NBC News57%

Hackers targeted municipal water systems in 7 states this week, FBI says 16%

By Daniel Arkin66% Michael Kosnar62% Ben Goggin62%

7/31/2026, 1:58:08 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 8.1% saturation with 66 hits. Analysis detected 598 faulty-reasoning hits from 814 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 24.9% and a BS Rank of 16% (24,496 of 28,902 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.80% of the article peer group.

Cyberattacks targeting municipal water systems have been reported in at least seven states this week, prompting the FBI and the Environmental Protection Agency to warn utilities nationwide that hackers are trying to disrupt critical water infrastructure. 
In a public service announcement Thursday, the agencies said water and wastewater utilities have reported incidents to the FBI, with some malicious activity degrading water operations. 
The announcement does not name the states. 
The warning comes after hackers targeted more than 30 municipal water facilities in Minnesota in an attack that had hallmarks of Iranian meddling, according to a law enforcement official. 
It is still under investigation. 
A spokesperson for Minnesota’s information technology services agency said Thursday there was no indication the breaches contaminated any municipal water supplies. 
The federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said in a separate alert that some larger attacks on water infrastructure had “resulted in boil water notices and sustained manual operations,” though it did not say where. 
Minnesota officials and the U.S. government have not publicly attributed the malicious activity in the state to a specific actor. 
Likewise, the FBI and the EPA did not identify a culprit behind the breaches in the other states. 
President Donald Trump, speaking to reporters Friday at Camp David, blamed Minnesota’s leaders and Gov. 
Tim Walz, who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in the 2024 election. 
“I think I blame it on Minnesota because they’re grossly incompetent,” Trump said. 
“I would blame it on Minnesota and the governor, the corrupt governor of Minnesota. 
They like to say, ‘Oh, it’s Iran.’ 
Iran should be so lucky. 
Iran’s got bigger problems than worrying about Minnesota.” 
In response to a request for comment, Walz said in part: “Trump knows exactly who is responsible for this attack, and knows that other states were hit too. 
This is what modern warfare looks like, and it further illustrates there’s no plan to win a war with Iran.” 
The FBI and EPA advisory focused less on attribution than on the tactics used in the attacks. 
The federal advisory said the malicious cyber actors, or MCAs, targeted specific brands of control systems used by municipal water utilities, though the FBI and the EPA urged operators of all systems to take precautions. 
Earlier this week, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources issued a bulletin to water contacts in the state, saying intelligence officials believed that “systems within Wisconsin may be susceptible to connections from malicious cyber actors.” 
“This leads us to believe that the cyber threat is ongoing in Wisconsin and requires immediate action to prevent potentially serious impacts to our systems,” the bulletin said. 
A Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources spokesperson emphasized that intelligence officials in the state “had not yet confirmed that systems in Wisconsin have had connections but are concerned that they might be susceptible to connections from malicious cyber actors.” 
In the warning, Wisconsin said that Minnesota had reported that hackers managed to drop system pressures, which in “several incidents triggered alarms and prompted a response from law enforcement.” 
In an email, the spokesperson for Minnesota’s information technology agency disputed Wisconsin’s characterizations of the attack and its observed impacts. 
“Minnesota has not reported that threat actors lowered pressure across multiple water systems or that pressure changes prompted a law enforcement response,” said the spokesperson, Emily Zimmer. 
The agencies said the hackers remotely accessed internet-facing devices, changed IP addresses and passwords, and caused utilities to lose monitoring and control capabilities. 
The federal advisory calls on system operators to remove programmable logic controllers, or PLCs, from direct internet exposure by putting them behind secure gateways and firewalls; use strong passwords; and limit communications between authorized control system devices through access control lists. 
“Attribution requires careful analysis of technical evidence alongside broader national and international threat intelligence, and our federal partners are best positioned to lead that work,” Zimmer, the spokesperson for Minnesota’s information technology agency, said. 
The breach in Minnesota happened just days after U.S. officials publicly warned that Iran-backed hackers were targeting the nation’s critical infrastructure amid the escalating military conflict between Washington and Tehran. 
In a public advisory July 22, CISA, as well as the FBI and other federal agencies, urged companies to boost their defenses, saying Tehran-linked hackers were trying to breach online automated devices used to manage infrastructure systems. 
U.S. intelligence agencies have also cautioned that Iran is increasingly able and willing to carry out aggressive cyber operations and that it tried to target water systems in 2023. 
Bryson Bort, the founder of the cybersecurity company Scythe and an expert in industrial control system security, said the FBI’s disclosures this week underscore the need for more public awareness of the risks posed by infrastructure breaches. 
“We need to be prepared,” Bort said. 
“Attacks like this illustrate that there are folks who mean the U.S. harm today.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.0%Daniel Arkin: 1.3%NBC News: 1.9%Confirmation Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.5%NBC News: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Daniel Arkin: 4.1%NBC News: 2.5%Availability Heuristic8.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.5%NBC News: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.6%NBC News: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Daniel Arkin: 2.1%NBC News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 9.1%NBC News: 5.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.8%NBC News: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.6%NBC News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 2.5%NBC News: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Daniel Arkin: 2.5%NBC News: 1.1%Pessimism Bias5.3%This article: 2.3%Daniel Arkin: 9.6%NBC News: 6.1%Negativity Bias2.3%This article: 1.6%Daniel Arkin: 0.5%NBC News: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.2%NBC News: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 2.0%NBC News: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 2.6%NBC News: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Daniel Arkin: 2.0%NBC News: 1.2%Recency Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.1%NBC News: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Daniel Arkin: 0.9%NBC News: 0.8%Ad Hominem3.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.1%NBC News: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.2%Daniel Arkin: 2.6%NBC News: 2.5%Appeal to Authority4.2%This article: 2.5%Daniel Arkin: 0.8%NBC News: 1.0%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.8%NBC News: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.3%Daniel Arkin: 1.0%NBC News: 2.8%Hasty Generalization5.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.8%NBC News: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.6%Daniel Arkin: 5.6%NBC News: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.6%This article: 3.4%Daniel Arkin: 0.3%NBC News: 0.7%Begging the Question3.4%This article: 3.7%Daniel Arkin: 5.8%NBC News: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.1%NBC News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.1%NBC News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.7%Daniel Arkin: 0.3%NBC News: 1.5%Anecdotal1.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.3%Daniel Arkin: 1.2%NBC News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.1%NBC News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity1.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.9%Daniel Arkin: 0.1%NBC News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.9%This article: 3.4%Daniel Arkin: 1.6%NBC News: 1.7%Unattributed Quote3.4%This article: 1.6%Daniel Arkin: 1.4%NBC News: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection1.6%This article: 1.6%Daniel Arkin: 3.9%NBC News: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice1.6%This article: 3.3%Daniel Arkin: 0.8%NBC News: 0.8%Indoctrination3.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.4%NBC News: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.2%NBC News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Arkin: 0.2%NBC News: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

814 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers35%attributed speech530writer words
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words17% of attributed speech16% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Quote-first Misdirection+27.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 27.7%27.7%Biased Writer Voice+27.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 27.7%27.7%Unattributed Quote-5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.