US braces for 'low-level' cyberattacks by Tehran
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
WASHINGTON: US officials are warning businesses to brace for potential Iranian cyberattacks following American airstrikes on the country's nuclear sites, an event that experts say could draw a relatively small response from hackers.A bulletin from the Department of Homeland Security warned that Iranian hackers routinely target American technology, and that such activity is poised to occur after the US military operation. The message said that DHS hadn't identified any specific imminent threat."Low-level cyberattacks against US networks by pro-Iranian hacktivists are likely, and cyber actors affiliated with the Iranian government may conduct attacks against US networks," according to the bulletin issued Sunday. It also warned of potential retaliatory violence from extremists in the US.Iranian hackers have been accused in recent years of targeting banks, a Saudi oil company and US elections. The country has repeatedly shown a willingness to use cyberattacks against adversaries with stronger cyber capabilities than itself, including Israel, according to a 2024 threat assessment by US intelligence Iran's top military general on Monday said that the American strikes on its nuclear sites had given Iran a free hand for retaliatory measures. Still, while Iranian cyberattacks could disrupt specific targets, John Hultquist, chief analyst at Google's Threat Intelligence Group, warned that the country frequently fabricates or exaggerates its capabilities "in an effort to boost their psychological impact.""We should be careful not to overestimate these incidents and inadvertently assist the actors," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump, his tariffs still face challenge in court
President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade, a specialised federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes tariffs on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges one by five businesses and one by 12 US states into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specialises in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad that the case is widely expected to reach the US Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his One Big Beautiful Bill,' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The US Constitution gives the power to impose taxes including tariffs to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average US tariff to more than 18 per cent, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the US border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 Liberation Day,' Trump called it he invoked IEEPA to announce reciprocal' tariffs of up to 50 per cent on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10 per cent baseline' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorise the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an unusual and extraordinary' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs exceed any authority granted to the President' under the emergency powers law. The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they deal with' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to US national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term and President Joe Biden kept after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Birthright citizenship: Travelling to give birth in US? Visa may be denied
The US government has warned that visas will be cancelled if applicants are found travelling to the country with the primary intention of giving birth to secure citizenship for their child. 'Using your visa to travel for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States so that your child will have US citizenship is not permitted,' said the US Mission to Nigeria in a post on social media. 'Consular officers will deny your visa application if they have reason to believe this is your intent.' The warning comes as part of a broader tightening of visa rules under the current administration. What is birth tourism? Birth tourism refers to the practice of travelling to the US to give birth so that the child receives American citizenship. Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, anyone born on US soil is granted citizenship, regardless of the parents' immigration status. Former President Donald Trump has long objected to this, describing it as a misuse of citizenship laws. During his first term, the White House issued a fact sheet criticising the practice, saying, 'The administration is taking action to end 'birth tourism' – a practice in which aliens travel to the United States with the purpose of giving birth to gain citizenship for their children.' That statement also accused organised groups of helping women exploit a 'loophole' to obtain citizenship for their babies. Court challenges mount against Trump's executive order Despite the warning, several federal judges across the US have blocked attempts by the Trump administration to end birthright citizenship. Most recently, US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts said the executive order was unconstitutional. 'American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the legal challenge. 'The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.' Judge Sorokin said a nationwide injunction would remain in place. He also rejected the government's proposal to limit the scope of the ruling, saying a fragmented approach would be impractical because people often move between states. In his judgment, he wrote, 'They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes.' The Supreme Court, in a separate ruling last month, said lower courts generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions. But it did not stop class-action rulings or those led by states from having broad effects. What the plaintiffs are arguing Those opposing the executive order say it goes against the Constitution. In the Boston case, the plaintiffs said the 14th Amendment enshrines the principle of birthright citizenship and that the President does not have the authority to override it. They warned the order would strip citizenship from children based on their parentage and would also hurt states financially. Several states rely on federal funds to provide services like foster care, special needs programmes, and healthcare for low-income children. If the executive order were allowed to stand, they argue, states would lose support for services that are tied to citizenship status. The administration has countered this by claiming that the children of non-citizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore do not automatically qualify for citizenship. 'These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment,' said Abigail Jackson, the White House spokeswoman. The administration has yet to appeal the latest rulings, but the issue could end up before the Supreme Court.
Mint
9 minutes ago
- Mint
China Says Trade Talks With US in Sweden Deepened Mutual Trust
Trade talks between Chinese and US negotiators this week in Sweden have strengthened trust between the two sides and boosted confidence in resolving economic disputes via discussions, the Communist Party's official newspaper said. 'The meeting sent a positive signal with the joint efforts by both sides,' the People's Daily said in a commentary credited to Zhong Sheng, a Chinese homonym for 'Voice of China' that's often used to set out Beijing's foreign policy views. The agreement to push for an extension of the pause on US reciprocal tariffs of 24% and Chinese countermeasures for 90 days is welcomed by all parties, it said. Such 'pragmatic' arrangements 'not only help build mutual trust and advance overall negotiations, but once again demonstrate it's more efficient and less costly to resolve economic and trade disputes through dialogues and consultations,' according to the commentary. Negotiators led by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng wrapped their two-day meeting in Stockholm on Tuesday, the third round of talks in less than three months. While the Chinese side said the two nations agreed to extend an Aug. 12 deadline to resolve differences, US officials have said President Donald Trump will make the final call on maintaining the truce. The vice premier on Tuesday urged the US to work with China to enhance consensus and reduce misunderstanding, adding the two sides share 'extensive common interests' and a 'broad space' for economic and trade cooperation, according to an earlier report by the Xinhua News Agency. The People's Daily echoed the call in the commentary. China is focusing on expanding domestic demand as a strategy and making efforts to increase imports, with American companies as a 'key beneficiary,' it said. 'Since the US is keen to expand exports to China, it should work to reduce unnecessary restrictions and foster a favorable environment for two-way business collaboration,' according to the article. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
