By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has designated the IRGC’s Cognitive Design Production Center (CDPC) and the Moscow-based Center for Geopolitical Expertise (CGE), along with its director Valery Korovin, for election interference. These entities, acting as affiliates of the IRGC and GRU respectively, engaged in disinformation campaigns and influence operations aimed at disrupting the 2024 U.S. election. The sanctions build upon previous actions targeting Iranian and Russian interference and utilize Executive Order 13848, the U.S. election interference authority, among others. These designations freeze U.S. assets and prohibit transactions with the named entities and individuals.
Read the original article here
A server, located in an apartment funded by the Russian government, was used to interfere with the 2024 US elections. The revelation, announced by the Department of Treasury on December 31st, 2024, dropped on New Year’s Eve – a curious timing choice, perhaps meant to minimize immediate public impact.
The server housed generative AI tools used to create and disseminate disinformation across a vast network of websites mimicking legitimate news sources. This sophisticated operation aimed to build false narratives and obscure its Russian origins. The carefully constructed network of fake news sites worked to create the appearance of independent corroboration, amplifying the spread of misinformation.
Funding for this operation came directly from the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency. The GRU provided financial support to both the individuals running the operation and a network of US-based facilitators. This funding covered the server’s maintenance, the cost of running at least 100 websites involved in spreading disinformation, and even contributed towards the rent of the apartment housing the server itself.
The disinformation campaign wasn’t limited to text-based content. A manipulated video, featuring baseless accusations against a 2024 vice-presidential candidate, was created and distributed to sow discord among the US electorate. This illustrates the multifaceted nature of the interference, moving beyond simple text-based propaganda.
The timing of the announcement, on the last day of the year, raises questions about the strategic reasons behind the delay in public disclosure. Was this a deliberate attempt to minimize media attention and limit the potential political impact of the revelation?
The news sparked immediate reactions, with some expressing shock, while others seemed unsurprised, citing similar activities in previous elections. One prominent figure responded with claims of election fraud, mirroring a pattern of deflection and counter-accusation common in recent political discourse.
The scale of the operation raises questions about the effectiveness of the server’s single physical location inside the US. The resources needed to run such a sophisticated AI operation would typically require far more powerful infrastructure than a single server could provide. The choice to host the operation domestically, instead of using cloud services and VPNs, raises further questions about potential vulnerabilities and oversight.
Some commentators highlighted the apparent ineffectiveness of the effort, pointing out the significant margin of victory and suggesting that AI-generated disinformation alone couldn’t have meaningfully altered the election outcome. Conversely, others stressed the underlying susceptibility of a significant portion of the electorate to manipulative propaganda and disinformation, regardless of its source or sophistication.
There is no doubt the discovery highlights a significant security threat. The utilization of advanced AI technologies to spread disinformation underscores the evolution of such threats and the need for improved countermeasures. It also points to a failure of existing safeguards to fully prevent such interventions. The lack of immediate public outcry could be interpreted as a sign of widespread political disillusionment or voter fatigue, or possibly even public acceptance of election interference as a given fact of modern political life.
The Department of Treasury’s announcement, however belated, is a significant development in understanding the nature and extent of foreign interference in the 2024 US elections. It serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities of democratic processes in the face of sophisticated and well-funded disinformation campaigns. The long-term effects of this interference, and the broader implications for future elections, remain to be seen. The response to this disclosure will determine whether meaningful steps are taken to prevent future interference. The lack of a strong, immediate public reaction, however, suggests that this might prove to be a watershed moment, or perhaps just another example of a troubling trend in modern political discourse.