Marco Rubio rang foreign ministers – but it wasn't really him. It was an AI imposter
In mid-June, the person contacted the ministers, a US governor and a member of Congress via the Signal messaging app and left voicemails for at least two of them, according to a diplomatic cable seen by Reuters.
In one instance, a text message was sent to invite the targeted person to communicate on Signal.
'The actor likely aimed to manipulate targeted individuals using AI-generated text and voice messages with the goal of gaining access to information or accounts,' the cable said.
The Washington Post first reported the attempt. The episode comes weeks after the administration faced a crisis when President Donald Trump's former national security adviser Mike Waltz created a group chat on Signal in which a journalist was accidentally added. Information about military strikes on Yemen was subsequently shared on the chat.
'There is no direct cyber threat to the department from this campaign, but information shared with a third party could be exposed if targeted individuals are compromised,' it said.
The State Department cable, dated July 3, was sent to all diplomatic and consular posts and suggests that staff warn external partners about fake accounts and impersonations.
It did not reveal further details about the identities of the foreign ministers and US politicians contacted.
'The State Department is aware of this incident and is currently investigating the matter,' a senior State Department official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
30 minutes ago
- News.com.au
‘Nearly impossible': Elon Musk's new political party faces massive challenges
Elon Musk's effort to break up the duopoly of American politics is extremely unlikely to succeed, for reasons we shall explore, but he could still play a crucial role as a spoiler. This past week the Tesla and SpaceX boss, who until recently was a member of President Donald Trump's inner circle and his biggest donor, said he was creating the 'America Party' as an alternative to the Democrats, and to Mr Trump's Republicans. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste and graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,' he said last Saturday. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.' You can see, there, an allusion to Mr Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill', the massive piece of budget legislation that has now been signed into law by the President. It is projected to grow America's already considerable national debt by trillions of dollars. And for that reason, Mr Musk has opposed it vociferously, describing the bill as 'disgusting'. Mr Musk, who's worth hundreds of billions of dollars, does have the funds he would need to make a third party viable in America's particularly money-soaked political system. The almost $US300 million he gave to get Mr Trump elected last year barely registered as a dent on his personal wealth. But even in the United States, money is far from everything. David Smith is an Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy with the United States Studies Centre, at the University of Sydney. He outlined the various challenges Mr Musk will face with this new party, should he decide to persist with it. 'Before we even think about the peculiarities of Elon, we just need to remember how hard it is for any third party to break into American politics,' Professor Smith told 'There have been a couple of parties that have been trying for decades, the Libertarians and the Greens. They never win any seats in Congress, and they never get more than a couple of percentage points in the presidential vote. That's despite the fact there will be millions of Americans who agree with them. 'The reason is the American electoral system. Winner takes all, all the way down.' In Australia, you can vote for a Green, or a Teal, or an independent, and then preference one of the major parties. So even if your preferred minor candidate fails to win, your vote doesn't die with them; it still matters in deciding whether Labor or the Coalition takes the seat. 'We can vote for One Nation and still preference the Coalition. We can vote for the Greens and still preference Labor. If you vote for a minor party, that doesn't mean giving away your right to choose between the two parties who will actually win,' Prof Smith explained. The structure of our Senate is another factor that restrains the dominance of the major parties. 'In the Upper House, we have proportional representation, which means that if a party gets 10 per cent of the vote, generally they get 10 per cent of the seats,' he said. 'These are the ways we let minor parties into the system. There's just nothing like that in the United States.' The American system does not have preferences, and that kneecaps third-party candidates. Say you're running for Congress under Mr Musk's banner in next year's midterms. How do you convince people they wouldn't be throwing their votes away by supporting you? 'There is no way for third parties or for independents to really break into that system, because when Americans vote for a third party or an independent, they are effectively giving up their choice over whether the Democrats or the Republicans will win,' Prof Smith said. 'That's how entrenched the two-party system is. When every single race is just 'whoever gets the most votes wins', people believe it's going to be one of the big parties. They are going to be very reluctant to vote for anybody else. 'So it's nearly impossible for any third party or candidate, no matter how much money they have, to break in from outside. 'What we see in the US is that, when outsiders come in, they do it through the major parties.' One glaringly obvious example of this comes to mind: the current President, Mr Trump. When he entered politics in 2015 after flirting with the idea for decades, Mr Trump did not mount an independent campaign for the presidency. Instead he sought the Republican Party's nomination, and vanquished a field of more conventional party insiders to claim it. Fast forward a decade, and the party has become his own. He transformed American politics from within one of the major parties, not from without. 'Trump managed to win a Republican primary without having ever been in politics before,' Prof Smith noted. 'In New York, we've just seen Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, winning the Democratic primary. 'So that is how outsiders come into American politics. It's through the major parties. It's not from outside of them. 'Really, anybody would find it very difficult to bring in a new party that could do anything except sometimes act as a spoiler, which is what the Greens and Libertarians do.' In fairness to Mr Musk, his stated aim here with the America Party is not some pie in the sky fantasy like winning the presidency. Rather he has spoken of claiming a handful of congressional seats, or maybe three or four Senate seats, which would give his party huge influence over the passage of legislation. The idea is that neither major party could get anything done without Musk-backed votes. Even that goal, however, is a stretch. The structural problem, the hostility of America's system towards third parties, still lurks in the background. 'Even that is a really tall order,' Prof Smith said of Mr Musk's target. 'When you look at the records of people from outside the two major parties contesting these races, it's very rare that you see someone getting above 20 per cent. And that's really unusual. Usually it's a lot lower than that. 'When he's talking about targeting particularly close and high profile House races: those will be the races where people are most aware of the potential spoiler effect. So that could actually be a problem, targeting those races, because those might be the ones where people are particularly averse to voting for anyone other than the major parties.' Another problem: how can Mr Musk's new party attract talent, given the most ambitious among America's potential politicians will know their easiest route to prominence and power is to sign up with the Republicans or Democrats? Contrary to what you might think, watching the Democrats flail around fecklessly, and the Republicans' efforts to pioneer heretofor unthinkable levels of spinelessness, the quality of the candidate in these congressional races does matter. 'Talented candidates are going to realise that if they really want to hit the big time, they're going to need to go through a major party,' said Prof Smith. 'Elon himself has very high name recognition, which is a huge bonus when you're trying to get into politics, as it was for Trump. 'But of course, Elon himself could never run for president. He would have to find somebody else to front his party, and it wouldn't be anybody with the kind of name recognition he has.' America's Constitution bars anyone other than a natural-born citizen from becoming president. Mr Musk is a citizen, but he was born in South Africa. Which places him in the role of party founder and funder, but restricts his capacity to personally lead it. Still, he will be inescapably associated with the America Party. And that, too, could present a challenge. Or several. 'The other thing that's working against him is it's not really clear what his constituency would be,' Prof Smith said. 'I mean, Elon's supporters are generally, these days, a section of the Republican Party. Some of them might really like what Elon has to say. He wants low taxes, he wants a lot less regulation of everything. He's got this futuristic vision of a tech-led America. 'But really, most of those people are, at the end of the day, going to vote Republican. It's going to be a big concern, for them, to get Democrats out, and to do that, they vote for the Republicans, they don't vote for Elon. 'They will be conscious that if they were to vote for Elon, they might actually be taking votes away from the Republican Party. 'Elon, I suppose the party that he'd be closest to currently, apart from the Republicans, would be the Libertarians, and they've already got their own established constituency. It's really hard to see what niche he is filling in American politics.' Prof Smith did stress that, even if the America Party were to fall short of winning races, 'there are other ways' in which Mr Musk could exert his influence on politics. 'His candidates could be spoiler candidates, just siphoning a few votes off Republicans. He could, given his money and resources, he could run massive advertising campaigns. So he can definitely influence politics and exercise power, in a way, but I just don't see his party being very likely to get representation.' The other factor here of course, the other billionaire with a famously large ego in the conversation, is Mr Trump. And the President did feel the need to weigh in on Mr Musk's new party this week. 'I think it's ridiculous to start a third party,' he told reporters. 'It has always been a two-party system, and I think starting a third party just adds to the confusion.' He was a touch ruder on social media, accusing Mr Musk of going 'off the rails' and 'essentially becoming a trainwreck'. 'He even wants to start a third political party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States,' Mr Trump wrote. Prof Smith said that, to be fair, 'some of the stuff' Mr Trump threw at Mr Musk this week 'is probably true'. 'The fact that Trump is spending so much time on this, though – what it shows you is Republicans, like the Democrats, they get very, very worried about potential spoilers. 'In the lead-up to the 2016, 2020 and 2024 elections, all parties spent massive efforts to try to get spoilers out of the race.' As the foremost example, he cited Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the son of former US attorney-general Robert F. Kennedy. Mr Kennedy, an environmental lawyer who gained a following as something of a conspiracy theorist on health matters – vaccines, etc – ran as an independent last year before eventually dropping out and endorsing Mr Trump. His reward was to be appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, putting him in charge of federal health policy. Which is worth a whole other article, another time. 'In the middle of 2024, it looked like he could seriously siphon some votes away from Donald Trump, so Trump basically got him out of the race by buying him off, by promising him the Health and Human Services position,' said Prof Smith. 'So these parties will do anything to try to keep spoiler candidates out of the race. What I think you would see is Republicans mounting all kinds of efforts to try to keep Elon's party off the ballot in various states.' That leads to some complicated legal calculus. 'This is where the whole sort of localised complexity of US politics becomes a problem for Elon because every state has different requirements for parties getting on the ballot, some of which are quite onerous,' he said. 'I'm sure there will be a lot of legal challenges. Given how close some of these races are, even a spoiler candidate who gets a few thousand votes could be a real problem. 'So the thoughtfulness of Trump's reaction shows that, while Elon doesn't have a hope of winning any seats, he certainly could siphon a few vital votes away.'
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Donald Trump defends Texas flood response
US President Donald Trump has defended state and federal responses to the deadly Texas floods during a visit to stricken Kerr County.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
US State Department lays off more than 1350 employees
The State Department has begun firing more than 1350 US-based employees as the Trump administration presses ahead with an unprecedented overhaul of its diplomatic corp. Critics say the move will undermine US ability to defend and promote US interests abroad. The layoffs, which affect 1107 civil service and 246 foreign service officers based in the United States, came on Friday at a time when Washington is grappling with multiple crises on the world stage: Russia's war in Ukraine, the almost two-year-long Gaza conflict, and the Middle East on edge due to high tension between Israel and Iran. "The Department is streamlining domestic operations to focus on diplomatic priorities," an internal State Department notice that was sent to the workforce said. "Headcount reductions have been carefully tailored to affect non-core functions, duplicative or redundant offices, and offices where considerable efficiencies may be found." The total reduction in the workforce will be nearly 3000, including the voluntary departures, according to the notice and a senior State Department official, out of the 18,000 employees based in the US. The move is the first step of a restructuring that President Donald Trump has sought to ensure US foreign policy is aligned with his "America First" agenda. Former diplomats and critics say the firing of foreign service officers risks America's ability to counter the growing assertiveness from adversaries such as China and Russia. "President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio are once again making America less safe and less secure," Democratic senator Tim Kaine from Virginia said in a statement. "This is one of the most ridiculous decisions that could possibly be made at a time when China is increasing its diplomatic footprint around the world and establishing an overseas network of military and transportation bases, Russia is continuing its years-long brutal assault of a sovereign country, and the Middle East is careening from crisis to crisis." Dozens of State Department employees crowded the lobby of the agency's headquarters in Washington holding an impromptu "clap-out" for their colleagues who have been fired. Dozens of people were crying, as they carried their belongings in boxes and hugged and bid farewell to friends and fellow workers. Many members of a State Department office overseeing the US resettlement of Afghans who worked for the US government during the 20-year war have also been terminated as part of the overhaul. The State Department has begun firing more than 1350 US-based employees as the Trump administration presses ahead with an unprecedented overhaul of its diplomatic corp. Critics say the move will undermine US ability to defend and promote US interests abroad. The layoffs, which affect 1107 civil service and 246 foreign service officers based in the United States, came on Friday at a time when Washington is grappling with multiple crises on the world stage: Russia's war in Ukraine, the almost two-year-long Gaza conflict, and the Middle East on edge due to high tension between Israel and Iran. "The Department is streamlining domestic operations to focus on diplomatic priorities," an internal State Department notice that was sent to the workforce said. "Headcount reductions have been carefully tailored to affect non-core functions, duplicative or redundant offices, and offices where considerable efficiencies may be found." The total reduction in the workforce will be nearly 3000, including the voluntary departures, according to the notice and a senior State Department official, out of the 18,000 employees based in the US. The move is the first step of a restructuring that President Donald Trump has sought to ensure US foreign policy is aligned with his "America First" agenda. Former diplomats and critics say the firing of foreign service officers risks America's ability to counter the growing assertiveness from adversaries such as China and Russia. "President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio are once again making America less safe and less secure," Democratic senator Tim Kaine from Virginia said in a statement. "This is one of the most ridiculous decisions that could possibly be made at a time when China is increasing its diplomatic footprint around the world and establishing an overseas network of military and transportation bases, Russia is continuing its years-long brutal assault of a sovereign country, and the Middle East is careening from crisis to crisis." Dozens of State Department employees crowded the lobby of the agency's headquarters in Washington holding an impromptu "clap-out" for their colleagues who have been fired. Dozens of people were crying, as they carried their belongings in boxes and hugged and bid farewell to friends and fellow workers. Many members of a State Department office overseeing the US resettlement of Afghans who worked for the US government during the 20-year war have also been terminated as part of the overhaul. The State Department has begun firing more than 1350 US-based employees as the Trump administration presses ahead with an unprecedented overhaul of its diplomatic corp. Critics say the move will undermine US ability to defend and promote US interests abroad. The layoffs, which affect 1107 civil service and 246 foreign service officers based in the United States, came on Friday at a time when Washington is grappling with multiple crises on the world stage: Russia's war in Ukraine, the almost two-year-long Gaza conflict, and the Middle East on edge due to high tension between Israel and Iran. "The Department is streamlining domestic operations to focus on diplomatic priorities," an internal State Department notice that was sent to the workforce said. "Headcount reductions have been carefully tailored to affect non-core functions, duplicative or redundant offices, and offices where considerable efficiencies may be found." The total reduction in the workforce will be nearly 3000, including the voluntary departures, according to the notice and a senior State Department official, out of the 18,000 employees based in the US. The move is the first step of a restructuring that President Donald Trump has sought to ensure US foreign policy is aligned with his "America First" agenda. Former diplomats and critics say the firing of foreign service officers risks America's ability to counter the growing assertiveness from adversaries such as China and Russia. "President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio are once again making America less safe and less secure," Democratic senator Tim Kaine from Virginia said in a statement. "This is one of the most ridiculous decisions that could possibly be made at a time when China is increasing its diplomatic footprint around the world and establishing an overseas network of military and transportation bases, Russia is continuing its years-long brutal assault of a sovereign country, and the Middle East is careening from crisis to crisis." Dozens of State Department employees crowded the lobby of the agency's headquarters in Washington holding an impromptu "clap-out" for their colleagues who have been fired. Dozens of people were crying, as they carried their belongings in boxes and hugged and bid farewell to friends and fellow workers. Many members of a State Department office overseeing the US resettlement of Afghans who worked for the US government during the 20-year war have also been terminated as part of the overhaul. The State Department has begun firing more than 1350 US-based employees as the Trump administration presses ahead with an unprecedented overhaul of its diplomatic corp. Critics say the move will undermine US ability to defend and promote US interests abroad. The layoffs, which affect 1107 civil service and 246 foreign service officers based in the United States, came on Friday at a time when Washington is grappling with multiple crises on the world stage: Russia's war in Ukraine, the almost two-year-long Gaza conflict, and the Middle East on edge due to high tension between Israel and Iran. "The Department is streamlining domestic operations to focus on diplomatic priorities," an internal State Department notice that was sent to the workforce said. "Headcount reductions have been carefully tailored to affect non-core functions, duplicative or redundant offices, and offices where considerable efficiencies may be found." The total reduction in the workforce will be nearly 3000, including the voluntary departures, according to the notice and a senior State Department official, out of the 18,000 employees based in the US. The move is the first step of a restructuring that President Donald Trump has sought to ensure US foreign policy is aligned with his "America First" agenda. Former diplomats and critics say the firing of foreign service officers risks America's ability to counter the growing assertiveness from adversaries such as China and Russia. "President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio are once again making America less safe and less secure," Democratic senator Tim Kaine from Virginia said in a statement. "This is one of the most ridiculous decisions that could possibly be made at a time when China is increasing its diplomatic footprint around the world and establishing an overseas network of military and transportation bases, Russia is continuing its years-long brutal assault of a sovereign country, and the Middle East is careening from crisis to crisis." Dozens of State Department employees crowded the lobby of the agency's headquarters in Washington holding an impromptu "clap-out" for their colleagues who have been fired. Dozens of people were crying, as they carried their belongings in boxes and hugged and bid farewell to friends and fellow workers. Many members of a State Department office overseeing the US resettlement of Afghans who worked for the US government during the 20-year war have also been terminated as part of the overhaul.
