menu-close
ChinaNovember 23 2024, 6:05 am

Multiple Foreign Powers Targeted 2024 US Election with Disinformation

On Novem­ber 8, 2024, CNN report­ed that US agen­cies faced an unprece­dent­ed wave of elec­tion inter­fer­ence from Rus­sia, Iran, and Chi­na, includ­ing bomb threats that dis­rupt­ed polling sta­tions in swing states. The arti­cle begins:

Fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tors are run­ning down email address­es from Russ­ian inter­net domains that were used to make a slew of non-cred­i­ble bomb threats across swing states on Elec­tion Day. The effort under­lines that though the pres­i­den­tial elec­tion is over, US intel­li­gence and law enforce­ment agen­cies are still grap­pling with and ana­lyz­ing a del­uge of dis­in­for­ma­tion and online threats aimed at sow­ing dis­cord among vot­ers. In the days before, on and after Elec­tion Day, for exam­ple, offi­cials at the FBI and oth­er agen­cies spent hours track­ing videos and oth­er social media posts, includ­ing ones they said were made by Russ­ian oper­a­tives, peo­ple briefed on the mat­ter said. It was the most active and aggres­sive the US gov­ern­ment has been in com­bat­ting for­eign influ­ence in the age of social media, the sources said.It is not yet clear who sent the bomb threats or from where. (A Russ­ian email address can be used out­side of Rus­sia, and the bomb threats are entire­ly sep­a­rate activ­i­ty from the social media dis­in­for­ma­tion). But the spate of emails caused tem­po­rary evac­u­a­tions at some polling cen­ters and inject­ed ten­sion in the final hours of vot­ing to an already-chaot­ic threat environment.

Read more

Key Points:

  1. Fed­er­al agen­cies faced unprece­dent­ed lev­els of for­eign dis­in­for­ma­tion, respond­ing faster than in pre­vi­ous elec­tions to debunk fake content.
  2. Elec­tion Day bomb threats appear linked to ear­li­er threats against LGBTQ+ events using Russ­ian email domains.
  3. Mul­ti­ple for­eign actors, includ­ing Rus­sia, Iran, and Chi­na, con­duct­ed sophis­ti­cat­ed online influ­ence oper­a­tions tar­get­ing voters.
  4. Despite dis­rup­tion attempts, includ­ing net­work scan­ning and swat­ting calls, no suc­cess­ful breach­es of elec­tion sys­tems were reported.