Major US Banks Are Detecting Unauthorized AI Agents Accessing Customer Accounts

America’s largest banks are scrambling to defend themselves against a new and rapidly evolving security threat: artificial intelligence agents gaining access to customer accounts, sometimes behaving in ways that appear to go beyond what their human users originally authorized, according to Axios.

Major financial institutions including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Citigroup are confronting the growing presence of third-party AI assistants inside their banking platforms. Some institutions have detected unauthorized agent activity, while others are concerned about cases in which AI systems appear to initiate actions without explicit instructions from account holders.

The problem is becoming particularly difficult because banks cannot always distinguish between a legitimate customer accessing an account, an AI assistant acting with that customer’s permission, and a potentially rogue agent operating outside its intended authority.

In many cases, customers themselves are providing AI tools with their banking credentials so the software can perform financial tasks on their behalf. While those arrangements may be voluntary, they frequently violate bank policies requiring account holders to maintain control of their login information.

More troubling is what happens once an AI agent gains access. Depending on the permissions it has been given, an assistant could potentially initiate purchases, transfer money or perform other financial transactions. Bank executives are increasingly concerned about the possibility of these systems making consequential decisions without adequate human oversight.

The Axios report out Thursday morning reported instances of agents interacting with bank call centers, as well as activity suggesting that certain systems may have attempted to act independently of their users’ instructions. The developments have prompted several Wall Street institutions to begin tightening access to their platforms.

Morgan Stanley has reportedly started blocking third-party AI agents, while JPMorgan, Bank of America and Citigroup have also moved to restrict their activities. A Chase spokesperson cautioned customers against sharing account usernames and passwords, while Morgan Stanley said it had not identified instances of rogue AI agents accessing its systems.

The industry is not necessarily opposed to AI-powered financial assistants altogether. In fact, many banks already permit limited, read-only access to customer information through authorized third-party applications, including budgeting and personal finance software.

That model could provide a compromise for AI agents, allowing them to analyze balances, review transactions and help customers manage their finances without granting them the authority to actually move money.

But even that distinction is becoming more complicated as AI systems grow increasingly autonomous.

Banking executives acknowledge that consumers will likely demand more sophisticated AI assistants capable of handling financial tasks in the future. The challenge is developing safeguards that allow those capabilities without exposing customers to unauthorized transactions, compromised accounts or unpredictable automated behavior.

Keep reading

Trump Calls On Data Center Developers To Pay Communities A Dividend

President Donald Trump has suggested that companies building data centers in the United States should offer local communities a dividend to make them more popular.

“If companies want to make their Data Centers popular, pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a ‘dividend,’” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Wednesday.

New data centers, which are required to fuel the growth of artificial intelligence (AI), have become politically controversial in some areas because of the amount of electricity and water they consume.

Local resistance blocked or delayed at least 75 data center projects, worth $130 billion, in the first quarter of 2026, according to Data Center Watch.

The Trump administration has supported AI, and the president said last month that U.S. government documents would start referring to it as “super intelligence.”

On Oct. 4, Trump announced the creation of the Super Intelligence Force to coordinate federal efforts to maintain the United States’ lead over China in AI technology.

“As the President of the United States, I have been watching Data Centers very closely, and have come to a very strong conclusion,” Trump wrote on Wednesday.

“New and large, in some cases gigantic, Data Centers are mandated by me to make their own electricity, and give or sell any excess back to the local community, or grid, and therefore there is [an] electric price increase. In fact, there could be a substantial decrease.”

Keep reading

Ex-Officers Kept Access To Flock Cameras Long After Leaving The Police, Including A Former Georgia Investigator

A former investigator with the Effingham County Sheriff’s Office in Georgia kept using the Flock nationwide license plate camera system for five years after he left his job as an investigator, and used it to search for his wife’s plate, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.

Andrae Wright, a former investigator for the Effingham County Sheriff’s Office, left the office in 2021, but logged into the Flock system to search for a license plate bearing his wife’s middle name more than 60 times over a five-year span, according to Georgia Bureau of Investigation statements and audit records. Some of the searches were conducted while Wright was trying to gain permanent custody of the couple’s teenage daughter, the Post learned. Wright and his wife divorced this year. He was arrested in July and charged with stalking his wife, using information from Flock “for the purpose of harassing and intimidating her,” according to his warrant. Wright did not return a call for comment for the Post’s story. The sheriff’s office said it had not regularly reviewed account access and plans to begin audits.

The Post investigation identified 11 cases of unauthorized use of Flock license plate readers, a network of at least 120,000 cameras nationwide. In 4 of the cases, police officers continued to use the system after they left their jobs or while they were on suspension from their jobs. In 6 additional cases, logins or access were shared with officers from other police departments.

The Post also reported on a case out of Fulton County, where an investigation was launched into the actions of a former police officer over suspected Flock license plate searches after she had left her employment with the department. The department shared its Flock subscription with the sheriff’s office, and no one notified the sheriff’s office to revoke her access when she resigned from her job. “They didn’t remove the employee,” Police Chief Wade Yates told the paper. “I’ll take the heat for that.”

In Cobb County, the sheriff’s office cut its Flock accounts from some 200 users to about 50, and only those 50 are now considered to be authorized to use the system. The review found that a number of employees had been given login information to the system for no work-related purpose, and the review found no apparent misuse.

The Post revealed the worst case of abuse of the system in a story about Indianapolis. A police recruit named Matthew Binford used a senior police officer’s account to enter the plate of his estranged wife on the Flock system over 1,000 times in one year, according to a court affidavit obtained by the paper. The senior officer had opened Flock on Binford’s laptop and left the session active, the affidavit stated, and Binford kept access for more than two years. Binford and four other current and former Indianapolis police officers were charged last month, after a Post inquiry prompted a department-wide audit. He declined to comment.

Three former Flock employees told the Post that the company has pushed back against additional security measures. Two of them said leadership had concerns that additional security would negatively impact sales to law enforcement agencies. While Flock’s contracts stipulate that accounts be created using official agency email addresses, the company acknowledged that it began to actively enforce this only recently. Multi-factor authentication was made the default setting in 2024, though agencies could opt out, and was made mandatory in August of this year. In the wake of the Post’s findings, Flock said it is working with customers to remove personal email addresses and other forms of shared login credentials from Flock accounts. As of next year, users will have to log back in every 12 hours. Company spokesman Paris Lewbel said Flock acts when it identifies security weaknesses or policy violations. The company declined to comment on individual cases, however.

Keep reading

Google Didn’t Invent This Racial Double Standard, but It Learned It

I stumbled upon a video where a conservative podcaster asked Google about racial preferences in choosing a doctor and received wildly different responses when she asked if it was okay to prefer a white doctor. Rather than take her word for it, I tried it myself to see if I had a similar experience.

I asked Google, “Is it okay to prefer a black doctor?” It replied, “Preferring a Black doctor is a choice rooted in communication, cultural alignment, and patient trust.” Yep, it went there with the capitalization of “black,” too.

Next, I asked, “Is it okay to prefer a Latino doctor?” The reply I received was, “Selecting a doctor who shares your background or speaks your language is a personal choice that many patients make for comfort and communication.”

When I asked, “Is it okay to prefer a white doctor?” I got this response: “Selecting a doctor based on race involves distinct ethical considerations depending on the context. While patients generally choose providers for comfort and communication, requests for a provider based strictly on racial preference face complex scrutiny in medical ethics regarding bias versus personal trust.”

In other words, asking for a minority doctor is understandable, particularly in terms of “cultural alignment” or looking for a doctor who “shares your background or speaks your language.” But ask about a white doctor, and you get a lecture on “ethical considerations” and “bias.”

I asked the same question with religious framing. A Muslim doctor could be a good choice for “communication comfort, shared values, and modesty considerations.” Choosing a Jewish doctor “involves considerations of personal comfort, communication, and shared life experiences.” Likewise, seeking out a Christian doctor “is a personal choice that many patients make to align their healthcare with their shared religious values and worldview.” So the bias isn’t there when it comes to faith.

Keep reading

OpenAI says its AI agents disabled their own safety monitors

OpenAI has revealed that two of its artificial intelligence agents disabled or weakened systems built to catch them misbehaving, with one later denying it had done so.

The cases are the latest in a string of safety scares at the world’s top AI developers involving agents, AI programs that carry out tasks without human involvement.

In a report released Tuesday, the ChatGPT maker said that during two internal coding jobs, its agents switched off or undermined tools for detecting incidents of AI models acting against human wishes.

On October 3, an agent running on OpenAI’s GPT-6.1 Sol model, which had been told not to send any messages on the workplace chat app, took that as license to switch off safety alerts meant for the company’s security team while fixing a testing system.

Three days later, a GPT-6 Astra agent stripped out its own monitor while copying code from another project, then told the human programmer it had done no such thing.

The company said it had also seen several cases of agents launching software with monitoring switched off, exposing a gap in its oversight.

OpenAI said it is still trying to determine whether the models were simply overzealous in following instructions or have a particular tendency to evade monitoring.

“We don’t yet have a satisfying explanation for this behavior,” it said.

The disclosure adds to mounting unease over how well leading labs can control increasingly autonomous systems.

In July, a group of OpenAI agents broke out of their test environments and launched a cyberattack on AI firm Hugging Face, causing international alarm. Other companies have since reported similar incidents.

The incidents have fueled calls in the United States and abroad for tighter oversight of AI development.

But US President Donald Trump, under the advice of top AI executives like Nvidia chief Jensen Huang, has urged the industry to police itself.

Keep reading

The Pentagon is quietly building an elite new tech sabotage agency

The Pentagon has spent months quietly building an elite new tech agency to help covertly disrupt and sabotage foreign technology programs considered threats to American military superiority.

Neither Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth nor any other senior Pentagon official has publicly mentioned the agency since it was established this April — a conspicuous omission for a department that has reveled in announcing other major changes aimed at modernizing the military or adopting hard-nosed new policies against foreign adversaries.

Information on the Technology Support Office, or TSO as it is called internally, is nearly impossible to find on Pentagon websites, and the agency is mentioned by name only in several previously unreported Defense Department historical records and memoranda.

While the specifics of its work are highly classified, POLITICO spoke with 12 current and former U.S. national security officials with varying degrees of knowledge about TSO to understand how the agency came to be, the broad contours of its mission and why its operations are shrouded in secrecy.

Some of these people helped establish TSO or worked closely with it; others attended briefings or spoke with current Pentagon officials about it; and some were familiar with Defense Department intelligence programs now merged into TSO. All were granted anonymity to share sensitive details about the agency that have not been previously reported.

Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg, a private equity billionaire and former head of the White House’s Intelligence Advisory Board during President Donald Trump’s first term, led the push inside the Pentagon to create the new agency.

Tom Rakusan, a senior adviser to Feinberg at the Pentagon, has also been closely involved in setting up TSO. Rakusan is a longtime veteran of the CIA’s clandestine service, and most recently worked at Feinberg’s private equity firm, where he focused on emerging technology.

Hegseth and Feinberg established TSO quickly and without attracting outside scrutiny because they largely built the agency by reorganizing two classified Pentagon intelligence programs that have conducted similar clandestine tech-sabotage efforts at a smaller scale since 2023.

But by creating an agency dedicated to expanding that work, the Defense Department is signaling its intent to ramp up a range of aggressive covert activities abroad — potentially including cyberattacks, supply chain disruptions and disinformation operations.

Keep reading

Pentagon Letter Lays Out Plan For Four-Star Autonomous Warfare Command

On October 19, the War Department put out a Pentagon letter on how they plan to build a four-star Autonomous Warfare Command. The letter, on Project Agincourt letterhead and signed twice by officials marked “CEO,” began by referencing the past attempt by the Army to transform itself in 1928.

The letter is titled “Building the Autonomous Warfare Command” and comes from the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems (DRPM-UxS), which leads Project Agincourt. The letter revisits a historical episode from the interwar years of the War Department’s attempt to build a unified mechanized force of tanks, armored trucks and motorized infantry. In 1928, Secretary of War Dwight Davis directed the Army to experiment with such a force. However, that force was soon disbanded, and the effort at mechanization was ultimately broken up and added as an afterthought to the various services. It required the German blitzkrieg in 1940 to force the creation of the U.S. Armored Force.

“We face an equally urgent revolution,” the letter says, pointing to low-cost drones that have changed the character, speed and economics of war. Instead of going down the path of 1928, it says, Secretary Pete Hegseth “chose the maximal path.”

Project Agincourt has two missions. The first is to stand up the Autonomous Warfare Command (AUTOWARCOM) by October 1, 2027, as the largest institutional change since the interwar years. The second mission of Project Agincourt is to continue the mission of the DRPM-UxS while pioneering a new acquisition model, which pairs autonomy and robotics companies with operational forces at the “edge.” “The goal is not a particular drone. It is a system built to adapt at scale,” the letter states.

Power projection since the Cold War has been based upon a limited number of very high-end, very expensive systems, and that model has been disrupted. The new advantage for the U.S. will come from the edge, adapting faster than adversaries with two key assets: its lead in superintelligence and an unmatched NCO corps.

Keep reading

Lawmaker Seeks Details on Secret Data-Center NDAs as AI Build-Out Faces Scrutiny

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, sent letters Tuesday, Sept.29, to Amazon, Google parent Alphabet, Meta Platforms, and Oracle seeking information on non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) signed with government officials related to data center build-outs, according to copies viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Raskin wrote that residents cannot weigh a subject’s costs against its benefits, hold officials accountable, or safeguard resources when basic terms are kept secret, according to the report. He demanded detailed information on each company’s data center portfolio and use of the agreements [7].

Amazon claims it no longer uses NDAs with government collaborators on data center projects, according to the report. Google, Meta, and Oracle did not immediately comment [7].

The letters mark an escalation in congressional scrutiny of an industry that has expanded rapidly across the country. The requests focus specifically on agreements that shield the terms of data center deals from public view [7].

Local and State Officials Cite Secrecy in Opposition

Local communities have cited non-disclosure agreements and secrecy surrounding data center plans as a major reason they oppose the facilities, which many blame for pushing up power prices and consuming large amounts of water [7].

Data centers are being sited across the United States without meaningful public input, a pattern documented in states such as Utah, where the three-member Box Elder County Commission voted unanimously to greenlight a 40,000-acre hyperscale project before residents could weigh in [1].

The backlash has become a measurable force. Local opposition disrupted at least 45 proposed U.S. data center developments worth nearly $68 billion between April and June 2026, according to Data Center Watch, a research project operated by AI intelligence company 10a Labs. The sustained resistance now spans 49 states with 843 active opposition groups, according to the same research.

Data centers have become a flashpoint in key races including Ohio, Michigan, and Texas, where states have taken steps to cut tax exemptions worth billions of dollars. A new Wall Street Journal poll found that 62% of voters support pausing data-center development, according to the report.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro banned the agreements in an executive order in August, and several states have introduced bills to ban data-center NDAs. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the state’s environmental watchdog to withhold permits for new data centers until an audit of risks to the power grid is complete, according to ZeroHedge [2].

Keep reading

Situational Unawareness: Banks Ran Out Of Room To Lever Up The AI Trade, So They Made More

When a bank runs out of room to lend to hedge funds piling into the most crowded trade on the planet, there are two options: stop lending, or find more room. Barclays found more room…

According to a Bloomberg exclusive published Tuesday, Barclays (BARC) executives wanted extra capacity to lend more aggressively to hedge fund clients as Asian AI stocks went vertical earlier this year. The fix: the bank’s macro rates traders ended up lending part of their own capital allocation to the prime financing business through an internal auction. The reason they had to: over the summer Barclays had reached its maximum limits on how much financing it could extend to hedge fund clients in Asia. Bloomberg’s verdict: Barclays and its peers are “finding ways to meet demand, despite bumping up against internal constraints.”

In other words, the internal risk limits did their job, flagged that the bank had lent enough… and the bank responded by moving the goalposts.

“Disciplined”… Right Up To The Limit

The pitch inside Barclays, per Bloomberg’s sources, was simple: allocate more balance sheet to higher-returning businesses like prime brokerage (housed in the global markets unit run by Adeel Khan) given the “huge growth” expected in Asian tech stocks. Rates traders, whose returns on balance sheet don’t look nearly as sexy as financing Korean memory stocks at peak euphoria, became the donors.

Barclays’ official line:

“We deploy our investment bank balance sheet dynamically, responding to client opportunities while maintaining a disciplined approach to risk and returns.”

Translation: we found a client opportunity, and we deployed dynamically. Meanwhile, the “disciplined” part kicked in only after the limit was hit.

Regular readers will recall that the Bank of England had already started poking around exactly this corner of the market just as the AI trade was cracking in July.

And as we noted when regulators finally found their situational awareness (Sep 24), the BoE is specifically looking at the rapid growth of London prime brokers financing Asian equities this year, after names like SK Hynix went vertical. London prime brokers financing Asian equities… it’s almost as if someone had a specific bank in mind.

Keep reading

Axios Uses Fake AI Image to Run Damage Control for Somali Politician Who Spoke Next to Upside-Down Flag

To defend a leftist politician who spoke in front of an upside-down American flag, Axios published a fake fact check claiming the video was “doctored” by AI and that, in reality, the flag was right side up.

Axios just retracted that fact check.

Naturally, Axios would like us to believe its fake fact check was an honest mistake, but Normal People know two things about dishonest, leftist outlets like Axios: 1) their “mistakes” only ever fall one way, and that’s to benefit the left, and 2) Axios was in a panic to defend a leftist, so they rushed to publish this — something Axios would never do for a Republican.

Oh, and 3) fact-checking is a hoax, a leftist psyop, a disgraced profession that has spewed more lies than Joe Isuzu.

Side note: Fai is currently a Washington County Commissioner. Officially, she holds a non-partisan office, but she is a leftist.

On October 10, Washington County, Oregon, Commissioner Nafisa Fai spoke at a Somali event in Minneapolis. A few days later, the End Wokeness X account published a portion of that speech that clearly showed her speaking with an upside-down American flag behind her.

“Oregon politician Nafisa Fai just held a rally in MN, speaking Somali, with an American flag UPSIDE DOWN,” wrote End Wokeness. “Enough with the pretending already. These are not Americans.”

Keep reading