the agencies say they haven’t seen any malicious activity, but are issuing the warning for critical infrastructure organizations to be on alert.
“We strongly urge organizations to review our joint fact sheet and implement recommended actions to strengthen our collective defense against this potential cyber activity,” the statement says.
(WASHINGTON) — The White House General Services Administration is expected to send a letter to federal agencies on Tuesday asking them to “identify any contracts with Harvard, and whether they can be canceled or redirected elsewhere,” a senior administration official told ABC News.
The move comes as President Donald Trump continues his attack on the school as the university has not complied with the administration’s demands over providing data on its international students. It comes after the president announced over the weekend that he is considering allocating $3 billion away from Harvard to other trade schools, the latest in his battle with the Ivy League school.
The administration argues in the letter, obtained by ABC News, that being a contractor of the federal government “comes with the deep responsibility and commitment to abide by all federal laws and ensure the safeguarding of taxpayer money.”
The letter goes on to allege that Harvard “continues to engage in race discrimination, including in its admissions process and in other areas of student life” — some of the diversity, equity and inclusion practices that the Trump administration has worked to curtail.
The letter also alleges that the university has “potential discriminatory hiring practices and possible violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” The letter also takes issue with what they say is Harvard’s “disturbing lack of concern for the safety and wellbeing of Jewish students,” according to the administration official — a reference to instances of antisemitism on campus.
The letter says that agencies should “consider its contracts with Harvard University and determine whether Harvard and its services efficiently promote the priorities of the Agency.” It also instructs agencies to have a list of contracts with the university and the action the agency will take on it by June 6.
“We recommend that your agency terminate for convenience each contract that it determines has failed to meet its standards, and transition to a new vendor those contracts that could be better serviced by an alternative counterparty. Going forward, we also encourage your agency to seek alternative vendors for future services where you had previously considered Harvard,” the letter adds.
The school hasn’t immediately commented about the letter.
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is urging the New York-based Court of International Trade to delay its order blocking President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, warning that enforcement of the ruling will cause a “foreign policy disaster scenario.”
In an opinion on Wednesday, the three-judge panel struck down Trump’s global tariffs as “contrary to law.”
The judges found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — which Trump used to enact his tariffs — does not give him the “unlimited” power to levy tariffs like the president has in recent months.
“The President’s assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under IEEPA. The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law,” the judges wrote.
According to the judges, Congress, not the president, has the authority to impose tariffs under most circumstances, and Trump’s tariffs do not meet the limited condition of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” that would allow him to act alone.
The Department of Justice on Thursday requested a stay, saying it’s needed “to avoid immediate irreparable harm to United States foreign policy and national security.”
“It is critical, for the country’s national security and the President’s conduct of ongoing, delicate diplomatic efforts, that the Court stay its judgment. The harm to the conduct of foreign affairs from the relief ordered by the Court could not be greater,” lawyers with the Department of Justice argued.
According to the administration, the court order would strip the president of leverage in trade negotiations, imperil the trade deals already reached, and make the country vulnerable to countries that “feel a renewed boldness to take advantage of” the current situation.
Responding to the ruling, White House spokesman Kush Desai evoked the trade deficit and said, “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” adding that that the administration is committed to using “every lever of executive power to address this crisis.”
The Trump administration had quickly filed a notice of appeal to challenge Wednesday’s decision.
The case now heads to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where they could ask for a stay of the order.
The Court of International Trade issued the decision across two cases — one filed by a group of small businesses and another filed by 12 Democratic attorneys general.
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford called the ruling “a win for the rule of law and for Nevadans’ pocketbooks.”
“I am extremely pleased with the court’s decision to strike down these tariffs; they were both unlawful and economically destructive,” he said. “The president had no legal authority to impose these tariffs, and his unlawful actions would have caused billions of dollars of damage to the American economy.”
Since Trump announced sweeping tariffs on more than 50 countries in April, his administration has faced half a dozen lawsuits challenging the president’s ability to impose tariffs without the approval of Congress.
New York Attorney General Letitia James called the decision a “major victory for our efforts to uphold the law and protect New Yorkers from illegal policies that threaten American jobs and economy.”
“The law is clear: no president has the power to single-handedly raise taxes whenever they like. These tariffs are a massive tax hike on working families and American businesses that would have led to more inflation, economic damage to businesses of all sizes, and job losses across the country if allowed to continue,” James’ statement continued.
Lawyers for the small businesses alleged that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — which Trump invoked to impose the tariffs — does not give the president the right to issue “across-the-board worldwide tariffs,” and that Trump’s justification for the tariffs was invalid.
“His claimed emergency is a figment of his own imagination,” the lawsuit said. “Trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency.”
During a hearing earlier this month, a group of three judges — who were appointed by presidents Obama, Trump and Reagan — pushed a lawyer for the small businesses to provide a legal basis to override the tariffs. While a different court in the 1970s determined that the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 — the law that preceded the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — gave the president the right to impose tariffs, no court has weighed whether the president can impose tariffs unilaterally under the IEEPA.
During a May 13 hearing, Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer from the conservative Liberty Justice Center representing the plaintiffs, argued that Trump’s purported emergency to justify the tariffs is far short of what is required under the law.
“I’m asking this court to be an umpire and call a strike; you’re asking me, well, where’s the strike zone? Is it at the knees or slightly below the knees?” Schwab argued. “I’m saying it’s a wild pitch and it’s on the other side of the batter and hits the backstop, so we don’t need to debate that.”
The ruling marks the first time a federal court has issued a ruling on the legality of Trump’s tariffs. In May, a federal judge in Florida nominated by Trump suggested the president has the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, but opted to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade.
-ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — A flight carrying 59 refugees from South Africa landed in the United States on Monday afternoon — as the Trump administration insists that the expedited process for white South Africans to seek refuge in the United States has nothing to do with race.
The South African refugees’ arrival also comes amid the administration’s efforts to halt refugee programs from other countries.
Hours before the flight arrived at Dulles International Airport, President Donald Trump defended his administration’s decision to offer refugee status to the Afrikaners — a white minority group in South Africa. The president said that the asylum program is because there is a race-based genocide in the country.
“They happen to be white, but whether they’re white or black makes no difference to me, but white farmers are being brutally killed and their land is being confiscated in South Africa, and the newspapers and the media, television media doesn’t even talk about it,” Trump said during remarks at the White House.
Last week, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said this group of South Africans “has faced racial persecution.” She also went on to claim their farmland is being taken away. However, a law passed by South Africa earlier this year does not allow land to be expropriated without an agreement with the owner.
South Africa’s government has pushed back, saying the “allegations of discrimination are unfounded.”
“The South Africa Police Services statistics on farm related crimes do not support allegations of violent crime targeted at farmers generally or any particular race,” the South African government said in a statement last week. “There are sufficient structures available within South Africa to address concerns of discrimination. Moreover, even if there are allegations of discrimination, it is our view that these do not meet the threshold of persecution required under domestic and international refugee law.
Trump adviser Elon Musk has repeatedly talked about South Africa, his country of birth, on his social media account saying that the country is anti-white.
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau greeted a group of about three dozen South Africans, many waving American flags, after they got off the plane at the airport in Northern Virginia.
Asked about the administration’s apparent prioritization of white South African refugees over others who are persecuted in their countries of origin, Landau harkened back to the pause on refugee admissions that Trump implemented when he retook the White House.
“That pause, of course, was subject, from the very beginning to exceptions where it was determined that this would be in the interest of the United States. Some of the criteria are making sure that refugees did not pose any challenge to our national security and that they can be assimilated easily into our country,” Landau said. “All of these folks who have just come in today have been carefully vetted pursuant to our refugee standards, and whether or not the broader refugee programs for other people around the world will be lifted is still an ongoing consideration.”
In March, Trump said that he would give some South African farmers and their families a pathway to citizenship. In the same month, the Trump administration kicked out the South African ambassador to the U.S.
In February, Trump signed an executive order that froze all aid to South Africa.
The South African government said in a statement that the order “lacks factual accuracy and fails to recognise South Africa’s profound and painful history of colonialism and apartheid.”
“It is ironic that the executive order makes provision for refugee status in the U.S. for a group in South Africa that remains amongst the most economically privileged, while vulnerable people in the U.S. from other parts of the world are being deported and denied asylum despite real hardship,” the South African government said in the statement.
The Trump administration quickly gave Afrikaners’ applications the green light – while it has paused refugee programs from other countries, including Afghanistan.
