State Department launches effort to counter cyberattacks, AI risks from Iran, others
The United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks to the press. (Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The State Department has formally launched a new entity charged with anticipating and responding to dangers posed by Iran and other U.S. adversaries’ weaponization of advanced technology, including artificial intelligence, officials familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
The department’s Bureau of Emerging Threats has been tasked with safeguarding American national security against cyberattacks, the weaponization of space and similar malicious efforts, they said.
In addition to Iran, the officials identified novel threats from China, Russia, North Korea and foreign terrorist organizations as particular areas of focus.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the creation of the Bureau of Emerging Threats when he revealed his sweeping reorganization plan for the department nearly a year ago, but few specifics about its purpose have been revealed before now.
“The bureau will address not only the current threats we face today in cyberspace, outer space, critical infrastructure, and through the misuse of disruptive technology like AI and quantum, but those we will face in the decades ahead,” State Department principal deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott said.
Anny Vu, the senior official leading the bureau who also recently served as the Trump administration’s chargé d’affaires to China, said her team of experts will be “dedicated to leveraging foreign policy and all tools of national power” to protect U.S. interests.
Officials say the Bureau of Emerging Threats will include five divisions: the Office of Cybersecurity, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Security, the Office of Disruptive Technology, the Office of Space Security and the Office of Threat Assessment.
The Iranian regime and its affiliates have a long history of using cyberattacks to target U.S. interests, and the American cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike says it identified an uptick in activity from pro-Iranian actors after the U.S. and Israel initiated military action against the country in late February.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is investigating at least one major attack believed to have been carried out by pro-Iran hackers since the conflict began–a breach of the American medical technologies company, Stryker.
The State Department formally notified Congress about the creation of the Bureau of Emerging Threats on Friday, the same day the White House released its national policy framework for artificial intelligence.
The four-page blueprint calls on Congress to pass “minimally burdensome” laws governing the use of AI to override more restrictive state legislation. It also says lawmakers shouldn’t not seek to create any new federal agencies aimed at regulating AI.
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem testifies before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on March 04, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A Democratic senator says Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem provided false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In her appearance before the committee on Tuesday, Noem was asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., whether her adviser Corey Lewandowski, who is serving as a special government employee, has any role in approving DHS contracts, and she said no.
“Evidence suggests that your testimony was false. Internal DHS records show that Mr. Lewandowski has personally approved contracts at DHS, including, but not limited to, a multimillion-dollar contract,” according to a letter Blumenthal sent to Noem on Wednesday. “And current and former DHS employees have stated that Mr. Lewandowski’s signature is a green light for money to be transmitted to contractors.”
Blumenthal sent the letter on Wednesday night, after Noem’s testimony in front the House Committee.
In a follow-up appearance before a House committee on Wednesday, Rep. Jared Moskowitz asked Noem if she would like to correct her answer from Tuesday.
“What I would say is that he is an adviser to the Department of Homeland Security,” she said.
Sources have told ABC News that Lewandowski is Noem’s de facto chief of staff, despite having a 130-day cap on being able to work at the department, due to his status as a special government employee.
According to multiple sources, Lewandowski and Noem both approve contracts and “nothing” gets to the secretary without Lewandowski’s approval.
Oftentimes, Lewandowski travels with the secretary to her public events, and on multiple occasions ABC News has seen Lewandowski behind the scenes at events the secretary is speaking at.
When asked by two Democratic representatives if the two were romantically linked, Noem did not deny it and instead called the two Democratic members’ line of questioning “garbage.”
Lewandowski and Noem have both previously denied any romantic relationship. Both are married to other people.
The department didn’t immediately respond to the letter, or about Lewandowski’s role at DHS.
In this U.S. Navy released handout, Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116) fires a Tomahawk land attack missile in support of Operation Epic Fury, on March 1, 2026 at Sea. (Photo by U.S. Navy via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The sinking of an Iranian warship Tuesday by a U.S. submarine thousands of miles from the war zone in international waters raises questions about whether the attack was legal under the rules of war.
Military law experts said the Iranian ship, which was in the Indian Ocean in international waters off Sri Lanka, would have been a lawful target had the U.S. declared war. The fact that it hasn’t done so makes the issue a murky one.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the attack an “atrocity.”
“The U.S. will come to bitterly regret precedent it has set,” he said.
Experts say the incident highlights the reason that a declaration of war by Congress is needed for the growing conflict, which has involved more than 12 countries, as Iran continues launching drones and missiles at countries beyond the Persian Gulf region.
The House of Representatives on Thursday voted against a war powers resolution. Similar legislation failed Wednesday in the Senate. Both votes largely followed party lines.
The submarine strike in international waters “underscores why Congress should have approved this in the first place,” said Retired Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, a former judge advocate general in the U.S. Air Force, “because this is a war [in which they’re] going to go after the Iranian Navy,” even when naval assets are outside the Middle East.
“The Iranian Navy is not small, right? It could be in places like outside of Sri Lanka and international water.”
Under the laws of armed conflict, were the U.S. and Iran in a declared war, the warship would represent a lawful target, former U.S. government lawyers told ABC News.
The issue with the submarine’s attacking the warship in international waters, VanLandingham said, was “political” in nature and not legal.
“When you’re going to have such global implications — that’s one of the reasons the founding fathers said Congress gets to decide wars of choice,” she said.
Brian Finucane, who was attorney-adviser at the State Department from 2011 to 2021, also said the submarine attack would have been lawful if the conflict was authorized.
According to Finucane, the U.S. would have an obligation under the Geneva Conventions to conduct search and rescue operations for survivors of the sinking.
A source familiar with Tuesday’s operation said the submarine took measures to support life-saving efforts before and after the ship sank in line with international law.
The military’s compliance with that international law was called into question when a second strike on an alleged drug boat killed survivors in international waters in the Caribbean Sea in September.
“The fundamental legal problems under both U.S. and international law” of the submarine engagement, Finucane said, “relate to the underlying use of force in this war against Iran.”
Authorization by Congress for the war is required by law because the U.S. offensive against Iran is not a response to an imminent threat, experts said.
President Donald Trump and his administration have said Iran posed such a threat. Secretary Marco Rubio said the threat became more imminent because Israel planned to strike Iran and Iran would retailiate against Israel and the U.S.
While the president has called the conflict a “war,” senior officials in his administration — and top leadership in Congress — have refrained from using the word.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said Wednesday the U.S. “is not at war now.”
The Pentagon’s top policy official, asked whether the U.S. was at war with Iran in a congressional hearing Thursday, would not use the term.
“I think we’re in a military action at this point,” said Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby. “I will leave to Congress and lawyers from the administration, et cetera, to determine.”
Ambiguity about the conflict’s label from across the government comes as Pentagon officials say the conflict will only “accelerate” in intensity — and potentially grow in scope.
The U.S. military mission is in a “throttle-up” posture, said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who would not confine the campaign to a time limit.
“The only limits we have in this is President Trump’s desire to achieve specific effects on behalf of the American people,” Hegseth said.
A view of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts which was recently renamed The Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the performing arts in Washington, DC on December 29, 2025. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s plan for a “Complete Rebuilding” of the Kennedy Center in Washington has sparked a legal debate over whether he — or Congress — has the power to control the high-profile cultural institution.
The battle began in December, when Trump’s name was added to the building’s facade — above the existing signage that reads “The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts” — following a unanimous vote by Trump’s hand-picked board of center trustees.
It escalated recently, when Trump announced it would close in July for two years — to make major renovations he said were necessary.
Some members of Congress are pushing back, including in court, alleging Trump’s actions are unlawful and should be reversed.
What does the law say? Here’s a closer look at what the law and history say on the question:
Since Congress created the cultural institution in a federal statute, designating it as a living memorial in 1964 shortly after President John F. Kennedy’s death and then through its expansion in the 2010s, it has been operated by both the executive and legislative branches — contributing to the legal debate.
While the executive branch oversees the appointments of the center’s board of trustees, Congress has the ultimate say on what money gets appropriated and what projects get approved.
The House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies grants the center’s board the power to act on any proposed and approved changes.
According to the top Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Chellie Pingree, the panel has historically controlled all funding, project management and security, separate from the executive branch or what is voted on by the center’s trustees.
Congress has proposed and authorized expansive construction projects, such as the REACH expansion adjacent to the Kennedy Center, designed for artist collaboration, to smaller standard year-to-year maintenance costs.
When Trump’s signature legislation passed in July, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” it circumvented the subcommittee, instead directly appropriating $256,657,000 for “necessary expenses for capital repair, restoration, maintenance backlog, and security structures of the building.”
In a statement, the Kennedy Center’s new president, Richard Grenell, a Trump appointee, said, “I am grateful for President Trump’s visionary leadership. I am also grateful to Congress for appropriating an historic $257M to finally address decades of deferred maintenance and repairs at the Trump Kennedy Center.”
The Trump administration has suggested these already appropriated funds will cover any costs of his proposed major renovation.
“It desperately needs this renovation and temporarily closing the center just makes sense — it will enable us to better invest our resources, think bigger and make the historic renovations more comprehensive,” Grenell said. “It also means we will be finished faster.”
Limits on the president’s power? Georgetown University law professor David Super told ABC News that even though the money for those changes is already appropriated by Congress, Trump and his administration do not have total freedom to make decisions.
“The Constitution says that no money shall be drawn for the Treasury except in accordance with an appropriation passed by Congress,” Super said. “He can spend that money for any of the purposes Congress provided it for, and that includes deferred maintenance, repair, restoration, renovation. It does not allow him to rebuild it.”
While Trump has suggested major renovations, no plans have been officially released or shared with the congressional subcommittee overseeing the center. During an Oval Office photo, Trump said the steel would be “fully exposed” but not removed.
“I’m not ripping it down. I’ll be using the steel,” he said. “So, we’re using the structure. We’re using some of the marble and some of the marble comes down, but when it’s opened, it’ll be brand new and really beautiful. It’ll be at the highest level.”
Super said if those renovations align with the language of the law Congress has passed, it is within Trump’s legal right both as president — and chair of the Kennedy Center’s board — to go forward. If the renovations go beyond what the law spells out and allows, Super said, his moves would be unconstitutional.
“Some of his remarks about ‘maybe, they will use the marble, maybe they won’t’, imply that he’s planning something much more than renovation or repair,” Super said. “If so, then he would be violating the language of the appropriation, and therefore the Constitution.”
When asked whether the president would keep his plan within the constraints laid out by Congress, White House spokeswoman Liz Hudston told ABC News: “While the Democrats neglected the Trump-Kennedy Center for years, President Trump immediately stepped up to rescue and revitalize the institution.”
Hudston also included some intended uses of the funds for maintenance, including “repairing and, where necessary, replacing elements on the exterior of the building,” and “work to bring the Trump-Kennedy Center into compliance with current life safety codes and security standard.”
So far, there are no lawsuits alleging Trump’s proposed renovations to the center are illegal.
The renaming The center’s controversial renaming presents another legal question.
When the building was designated a living memorial in 1964, Congress wrote in explicit language on how the center should be named and operated.
U.S. Public Law 88-260 dictates the U.S. must “be held to designate or refer to such Center as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
“They really left very little to the imagination, and detailed what they wanted the Kennedy Center to be,” Super said, adding, “there are many things Congress creates that it doesn’t name, and that’s left to the president to name, but here is a law saying it shall be known as the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
Super said that regardless of what the board of trustees decides, the name will legally remain as written in the statute.
“And as a duly passed law of Congress, this binds you, it binds me, and it binds the president,” Super said. “The money that the president says he wants to spend on renovating the Kennedy Center is money that was appropriated for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, not for the Trump-Kennedy Center. So, if he in fact uses that money, he is acknowledging that its name did not change.”
A former Kennedy Center trustee, Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, has filed a lawsuit to stop Trump and the board of trustees from changing the Kennedy Center’s name and wants Trump’s name removed.
U.S. Code § 76j states that “the Board shall assure that after December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
“Because Congress named the center by statute, changing the Kennedy Center’s name requires an act of Congress,” Beatty’s lawsuit said. “But on December 18 and 19, 2025 — in scenes more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the American republic — the sitting President and his handpicked loyalists renamed this storied center after President Trump.”
Pingree said her subcommittee has been told little about Trump’s plans and that she had instead learned about his proposed changes through social media.
“What’s going to happen now?” Pingree told ABC News, adding,” he tore down the East Wing. Does this mean he thinks he’s going to tear down the Kennedy Center and just rebuild it as a monument to himself?”
With lawmakers beginning discussions on funding for 2027, Pingree said she is working with her Republican counterpart to demand information.
“We will certainly say to them, we’re not going to allocate any money in this cycle until you give us more information about what you’re doing,” Pingree said.
“If that money is currently being used just to keep the place afloat because ticket sales are off and performers won’t perform, then it’s not going to go to the desperately needed. I believe there are some really important things that need to be done to that building,” she said.
