Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesiTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
The Heritage Foundation said its systems were not breached after the hacktivist group SiegedSec claimed it had obtained and released Heritage-related data in July 2024. Heritage’s explanation was that the material came from an older Daily Signal archive hosted on a contractor’s public-facing website. The available reporting does not independently resolve whether the archive was accessed through an intrusion or found exposed online.
Did SiegedSec hack Project 2025?
Not in the sense of breaching a Project 2025 computer system, according to the accounts reported at the time. SiegedSec claimed it obtained data connected to the Heritage Foundation, which leads Project 2025. The material was described in contemporary coverage as coming from an older Daily Signal archive, not from a Project 2025 system. Calling the incident a “Project 2025 hack” blurs that distinction. Rolling Stone’s July 2024 report and 404 Media’s coverage describe the competing accounts.
What did SiegedSec and Heritage say happened?
The dispute is over both the source of the material and how it became accessible. SiegedSec said it had obtained Heritage-related data and released files. Heritage denied that its systems were breached, explaining that the material came from an older Daily Signal archive hosted on a contractor-owned public-facing website. The available reporting does not establish whether SiegedSec intruded into a system or found an archive exposed on infrastructure.
| Question | SiegedSec’s account | Heritage’s account | What reporting establishes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Where did the material come from? | The group claimed it obtained Heritage-related data. A more specific technical source is not established in the cited reporting. | Heritage said it was an older Daily Signal archive on a contractor’s public-facing website. | Contemporary coverage described the material as an older Daily Signal archive; the competing descriptions do not settle how it was accessed. Rolling Stone; 404 Media. |
| Were Heritage systems breached? | SiegedSec’s claim that it obtained data does not, by itself, establish which system or access method was involved. | Heritage said, “No Heritage systems were breached at any time, and all Heritage databases and websites remain secure, including Project 2025.” | The cited reporting contains no independent forensic finding that resolves the claim. Rolling Stone. |
| What information was involved? | The group released files, but the reporting does not independently verify a complete inventory. | Heritage said the material included usernames, names, email addresses, incomplete password information, article comments and commenter IP addresses. | Those categories are Heritage’s stated account, not an independently audited inventory. Rolling Stone. |
| What happened afterward? | Not independently established in the cited reporting. | Heritage said the data was removed and it took additional security steps as a precaution. | The removal and remediation details are reported as Heritage’s statement, not as an independent audit. Rolling Stone. |
Heritage’s statement to Rolling Stone also said, “The Heritage Foundation was not hacked.” That is the foundation’s position, not a forensic conclusion. The reports cited here do not provide an independent technical account that establishes the access method, scope, or whether an intrusion occurred. 404 Media’s reporting likewise frames the incident around the competing descriptions.
#1 Best Overall
Why did SiegedSec target Heritage?
SiegedSec said it opposed Heritage and Project 2025. A member using the name vio told Rolling Stone that the group wanted to draw attention to who supported Heritage and was not seeking money or fame. In a later AMA, vio said the group’s name reflected members’ identity and was chosen partly because it made for funny headlines. These are the group’s own explanations of its motives; they do not independently validate its claims or methods. Rolling Stone; 404 Media.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What was the Mike Howell Signal exchange?
Separately from the archive dispute, reports attributed a Signal conversation to Mike Howell, then an executive director at Heritage’s Oversight Project, and a SiegedSec member using the name vio. Howell acknowledged the messages, according to contemporaneous reporting. The exchange included Howell threatening to identify group members and using degrading language, including a reference to sexual violence in federal prison. Those reported messages are a separate communications story; they do not establish how the archive was accessed or whether Heritage systems were breached. Rolling Stone.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #3
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
