A sophisticated hacking incident targeting TeleMessage, a government-approved messaging platform, has raised serious concerns about the security of communications used by Trump administration officials.
According to Daily Caller, an unidentified hacker successfully breached TeleMessage's modified version of Signal, accessing archived communications and exposing sensitive data belonging to multiple federal agencies and financial institutions.
The breach occurred through a vulnerable Amazon Web Services endpoint, compromising data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, and various crypto lobbyists. The incident has drawn particular attention due to National Security Advisor Mike Waltz's recent public use of the service during a cabinet meeting.
The hacker, speaking about the ease of the breach, provided a concerning assessment of TeleMessage's security measures:
I would say the whole process took about 15-20 minutes. It wasn't much effort at all … If I could have found this in less than 30 minutes then anybody else could too. And who knows how long it's been vulnerable?
TeleMessage, an Israel-based subsidiary of U.S. company Smarsh, markets its platform as a solution for archiving encrypted communications while maintaining compliance with federal regulations. The company modifies popular encrypted messaging apps like Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram to meet government archiving requirements.
The compromise revealed extensive data, including group chat contents, direct messages, phone numbers, email addresses, and internal credentials from TeleMessage's backend system. Nearly 750 names and contact details associated with CBP were exposed in the breach.
The breach exposed conversations related to cryptocurrency legislation, including real-time discussions about legislative whip counts. These communications mentioned Democratic Senators Angela Alsobrooks and Kirsten Gillibrand, revealing sensitive political strategy discussions.
The exposed data also included metadata from financial institutions like Coinbase and Scotiabank, compromising the contact information of current and former employees. While cabinet officials' messages remained secure, the breach affected various government agencies and private sector entities using the platform.
This security incident follows recent controversy surrounding Waltz, who accidentally added Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal group chat discussing Yemen military operations. The inadvertent exposure of his TeleMessage use during a White House meeting initially drew media attention to the platform.
TeleMessage's modification of Signal effectively removes the app's core privacy feature of end-to-end encryption by introducing a third-party archive server between sender and recipient. This compromise between security and regulatory compliance has sparked debate about the effectiveness of such solutions.
The White House has maintained that Signal is an approved app for government use, but has not clarified whether modified versions like TeleMessage's fall under this authorization. The company has since removed content from its website following media coverage of the breach.
Neither TeleMessage nor White House officials have provided immediate responses to requests for comment about the security incident.
The TeleMessage platform breach has exposed significant vulnerabilities in government-approved communication systems designed to balance security with regulatory compliance. A hacker managed to access sensitive data from multiple federal agencies and financial institutions through TeleMessage's modified Signal platform in just 20 minutes. The incident has sparked concerns about the security of government communications, particularly affecting Trump administration officials who rely on the platform for secure messaging while maintaining compliance with federal archiving requirements.
Elon Musk has once again dismissed past accusations of making a Nazi gesture at President Donald Trump's inauguration as false and driven by media bias.
Despite facing criticism for what he says was a misinterpreted gesture, Musk continues to work alongside Trump while raising concerns about media influence and slanted coverage, as the Daily Mail reports.
During Trump's inauguration in January, Musk found himself in the spotlight when he was alleged to have performed a Nazi salute before a large crowd. The contentious gesture involved Musk placing his right hand on his heart before extending his arm. Critics quickly drew parallels to infamous historical figures, sparking intense online debate.
Musk, unfazed by the backlash, has consistently denied these interpretations. According to him, the claims are unfounded and part of a broader agenda by traditional media to undermine his reputation. Musk maintains a light-hearted approach to the allegations, often joking about the claims and dismissing them publicly.
In a recent conversation with Lara Trump on My View with Lara Trump, Musk expanded on the topic, suggesting that legacy media outlets like CNN and NBC are fixated on personal attacks. He argued that the media's portrayal of his actions is an attempt to destroy him, lamenting their persistence.
Even amid the controversy, Musk remains actively engaged in government work and holds an influential advisory role under Trump. He leads the Department of Government Efficiency, an entity that seeks to optimize federal operations, though how much longer he will serve in that role remains an open question.
Rumors had circulated suggesting that Musk might resign due to potential repercussions on his business interests. However, President Trump extended a supportive, long-term invitation, assuring Musk of his continued place in the administration for as long as he prefers.
Musk commended Trump's accomplishments during the administration's initial months, praising the strides made. Additionally, Musk has humorously acknowledged his multifaceted responsibilities in the administration by joking about wearing numerous hats, including a black DOGE hat and a Gulf of America hat at a Cabinet meeting.
President Trump has openly expressed his appreciation for Musk's contributions to the government. Trump emphasized the respect and admiration Musk has garnered and thanked him for his insights, noting the positive changes that have occurred under Musk's influence.
In his dialogue with Lara Trump, Musk elaborated on the nature of political attacks, describing it as a "blood sport." He reflected on how accusations are often repeated, suggesting that persistent misinformation might sway public opinion.
Musk's skepticism of legacy media is not limited to their portrayal of him. He mentioned similar criticisms directed at President Trump, pointing out the recurrent theme of labeling individuals as Nazi-like figures. According to Musk, these tactics lack originality and impact.
The complete interview with Lara Trump, in which Musk shares these insights, was scheduled to air on Fox over the weekend. Musk's revelations offer a glimpse into the pressures he faces and his perspective on media dynamics.
As Musk remains a prominent figure in both governmental and business sectors, his statements continue to spark discussions across media platforms. His candor about media relations highlights the complexities influential figures face in today's digital landscape.
In a surprising move, a cadre of 35 Democrat lawmakers aligned with their Republican counterparts this week to challenge a Biden-era environmental policy targeting vehicle emissions.
The resolution, targeting California’s "Advanced Clean Cars II" rule, passed in the House with a vote of 246-164, reflecting bipartisan pushback against a mandate that aims to outlaw new gas-powered vehicle sales in California and 11 other states by 2035, as the Daily Caller reports.
On Thursday, the House of Representatives cast a pivotal vote overturning a regulation that permitted California to impose a national mandate on electric vehicles (EVs). The rule, known as the "Advanced Clean Cars II," was approved in 2024 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during President Joe Biden's administration and aimed for substantial emission reductions by prohibiting the sale of new gasoline-powered cars.
With a vote tally standing at 246-164, the resolution garnered unusual bipartisan support, as 35 Democrats sided with Republicans, spotlighting the fissures in support for sweeping environmental regulations. This House vote is a critical juncture in ongoing debates about the best path forward for energy independence and innovation within the automotive industry.
California's rule came into effect under a waiver granted by the EPA, allowing it to set stricter emission standards than federal guidelines. States including Colorado, Maryland, and New York subsequently aligned with California’s directive, opting into the mandate.
Republican Rep. John Joyce of Pennsylvania led the charge to reverse this regulatory framework. Citing the Congressional Review Act, Joyce introduced legislation to nullify the rule, arguing that it constrains consumer choice and impacts the automotive sector too severely. "American consumers, not out-of-touch politicians, should decide what vehicle best fits their individual needs," Joyce stated.
Joyce emphasized his longstanding efforts to preserve consumer autonomy and protect the automotive sector from overreaching environmental policies, considering the House’s decision as pivotal in the journey to restoring flexibility in the vehicle market.
Industry leaders such as Chet Thompson and Mike Sommers, expressed optimism following the vote. They described it as a significant victory for American consumers, who could regain the ability to select vehicles according to their preferences. "Today's vote was a huge win for U.S. consumers," they remarked.
Thompson and Sommers criticized the state-level directive, claiming it was an inappropriate burden on the national vehicle market and that California's mandate should never have been authorized. They further encouraged the Senate to promptly pass the resolution, so it might be ushered to President Donald Trump for approval. They also alluded to Trump’s commitment to halting EV mandates, urging legislative action to fulfill promises of curbing such environmental regulations. The House's decision drew a line in the sand regarding federal versus state control over automotive regulations.
If the Senate approves the resolution, California's waiver could face nullification, causing the EPA to undertake a laborious process to withdraw the mandate officially. Such a reversal could significantly reshape the legislative landscape established by the Biden administration. Newsom’s office has not yet commented on the legislation, despite being reached out to by multiple media outlets. His administration's response will be closely watched, especially given the potential shifts in policy and their effects on California's ambitious climate goals.
By undoing this waiver, the EPA would essentially halt current progress on the uniform adoption of stricter emission standards among the allied states. This decision underscores ongoing contention surrounding states' rights and environmental autonomy.
As the resolution progresses to the Senate, advocates supporting the status quo argue that national consistency in vehicular standards is crucial for sustaining environmental progress. The discussion reflects deeper tensions between climate policy, states' rights, and economic impacts. The outcome of this legislative endeavor carries broader implications for how the U.S. approaches environmental regulation and energy policy moving forward. Debates over government intervention in consumer choices and market regulation are expected to persist as pivotal political themes.
The legislative review sparked by the Congressional Review Act highlights the complexities and challenges inherent in navigating a diverse and dynamic regulatory environment. The decision whether to maintain, repeal, or alter this waiver will likely resonate throughout the automotive and energy sectors for years to come.
President Donald Trump makes a bold move to honor American military achievements during World War II with a significant calendar addition.
According to Fox News, Trump announced his decision to designate May 8 as World War II "Victory Day" in the United States, aligning with Europe's long-standing "Victory in Europe Day" celebration that marks Nazi Germany's surrender in 1945.
The presidential announcement arrives as part of a broader initiative to recognize America's military triumphs, with Trump emphasizing the United States' pivotal role in securing Allied victory during World War II. This declaration also extends to establishing November 11 as World War I Victory Day, creating a comprehensive framework for commemorating America's military achievements in both global conflicts.
May 8 holds profound historical importance as the day German forces officially ceased all military operations in 1945. The date marks a turning point in world history, representing the culmination of years of sacrifice and determination by Allied forces. European nations have long recognized this date through various commemorative events and ceremonies.
The timing of Trump's announcement reflects a departure from previous administrative approaches to World War II remembrance. While the United States has traditionally held various ceremonies throughout the year, no specific federal holiday has been dedicated solely to commemorating World War II victory until now.
America's contributions during World War II remain unparalleled in scale and impact, a point Trump emphasized in his announcement. The declaration seeks to properly acknowledge these sacrifices and achievements through formal recognition.
President Trump shared his perspective on Truth Social, emphasizing America's exceptional military contributions.
He stated:
We won both Wars, nobody was close to us in terms of strength, bravery, or military brilliance, but we never celebrate anything. That's because we don't have leaders anymore, that know how to do so! We are going to start celebrating our victories again!
The initiative represents a significant shift in how America officially recognizes its military accomplishments. Trump's declaration aims to establish a more structured approach to commemorating military victories, moving beyond occasional ceremonies to instituting formal observances.
Former President Harry Truman set an important precedent in August 1946 when he issued a formal proclamation declaring August 14 as "Victory Over Japan Day." Truman's proclamation demonstrated the historical importance of officially recognizing military achievements through presidential action.
This historical context adds significance to Trump's current declaration. While previous administrations have acknowledged World War II achievements through various means, none had established May 8 as an official Victory Day.
The United States has traditionally marked World War II-related events through ceremonies held in May, August, and September. These observances have helped maintain public awareness of America's wartime sacrifices and achievements.
President Trump's announcement establishes dual Victory Days, marking achievements in both World Wars. The declaration of May 8 as World War II Victory Day and November 11 as World War I Victory Day creates a comprehensive framework for military commemoration. Trump's administration will oversee the initial implementation of these observances, setting precedents for future commemorations. The designation's timing allows for immediate planning of inaugural ceremonies and events.
A federal judge in Florida expressed shock and dismay after the state's attorney general instructed local law enforcement to disregard her order halting a new immigration law.
According to the Washington Examiner, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams voiced her strong disapproval of Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier's letter suggesting police could ignore her temporary restraining order against a statute criminalizing undocumented migrants' entry into Florida.
The controversial law, passed in February 2025, makes it a misdemeanor for undocumented immigrants to enter Florida while evading immigration officials. Judge Williams had previously issued a temporary restraining order to pause the enforcement of this law, citing constitutional concerns.
Judge Williams expressed her frustration during a court hearing, emphasizing the gravity of an attorney general appearing to undermine a federal court order. She announced plans to issue a preliminary injunction against the law and extended her temporary order by 11 days after learning about approximately 15 arrests, including one U.S. citizen.
Uthmeier's decisions have caused uncertainty among law enforcement. He first told officers to stop making arrests under the law but later changed course in a second memo. Even after the reversal, no further arrests have been made.
The judge responded to Uthmeier’s actions by saying he was offended by any suggestion that his order could be ignored or was not valid.
Acting Florida Solicitor General Jeffrey DeSousa attempted to defend Uthmeier's actions, arguing that the letter merely explained the defendants' legal position rather than encouraging disobedience. The defense also contended that the plaintiffs should have included other law enforcement agencies in their lawsuit.
The state's attorneys have requested a pause on the law's suspension, citing concerns about sovereign harm and ongoing illegal immigration. They submitted a motion arguing that individual plaintiffs continue to violate federal and state laws while organizational plaintiffs support such violations.
Judge Williams rejected the defense's argument, minimizing Uthmeier's influence over criminal enforcement efforts. She determined that evidence suggests the attorney general maintains significant control over state and local law enforcement agencies' immigration-related activities.
A court hearing has been scheduled for May 29 to discuss potential contempt sanctions against Attorney General Uthmeier. The judge ordered him to explain why he shouldn't face legal consequences for his controversial letter to law enforcement agencies.
Judge Williams emphasized her position through strong language:
Even prior to any formal discovery, there is evidence that AG Uthmeier has used his authority to encourage local law enforcement to continue making arrests under a law the Court has, for the time being, found unconstitutional.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier faces potential legal consequences after instructing local police to ignore a federal judge's order pausing the state's new immigration law. The dispute centers around a February 2025 statute making it a misdemeanor for undocumented migrants to enter Florida while evading immigration officials.
Judge Kathleen Williams has scheduled a May 29 hearing to determine whether contempt sanctions should be imposed while the state continues to argue for the law's necessity in addressing illegal immigration concerns.
A contentious plan by Amazon to display Trump administration tariff costs alongside product prices sparked an immediate backlash from White House officials and market observers.
According to Breitbart, the e-commerce giant initially planned to implement a system showing customers exactly how much Trump's tariffs were adding to their final purchase prices but later denied considering such changes.
The proposed move would have separated regular pricing from tariff-related costs, essentially highlighting the financial impact of the current administration's trade policies on consumer spending. Amazon's stock responded negatively to the news, dropping more than two percent in premarket trading as investors processed the implications of this politically charged decision.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt strongly condemned the reported initiative, characterizing it as a "hostile and political act" by the retail giant. She questioned why Amazon hadn't implemented similar price transparency measures during the Biden administration's period of high inflation.
The administration's pushback included pointed criticism of Amazon's extensive reliance on Chinese manufacturers. Officials emphasized the importance of supporting American-made products as an alternative to imported goods affected by tariffs.
Diplomat Richard Grenell joined the chorus of criticism, specifically highlighting concerns about Amazon's significant volume of Chinese-sourced merchandise.
Fast-fashion competitors based in China have already begun implementing their own pricing modifications in response to the tariff situation. Temu, a major player in the market, has introduced substantial surcharges to its checkout process.
The changes at Temu include an "import charge" that adds approximately 145 percent to each item's original price. This dramatic increase reflects the growing impact of trade tensions between the United States and China.
Other Chinese retailers are expected to follow suit as they navigate the complex landscape of international trade regulations and tariff implementations.
The controversy has created ripples throughout the e-commerce sector, affecting both domestic and international players. Amazon's stock price decline indicates investor concerns about potential political fallout and consumer reactions.
Jeff Bezos's company faces increasing scrutiny over its pricing strategies and relationship with Chinese manufacturers. The situation highlights the delicate balance between maintaining competitive prices and managing international trade pressures.
Amazon's ultimate denial of the reported tariff display plan marks a significant moment in the ongoing discussion about trade policy transparency and consumer awareness. The company's initial consideration and subsequent reversal of the pricing display strategy reflects the complex dynamics between major retailers and government policy.
The situation continues to evolve as various stakeholders, including the White House, retailers, and consumers, navigate the implications of international trade policies and their effects on everyday purchases. This development represents another chapter in the ongoing dialogue about trade relationships between the United States and China, with major retailers caught in the middle of these diplomatic and economic tensions.