'pro-ca-13j20mbrzv9yp.ncp0rc.0001.use1.cache.amazonaws.com:11211' => 'default', 'pro-ca-13j20mbrzv9yp.ncp0rc.0002.use1.cache.amazonaws.com:11211' => 'default', 'pro-ca-13j20mbrzv9yp.ncp0rc.0003.use1.cache.amazonaws.com:11211' => 'default', ); ?> CIA pulled officers out of Beijing in response to OPM hack | TheHill

CIA pulled officers out of Beijing in response to OPM hack

CIA pulled officers out of Beijing in response to OPM hack
© Getty Images

The CIA pulled a number of its officers out of the U.S. Embassy in Beijing following the hack of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), The Washington Post reports.


Officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity told the Post that the move was intended to protect agents whose identity might be revealed as a result of the hack, which opened up the personnel records — including background checks — of 21.5 million federal employees and others.

Officials said the Chinese could have compared background check information from the stolen OPM data with embassy personnel lists. A name that didn’t appear on the embassy list could be outed as an officer.

Despite pressure from lawmakers, the White House has declined to put any public blame on China for the theft, although officials have privately indicated that Beijing was behind it.

Intelligence officials and others have characterized the OPM breach as traditional political espionage, something the U.S. also does.

The disclosure came just hours after senior intelligence and defense officials tried — and mostly failed — to explain to frustrated lawmakers why the U.S. hasn’t hit China back over the leaks.

“Why wouldn’t we take hard actions against them?” asked Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinSchumer steps on the gas to move Biden agenda Overnight Health Care — Biden touts drug price push Biden points to drug prices in call for Senate social spending vote MORE (D-W.Va.), referencing reports that Chinese hackers have stolen technology from U.S. defense contractors. “I just don’t understand why we wouldn’t retaliate, from a financial standpoint.”

On the 2016 trail, candidates have started to stake out positions on cybersecurity that call for retaliation. Jeb Bush recently unveiled a formal policy plan in which he called the Obama administration’s response to intrusions “feeble.”

Earlier this week, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican presidential candidate, also called for a more offensive national approach.

“People have to know that if you are going to mess with us, that not only are we in a position to defend ourselves but also to come back at them,” Kasich said during a weekend national security forum at Morningside College in Sioux City, Iowa.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Tuesday tried to draw a distinction between traditional espionage, such as the OPM hack, and stealing trade secrets from private companies, which the U.S. does not do.

“I think it’s a good idea to think about the old saying about people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks,” Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee, noting the U.S. itself “is not bad” at cyberespionage.

Revisiting a message that he delivered to a House Intelligence hearing earlier in the month, Clapper insisted the hack on OPM was not an “attack” because it was a passive form of intelligence-gathering.

His call for caution did not go over well with members.

“So it’s OK for them to steal our secrets that are most important, because we live in a glass house?” Sen. John McCainJohn Sidney McCainDole to lie in state in Capitol Rotunda Bob Dole: A great leader of the 'Greatest Generation' The bully who pulls the levers of Trump's mind never learns MORE (R-Ariz.) asked. “That is astounding.”

Others have suggested that the responsibility for incident lies with the U.S. for effectively “leaving the barn door open” by failing to adequately protect the OPM’s digital defenses.

Watchdog reports show the agency repeatedly failed to heed its inspector general’s warnings, even refusing to shut down several of its weakest computer systems as recommended.

Lawmakers have put consistent pressure on the White House to respond to the hack in more tangible ways.

“What we’re seeing with these repeated hacks and repeated intrusions is that building your defense is not enough in and of itself,” Rep. Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffJan. 6 panel faces new test as first witness pleads the Fifth Jan. 6 panel releases contempt report on Trump DOJ official ahead of censure vote The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Biden to update Americans on omicron; Congress back MORE (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters shortly after the hacks were first revealed. “There also has to be a deterrent.”

On Friday, the U.S. and Beijing inked a deal agreeing to neither conduct nor support corporate espionage. The so-called “common understanding” is being widely criticized as unenforceable.