U.S. sanctions North Korean member of Kim Jong Un's spy agency
The U.S. has accused Song Kum Hyok of facilitating an IT worker scheme and charges that the member of the "Andariel" hacking group recruited North Korean cyber operatives to pose as American remote workers for hire at unwitting companies worldwide. The sprawling scheme, according to the Treasury Department, allowed North Koreans operating in China and Russia to collect paychecks as a way of fundraising for Kim's nuclear missile program. In some cases, North Korean IT workers have gone as far as to plant malware into company networks.
In 2022, Song began choreographing the moneymaking plot that stole personal information of U.S. citizens – including names, Social Security numbers, and addresses – in order to create aliases for the hired foreign workers disguised as American job applicants, with whom he ultimately split the proceeds.
As CBS News has reported, North Korea deploys IT workers worldwide to fraudulently seek jobs with top companies, allowing North Korean cyber operatives to take home a hefty paycheck that is ultimately funneled to the regime. The moneymaking scheme is worth hundreds of millions, according to FBI senior officials.
Treasury officials said North Korea's IT worker scheme employs "thousands of highly skilled workers" who are primarily located in China and Russia, ultimately channeling funds to Kim Jong Un's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.
As part of its crackdown on Kim Jong Un's growing cyber espionage campaign and attempted impersonation of American workers, the department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, known as OFAC, is also sanctioning four entities that it found were funneling money to North Korea as part of a Russia-based IT worker scheme.
The Treasury Department is also targeting the Russia-based "Asatryan IT Worker Network." The network's founder, Gayk Asatryan, according to the department, was found to have signed a 10-year contract with the North Korean regime in 2024, agreeing to dispatch as many as 30 North Korean IT workers to work in Russia for his company, part of a broad money-making scheme.
The government's efforts to undercut North Korea's "unlawful weapons development," stem from a March 2016 United Nations Security Council Resolution.
"Today's action underscores the importance of vigilance on the DPRK's continued efforts to clandestinely fund its WMD and ballistic missile programs," Treasury Deputy Secretary Michael Faulkender told CBS News in a statement, reaffirming the government's goal of "using all available tools to disrupt the Kim regime's efforts to circumvent sanctions through its digital asset theft, attempted impersonation of Americans, and malicious cyber-attacks."
According to the Treasury, North Korean cyber operatives engaged in IT worker schemes routinely hide their locations and use proxy accounts, stolen identities and falsified or forged documentation to apply for jobs at employers in wealthier countries.
Applications and software developed by North Korean IT workers span popular industry sectors like business, health and fitness, social networking, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, according to the Treasury Department. The North Korean cyber operatives often take on projects involving virtual currency exchanges, enabling them to more easily launder money back to the regime, undetected.
In May, CBS Mornings profiled "Steven Smith," a suspected member of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's cyber army. Smith was caught red-handed a by the cryptocurrency firm Kraken after a "do not hire" list circulated by law enforcement flagged him as a potential North Korean spy.
Sneak peek: Who Killed Aileen Seiden in Room 15?
Everything we know so far about the deadly Texas floods
Search continues for dozens after Texas floods, at least 79 dead with more severe weather expected
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
29 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Admin Sues California Over Soaring Egg Prices
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration has sued California over its animal cruelty laws, saying the state's regulation of chicken farms has led to high egg prices across the country. Lowering the cost of eggs, which spiked in recent years as an avian flu outbreak ravaged American flocks, was one of President Donald Trump's key campaign promises in the lead-up to the 2024 election. But almost six months into his second mandate, his administration has struggled to keep the cost of the staple down. The administration now says California's regulations create "unnecessary red tape" in the production of eggs and are responsible for stubbornly high prices. The lawsuit is the latest flash point in the ongoing battle between the U.S. president and the Democratic-led state, which has clashed with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration policies and transgender rights. "Trump's back to his favorite hobby: blaming California for literally everything," the office of California Governor Gavin Newsom wrote on X, formerly Twitter, about the lawsuit. "Next up: @CAGovernor Gavin Newsom caused the fall of Rome and sent the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs!" What Is the Lawsuit About? The lawsuit, which the Trump administration filed in Los Angeles federal court, blamed the Golden State's animal cruelty laws—widely regarded as among the strictest and most progressive in the nation—for creating the conditions that led to the current spike in egg prices across the country. The laws, the Trump administration argued, have prevented "farmers across the country from using a number of agricultural production methods which were in widespread use—and which helped keep eggs affordable." Under Proposition 2, an initiative approved by California voters in 2008 and implemented in 2015, the state forbids farmers from packing chickens together so close that a hen cannot "lie down, stand up, fully extend its limbs, and turn around freely." Essentially, the state bans the use of chicken battery farms, a method of intensive egg production where hens are stacked in rows and rows of tiny cages, which restrict their natural movements and can cause the animals high levels of stress and frustration. A composite image of a supermarket shopper walking past an egg display in Monterey Park, California, on February 10 and an inset of President Donald Trump in the State Dining Room of the White House... A composite image of a supermarket shopper walking past an egg display in Monterey Park, California, on February 10 and an inset of President Donald Trump in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 9. More FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images;Proposition 12, an initiative backed by California voters in 2018 and implemented in January 2022, outlawed the use of cages for egg-laying hens, sows and calves raised for veal, giving specific requirements of how much space farmers must give to their animals. Crucially, it also banned the in-state sale of products from caged animals raised out of state. The Trump administration's lawsuit argued that the federal Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970 should preempt any California state laws related to eggs. This law, the lawsuit says, gives the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services the authority to regulate eggs to protect consumers' health and welfare, and it requires "national uniformity" in egg safety standards. "It is the prerogative of the federal government alone to regulate the quality, inspection, and packaging of eggs," the Justice Department wrote in its civil complaint. "Americans across the country have suffered the consequences of liberal policies causing massive inflation for everyday items like eggs," Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. "Under President Trump's leadership, we will use the full extent of federal law to ensure that American families are free from oppressive regulatory burdens and restore American prosperity." It is not the first time that California's animal cruelty laws have been challenged in court. In 2014, six states—Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky and Iowa—sued California over its egg regulations. The states lost both in a federal district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Other states—including Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Washington—have laws requiring eggs sold in the state to be from cage-free hens. In February, Nevada temporarily relaxed its cage-free requirements because of the shortages, but the rules were restored in June. How High Are Egg Prices? According to the latest consumer price index, egg prices nationwide averaged $4.55 per dozen in May—up from $2.69 a year earlier, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The main reason behind higher egg prices is that supply has shrunk as a direct consequence of the avian flu that broke out in the country in February 2022 and has since wreaked havoc among American flocks. Under federal policy, to prevent the spread of the virus, entire flocks must be culled if even a single infected bird is found on a farm. Cage-free hens proved to be particularly vulnerable to the virus. In 2024, according to NerdWallet, cage-free hens represented almost 60 percent of all bird flu cases for the year, even as they accounted for about a third of egg-laying hens in the U.S. In January, the White House blamed the Biden administration for killing more than 100 million birds, most of which were egg-laying hens. The Trump administration's lawsuit against California does not mention the avian flu that has laid waste across the U.S. egg industry and led to the culling of millions of birds across the country over the past few years.
Boston Globe
36 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The next front in the battle over America's universities? Accreditation.
The New England commission and other accreditors are independent nonprofits that do not answer directly to the federal government, though they are reviewed by the Department of Education. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in the notice Wednesday that the Trump administration will be closely following the commission's response to the Harvard mandate. Advertisement 'By allowing antisemitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers,' McMahon wrote. 'The Department of Education expects [the commission] to enforce its policies and practices, and to keep the Department fully informed of its efforts to ensure that Harvard is in compliance with federal law and accreditor standards.' The commission confirmed receiving the letter, noted that the government cannot direct it to revoke accreditation, and pointed to its process to review 'significant accreditation-related information.' Advertisement The action against Harvard is only the administration's latest challenge to the accreditation system: In April, Trump issued an executive order claiming accreditors have All of it could alter the quiet role accreditors play as part of the longstanding 'triad' of regulators — the state and federal government included — who ensure a college operates as advertised. A student in the Smith Campus Center at Harvard University. SOPHIE PARK/NYT The New England Commission of Higher Education is the largest such accreditor in New England, enlisting some 2,000 volunteers — mostly university faculty and administrators — to conduct on-campus inspections of institutions every 10 years. A 32-member board of higher education insiders, attorneys, and business executives then review those evaluations and order colleges to make changes to keep their accreditation. Its evaluation itself consists of Altogether, the standards aim to ensure a school has enough money to operate and offers a worthwhile education, or face an accreditation revocation. But such a drastic step is rare and often tied to financial woes — such as at now-shuttered Pine Manor College in Newton or Advertisement Accreditors themselves can lose their federal approval, though that rarely happens, too; the only recent example came in 2022, when More typically, the accreditation triggers an academic self-reflection on campus. Suffolk University in Boston, for example, conducts a two-year process of self-study by hundreds of staff who review students' work, read course syllabi, and analyze graduation rates to prepare for its accreditation review. By the end, the person leading the process for the school 'knows more about the university than anyone else alive,' said Bob Rosenthal, a newly retired Suffolk professor. That in turn helps the commission assess whether to recommend changes, such as the creation of a faculty senate at Suffolk 'They're very good at doing their due diligence,' Rosenthal said. 'They ask tough questions, and they pull no punches. … Universities take accreditation very seriously, in part because there is a penalty if you don't get things right.' With its focus on volunteers from academia, the current system rightly puts the bulk of the responsibility on those most familiar with colleges, said Larry Schall, president of the New England commission. But some critics say accreditors are too cozy with colleges, encouraging their preferred political ideologies and approving universities too easily, regardless of the quality of their academic programs or financial health. In response, a House committee provisions in accreditation. (One major West Coast accreditor already Advertisement A student walked across campus at Boston College in February. Jessica Rinaldi/Globe Staff Peter Wood, a former Boston University administrator who leads the right-leaning National Association of Scholars, said the proposals could reverse trends in accreditation that have hurt students and the educational experience. 'Institutions can change their mission quite freely and will bend to political goals rather than academic goals,' Wood said. 'We have a system of accreditation that accommodates that. The results have been that the quality of higher education has eroded.' While higher education experts say there may be credence to the criticism, most generally support accreditation as it stands. A survey of 415 college officials by the Chronicle of Higher Education found that more than 80 percent believe accreditors ensure academic quality and hold colleges accountable. And some warn the House legislation risks giving government too much power over the accreditation process. Six southern and largely-Republican states — led by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis — are trying In a statement, Cynthia Jackson, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, said the industry group is 'not opposed' to new accreditors, but that states have historically 'not had the staff, experience, or knowledge necessary to create a higher education accreditor.' As for tying accreditation to student financial outcomes, Terri Cannon, a higher education consultant who formerly worked for the West Coast regional accreditor, said she worries institutions that specialize in lower-paying fields could be unfairly penalized under the changes. And she too warns about political motivations that may endanger academic freedom. Advertisement 'No democratic nation has the content and the decisions about who gets to study made by the federal government. Then you're no longer a democratic country,' she said. 'Within the higher ed community, there should be a diversity of institutional missions. But the federal government shouldn't dictate it. ... They're using a hammer when they should be using a scalpel.' Moreover, Cannon noted, accreditors already give more weight to metrics of student success than they did 30 years ago. The New England commission now prioritizes 'outputs' at universities, such as educational effectiveness and graduation rates, rather than 'inputs' like the number of library books or support staff. This year, the commission is updating its standards to further emphasize outputs and testing a new accreditation for non-degree and certificate programs that offer alternatives to traditional college at a lower cost, Schall said. Trump's push aside, declining enrollment and In 2018, for example, the Advertisement Mount Ida College in Newton closed in 2018, sparking some criticism of regional university accreditors for not warning students of its financial struggles. Craig F. Walker 'One of the impacts is that we haven't had another Mount Ida because of the [contingency] planning part of the law,' said Cynthia Brown, the associate commissioner for regulatory and veterans affairs at the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education. 'The law was created to prevent precipitous closures, to prevent closures without any warning, or notice, or planning.' In the coming weeks, the confrontation over Harvard's accreditation will reveal whether the White House can significantly change how universities are reviewed, said Jeremy Bauer-Wolf, who studies higher education at the left-leaning think tank New America. 'While Harvard's accreditation I don't feel is at any real risk, the action that the administration is taking here, this really extreme overreach, is a major problem,' Bauer-Wolf said. 'It is eroding the barriers, the legal barriers, that have been set up to insulate higher education from government interference.' Anjali Huynh of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Diti Kohli can be reached at
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lawrence O'Donnell Points To 5 Words From Trump As The Brutal ‘Truth' Of His Presidency
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday highlighted what he thinks is the key 'theme' of Donald Trump's presidency, which is related to an admission the president made when asked about a key military decision. Earlier this week, Trump acknowledged he didn't know who in his administration had ordered a pause in sending some munitions to Ukraine as the country continues to defend itself from Russia's invasion. When reminded of that comment and asked if he'd since found out who made the call, Trump replied: 'I haven't thought about it.' Pressed further on what it says 'that such a big decision could be made' without him knowing, Trump pivoted and insisted, 'I would know,' adding, 'If a decision was made, I will know,' that he'd be 'the first to know,' and, 'In fact, most likely I'd give the order.' O'Donnell, baffled, commented: 'If you don't think that that string of English words made any sense, you are correct. It did not make any sense.' But 'if there's a shred of truth in anything that Donald Trump said' in his response, O'Donnell said it would be the five words, 'I haven't thought about it.' 'And that is the truth of everything Donald Trump does and doesn't do as president: 'I haven't thought about it,'' he continued. O'Donnell then tore into Trump: 'That is the theme of the Trump presidency. In your lifetime of listening to presidents being asked questions about policy situations they are actively engaged in every day, you have never once heard a president say, 'I haven't thought about it.' It takes Trumpian stupidity to say something like that. And when you're as stupid as Donald Trump, you have no idea how stupid your stupidity sounds. Donald Trump is trapped in his stupidity. There is no way he can fake sounding smart about anything, not even his lifetime passion and greatest expertise, golf, which he simply lies about.' Watch from the 11:30 point here: OOPS!! Stephen Miller's Fox News Glitch Goes Viral For Most Poetic Reason Trump's Latest 'Golden Age' Move Is Wired For Chaos, Critics Fume This Statue Of Liberty Street Art Made MAGA Mad — And The Artist Is Unrepentant
