Connect with us

Politics

Hegseth Orders Pentagon to Stop Offensive Cyberoperations Against Russia

Published

on

Hegseth Orders Pentagon to Stop Offensive Cyberoperations Against Russia

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to halt offensive operations against Russia, according to a current official and two former officials briefed on the secret instructions. The move is apparently part of a broader effort to draw President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia into talks on Ukraine and a new relationship with the United States.

Mr. Hegseth’s instructions, part of a larger re-evaluation of all operations against Russia, have not been publicly explained. But they were issued before President Trump’s public blowup in the Oval Office with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine on Friday.

The precise scope and duration of the Defense Department order is not clear, as the line between offensive and defensive cyberoperations is often a blurry one.

Still, retaining access to major Russian networks for espionage purposes is critical to understanding Mr. Putin’s intentions as he enters negotiations, and to tracking the arguments within Russia about what conditions to insist upon and what could be given up.

Former officials said it was common for civilian leaders to order pauses in military operations during sensitive diplomatic negotiations, to avoid derailing them. Still, for President Trump and Mr. Hegseth, the retreat from offensive cyberoperations against Russian targets represents a huge gamble.

Advertisement

It essentially counts on Mr. Putin to reciprocate by letting up on what many call the “shadow war” underway against the United States and its traditional allies in Europe. The leading European powers continue to say their support of Ukraine is undiminished even as Mr. Trump, who has sought to portray himself as a neutral arbiter in seeking to end the war in Ukraine, has at times sided openly with Mr. Putin.

U.S. officials have said Russia has continued to try to penetrate U.S. networks, including in the first weeks of the Trump administration. But that is only part of a broader Russian campaign.

Over the past year, ransomware attacks on American hospitals, infrastructure and cities have ramped up, many emanating from Russia in what intelligence officials have said are largely criminal acts that have been sanctioned, or ignored, by Russian intelligence agencies.

Sabotage efforts in Europe — including suspected Russian attempts to cut communications cables, mysterious explosions and Russian-directed assassination plots, including against the chief executive of Germany’s largest arms maker — have accelerated in the past year. The United States has, until now, been central in helping European nations fight back, often in covert cyberoperations, but that cooperation could now be in jeopardy.

Many of those operations are run out of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters — the storied intelligence agency that broke the Enigma codes in World War II — and to some extent by Canada. It is possible they will continue that work, while the United States focuses on China, its most sophisticated adversary in cyberspace.

Advertisement

Russia also ran an aggressive influence campaign during the last presidential campaign, according to reports by U.S. intelligence agencies during the Biden administration. In recent election cycles, U.S. Cyber Command has conducted secret operations to hamper or curtail those influence efforts.

But the Trump administration has already begun to dismantle efforts by the F.B.I. and other agencies to warn about Russian propaganda, and the order by the Pentagon would halt, at least for now, any further Cyber Command efforts to interrupt future Russian influence campaigns.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday described the urgency of getting Russia to the negotiating table over Ukraine, even while acknowledging that it was unclear whether Mr. Putin was ready to make a deal.

“You’re not going to bring them to the table if you’re calling them names, if you’re being antagonistic,” Mr. Rubio said on ABC’s “This Week.” “That’s just the president’s instincts from years and years and years of putting together deals as someone who’s in business.”

Mr. Rubio was not asked about the decision to stop the offensive cyberoperations, but he grew defensive when pressed on why the United States was letting up on pressure on Moscow, to the point of removing language from a United Nations resolution that described Russia as the aggressor in the war in Ukraine. Almost all of the United States’ traditional allies voted against the resolution, leaving the Trump administration siding with Russia, North Korea, Iran and Belarus, and a handful of other authoritarian states.

Advertisement

“If this was a Democrat that was doing this, everyone would be saying, well, he’s on his way to the Nobel Peace Prize,” Mr. Rubio said. “This is absurd. We are trying to end a war. You cannot end a war unless both sides come to the table, starting with the Russians, and that is the point the president has made. And we have to do whatever we can to try to bring them to the table to see if it’s even possible.”

The order from Mr. Hegseth was first reported by The Record, a cybersecurity publication from Recorded Future, which tracks cyberoperations. The Pentagon and U.S. Cyber Command declined to comment on the record, but a senior defense official, declining to allow use of her name, said that Mr. Hegseth had “no greater priority” than the safety of military members, including in cyberoperations.

After the publication of this article, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, said in a statement that Mr. Trump appeared to be giving Mr. Putin “a free pass as Russia continues to launch cyberoperations and ransomware attacks against critical American infrastructure.” He called the administration’s move “a critical strategic mistake.”

As the Trump administration prepared to take office, departing Biden administration officials urged Mr. Trump’s appointees to keep the pressure on Russia, including by continuing to arm Ukraine and push back on the GRU and the SVR, two Russian intelligence agencies that have been behind some of the most aggressive Russian cyberattacks and espionage operations.

They specifically briefed the Trump officials on suspected Russian efforts to cut communications cables undersea, and the U.S. effort last year to get a message to Mr. Putin about the consequences if an effort to put explosives on cargo planes resulted in an air disaster. American intelligence agencies concluded that Russia’s ultimate goal was to send those packages to the United States.

Advertisement

During Mr. Trump’s first term, American cyberoperations against Russia were, if anything, ramped up. The National Security Agency created a “Russia Small Group” after the Russian interference in the 2017 election

Mr. Trump gave Cyber Command new authorities in his first term to conduct offensive cyberoperations without direct presidential approval in a classified document known as National Security Presidential Memorandum 13.

One of those operations was a stepped-up effort to probe Russia’s electric power grid, an effort first disclosed by The New York Times and one likely meant as a warning to Russia not to interfere with American critical infrastructure. Mr. Trump denounced that reporting as “a virtual act of Treason,” but his former aides later said he was concerned the revelation would affect his relationship with Mr. Putin.

Politics

Video: Demining the Strait of Hormuz

Published

on

Video: Demining the Strait of Hormuz
Our reporter John Ismay, who served as a Navy explosive ordnance disposal officer and deep-sea diver for eight years, explains why mines in the Strait of Hormuz may outlast the war.

By John Ismay, Gilad Thaler, Nikolay Nikolov, Rafaela Balster, Stephanie Swart and Whitney Shefte

June 19, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Reporter’s Notebook: How Trump’s surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA

Published

on

Reporter’s Notebook: How Trump’s surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

They didn’t know what to do.

Just before 4 a.m. ET on Wednesday, President Trump blindsided everyone in the U.S. Senate. In a post on Truth Social, the president declared he was “cancelling the Senate hearing” for his Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton. Moreover, the President said he would withhold Clayton’s nomination from “going forward until Jamie McDonald is approved to be U.S. Attorney.”

If confirmed, Clayton would vacate his post as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That’s the slot for which the President is nominating McDonald.

TRUMP SAYS SENATE HEARING ON DNI NOMINEE IS CANCELED UNTIL US ATTORNEY REPLACEMENT CONFIRMED

Advertisement

Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, speaks next to Jessica S. Tisch, New York Police Department commissioner, during a press conference at NYPD headquarters following the arrest of suspects charged with igniting IEDs near Gracie Mansion, the home of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, in New York City on March 9, 2026. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid)

So what would happen with the hearing?

Lawmakers and aides scrambled as they woke to the news Wednesday morning. After all, Trump is the president. He doesn’t have the authority to cancel a Senate hearing.

“Yeah. I don’t think that’s his call,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., a member of the Intelligence Committee.

One senior source told Fox News they presumed that Clayton’s confirmation hearing would forge ahead. Another told Fox the fate of the hearing was “undetermined.”

Advertisement

On one hand, lawmakers and aides had to first digest what was happening. Was the President withdrawing Clayton’s nomination? Was he saying he just wasn’t allowing Clayton to testify? Did the head of the executive branch really believe he could bigfoot a congressional hearing? Or was this the president flexing his political muscle, testing Senate Republicans to see how compliant they might be with his intimation — and potentially cancel the hearing on their own?

So was Clayton’s hearing on or off?

“Are we going to have an Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing today?” yours truly asked panel Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., as he slid behind a backdoor to a hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Silence from Cotton.

SCOOP: TOP GOP SEN. COTTON TO MEET WITH EMBATTLED TRUMP DEFENSE NOMINEE AS DOUBTS SWIRL

Advertisement

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., arrives for a vote in the U.S. Capitol on April 30, 2025, stating the war with Iran will continue for weeks as the U.S. limits their offensive capabilities. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

“Do you know the answer?” I followed up.

“Do you think the President overstepped his bounds, saying he was canceling the hearing?” I continued.

By that point, Cotton was well behind the doorway and it closed.

“I have never seen anything quite like this,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the longest-serving members on the Intelligence Committee in Senate history. “Everybody else is going to have to keep guessing for a while.”

Advertisement

It was Washington whiplash.

“Things change around here pretty quick, Chad,” quipped Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.

But a bit later, Cotton finally weighed-in when he posted on X that the hearing would proceed. The Arkansas Republican then materialized again in the hallway, heading for an elevator bank.

“To be clear, you will proceed with the hearing and you expect Jay Clayton to be there despite what the President said?” I asked.

A steel-faced Cotton stared straight ahead at the green elevator door.

Advertisement

“Chad, you have our statement,” said a terse Cotton.

But an hour later, Cotton ditched the hearing after the President blocked Clayton from testifying.

“It’s regrettable that the President has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today,” said Cotton in a new statement on X. “While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”

The stunning reversal left everyone trying to grasp what happened. And what might be next.

SPRINT TO CONFIRM TRUMP NOMINEES KICKS OFF IN JANUARY

Advertisement

U.S. President Donald Trump attends a morning work meeting to “revive balanced, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all” in the presence of the G7 countries, partner countries, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD, as part of the G7 summit, in Evian, eastern France, on June 17, 2026. (Ludovic MARIN / AFP via Getty Images)

“I am not sure whether Jay Clayton has simply been postponed or withdrawn,” mused Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. “I wonder whether Jay Clayton knows whether he has been postponed or withdrawn.”

Democrats and Republicans brokered a fragile agreement weeks ago to renew FISA Section 702. The intelligence community argues that program is the powerful tool in the American arsenal to track and combat potential terrorism. Congress repeatedly punted a full renewal for months.

But with both bodies on the precipice of reauthorizing the program, President Trump announced he would install housing czar Bill Pulte as interim DNI. Democrats balked at Pulte, noting he had no intelligence experience. Plus, they viewed him as a political hack who would run roughshod over America’s intelligence apparatus.

So Democrats pulled their support from the FISA compromise.

Advertisement

Most Republicans weren’t exactly enamored with Pulte, either. And those worried about the nation’s security pushed to block Pulte from entering the DNI’s office. That’s why Cotton scheduled Clayton’s confirmation hearing so quickly. It was thought that the Senate might be able to pivot after the hearing and confirm Clayton on the floor late this week or early next.

Rapid confirmation of Clayton was essential. Such a scenario would unlock Democrats’ votes to reauthorize FISA Section 702 after the program’s congressional blessing expired a week ago.

That was the plan. At least until the president initiated the firestorm over Clayton’s confirmation hearing this week.

“Another Trump victory gets upended by an impulse,” vented Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. “It’s frustrating.”

WHY TRUMP PICKED BILL PULTE TO LEAD US INTELLIGENCE AS CRITICS QUESTION HIS QUALIFICATIONS

Advertisement

Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., spoke to reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on April 1, 2025, before the weekly Republican Senate policy luncheon. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

But wait. There’s more.

President Trump inserted another chestnut — or hot potato — into his pre-dawn Truth Social screed. Especially if you thought the president was going to make it easy for Congress to hastily re-up FISA as soon as the Senate confirmed Clayton.

“To add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said.

He added that his plan was for Pulte to “remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence” and declared that “Republicans fell into a trap.”

Advertisement

The SAVE America Act is the touchstone of President Trump’s 2026 legislative agenda. It requires proof of citizenship to vote. However, the bill has never garnered even 50 yeas in the Senate on two previous test votes.

“We’ve got to pass the SAVE America Act and conditioning passage of FISA on the prior passage of SAVE America would be a great thing,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

Other Senate Republicans were more realistic, based on the legislative history of the SAVE America Act.

“You can’t always get what you want,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “I mean, I want a Porsche for my birthday. I’m not going to get it.”

TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD

Advertisement

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said a classified briefing reinforced his view that Iran’s leaders would use a nuclear weapon if they obtained one during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C. (Elizabeth Frantz / Reuters)

Democrats seethed about national security as Republicans squirmed.

“We had a path forward as of yesterday (on FISA) and today we don’t,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. “This has become a complete debacle and now it’s up to the White House to figure out a path forward here.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

No one knows what’s next for Clayton. Or McDonald. Or FISA. And there’s high skepticism anything happens on the SAVE America Act. So it’s all in a cryogenic Congressional freeze.

Advertisement

Regardless, Clayton’s confirmation hearing never happened. Such hearings are the responsibility of the legislative branch. But by the end of the day, there was no question who canceled it. 

Continue Reading

Politics

Drug users don’t lose their gun rights, Supreme Court rules

Published

on

Drug users don’t lose their gun rights, Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court ruled for gun rights and against drug laws on Thursday, striking down part of a federal law that made it a crime for an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug like marijuana to own firearms.

All nine justices agreed the law was too broad and overly harsh.

They left open the possibility that “addicts” and “unusually dangerous” people who were impaired by drugs could be denied guns.

The Trump administration had urged the court to uphold the prosecution of Ali Hemani, a Texas man who was investigated for alleged terrorist ties and admitted to being a regular user of marijuana.

Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by felons, fugitives and any other person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

Advertisement

In defense of the law, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that “habitual” drug users were akin to “habitual drunkards” in early American history, and could therefore be denied the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment.

But that historical argument fell flat, including with the court’s conservatives.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is a skeptic of laws that give prosecutors broad and unchecked power.

“The law automatically bans an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance until he ceases being one,” he wrote in U.S. vs. Hemani. “It doesn’t matter what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts he does so, or whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others.”

The government’s view “suggests that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.”

Advertisement

And a conviction can lead to a 15-year prison term, he added.

The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the ruling.

“The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties.”

Some defenders of gun regulation opposed the ruling.

“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hemani,” said Janet Carter, managing director of 2nd Amendment litigation at Everytown Law. “That said, the court has stressed that its decision is limited — rightly recognizing that drugs and guns can make for a dangerous mix, and leaving open the possibility of prosecuting someone with proof that their drug use renders their gun possession dangerous to themselves or others.”

Advertisement

Two years ago, Hunter Biden, the president’s son, was charged and convicted under the gun law for making a false statement when he applied for a gun permit. He denied being a drug user at a time when prosecutors said he was addicted to crack cocaine.

Then-President Biden gave him a full pardon in December 2024.

Hemani was investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorists but was not charged with such a crime.

In 2020, he and his parents “traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem [Suleimani], an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before,” the administration told the court last year.

The FBI obtained a warrant to search Hemani’s family home. Agents found a Glock 9-millimeter pistol, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine.

Advertisement

When questioned, Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.

A federal grand jury in Texas charged him with possessing a firearm as an unlawful habitual user of marijuana.

But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this restriction on guns violated the 2nd Amendment. It said that “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration urged the justices to uphold the law.

“Habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired,” the solicitor general said.

Advertisement

But the justices affirmed the 5th Circuit’s decision.

Still pending before the court is a 2nd Amendment challenge to new laws in Hawaii and California that would prohibit carrying guns into private businesses unless the owner or manager had given their express approval.

Gun rights advocates said such laws, if enforced, are intended to deny their rights to carry concealed weapons when they leave home. The case is Wolford vs. Lopez.

The justices will issue decisions next week on Tuesday and Thursday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending