TWIT 6 X 925
ideol entre meets soc med: but vpn?
hcr 11 25
...last week a new feature on X that permitted users to see where accounts originate revealed that a number of high-engagement MAGA accounts that claim to be those of patriotic Americans are in fact from Russia, Eastern Europe, India, Nigeria, Thailand, and Bangladesh. Since X pays certain content creators for tweets that drive engagement, posters from other countries have a financial incentive to post material that feeds the anger of American users and thus will get reposted.
---
-=-=
DIRTY TRICKS
-=-=
DK 9 26
X hit by complaints to EU over user data and targeted advertising
-=-=
---
AN 2 26 TCONV
A new study published today in Nature has found that X’s algorithm – the hidden system or “recipe” that governs which posts appear in your feed and in which order – shifts users’ political opinions in a more conservative direction.
Led by Germain Gauthier from Bocconi University in Italy, it is a rare, real-world randomised experimental study on a major social media platform. And it builds on a growing body of research that shows how these platforms can shape people’s political attitudes.
Two different algorithms
The researchers randomly assigned 4,965 active US-based X users to one of two groups.
The first group used X’s default “For You” feed. This features an algorithm that selects and ranks posts it thinks users will be more likely to engage with, including posts from accounts that they don’t necessarily follow.
The second group used a chronological feed. This only shows posts from accounts users follow, displayed in the order they were posted. The experiment ran for seven weeks during 2023.
Users who switched from the chronological feed to the “For You” feed were 4.7 percentage points more likely to prioritise policy issues favoured by US Republicans (for example, crime, inflation and immigration). They were also more likely to view the criminal investigation into US President Donald Trump as unacceptable.
They also shifted in a more pro-Russia direction in regards to the war in Ukraine. For example, these users became 7.4 percentage points less likely to view Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy positively, and scored slightly higher on a pro-Russian attitude index overall.
The researchers also examined how the algorithm produced these effects.
They found evidence that the algorithm increased the share of right-leaning content by 2.9 percentage points overall (and 2.5 points among political posts), compared with the chronological feed.
It also significantly demoted the share of posts from traditional news organisations’ accounts while promoting or boosting posts from political activists.
One of the most concerning findings of the study is the longer-term effects of X’s algorithmic feed. The study showed the algorithm nudged users towards following more right-leaning accounts, and that the new following patterns endured even after switching back to the chronological feed.
In other words, turning the algorithm off didn’t simply “reset” what people see. It had a longer-lasting impact beyond its day-to-day effects.
One piece of a much bigger picture
This new study supports findings of similar studies.
For example, a study in 2022, before Elon Musk had bought Twitter and rebranded it as X, found the platform’s algorithmic systems amplified content from the mainstream political right more than the left in six out of the seven countries.
An experimental study from 2025 re-ranked X feeds to reduce exposure to content that expresses antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity. They found this shifted feelings towards their political opponents by more than two points on a 0–100 “feeling thermometer”. This is a shift the authors argued would have normally taken about three years to occur organically in the general population.
My own research offers another piece of evidence to this picture of algorithmic bias on X. Along with my colleague Mark Andrejevic, I analysed engagement data (such as likes and reposts) from prominent political accounts during the final stages of the 2024 US election.
Our findings unearthed a sudden and unusual spike in engagement with Musk’s account after his endorsement of Trump on July 13 – the day of the assassination attempt on Trump. Views on Musk’s posts surged by 138%, retweets by 238%, and likes by 186%. This far outstripped increases on other accounts.
After July 13, right-leaning accounts on X gained significantly greater visibility than progressive ones. The “playing field” for attention and engagement on the platform was tilted thereafter towards right-leaning accounts – a trend that continued for the remainder of the time period we analysed in that study.
Not a niche product
This matters because we are not talking about a niche product.
X has more than 400 million users globally. It has become embedded as infrastructure – a key source of political and social communication. And once technical systems become infrastructure, they can become invisible – like background objects that we barely think about, but which shape society at its foundations and can be exploited under our noses.
Think of the overpass bridges Robert Moses designed in New York in the 1930s. These seemed like inert objects. But they were designed to be very low, to exclude people of colour from taking buses to recreation areas in Long Island.
Similar to this, the design and governance of social media platforms also has real consequences.
The point is that X’s algorithms are not neutral tools. They are an editorial force, shaping what people know, whom they pay attention to, who the outgroup is and what “we” should do about or to them – and, as this new study shows, what people come to believe.
The age of taking platform companies at their word about the design and effects of their own algorithms must come to an end. Governments around the world – including in Australia where the eSafety Commissioner has powers to drive “algorithmic transparency and accountability” and require that platforms report on how their algorithms contribute to or reduce harms – need to mandate genuine transparency over how these systems work.
When infrastructure become harmful or unsafe, nobody bats an eye when governments do something to protect us. The same needs to happen urgently for social media infrastructures.
Timothy Graham, Associate Professor in Digital Media, *Queensland University of Technology
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
---}:
an 1 26?
undress over a million? women and kids? grok?
French authorities raid Paris offices of Elon Musk's X
---
---
an 12 25
Over the Christmas holiday, it was clear that President Donald Trump spent a lot of time on his social media. Many of the things he amplified in his 150 posts, however, turned out to be from foreign trolls.
The Daily Beast wrote Tuesday about Trump's posting frenzy, calling him "confused" and highlighting his advanced age. It cited research done into the posts by the MeidasNetwork, showing that at least 15 of the people Trump promoted weren't posting from the United States.
Sami Nathaniel, for example, got five of his posts shared by Trump, including one calling America "for Americans." Yet, he was posting from South Asia.
Trump frequently reposts memes and comments from South Asia accounts “Sami Nathaniel” and “Caroline."
Charlie's Voice Rising, another X account that has a blue checkmark, only joined the site in Dec. 2024. That individual is tweeting to its 194,400-plus followers from "Eastern Europe (Non-EU)."
"Trump Girl" features a white person with long blond hair and a MAGA hat. They're also tweeting from South Asia. Trump shared a screenshot of one of her X posts, which is a share of one of Trump's posts about the "STOLEN" election.
This isn't the first time Trump has amplified accounts from foreign accounts pretending to love him. In one late-night spree at the start of the month, Trump posted 160 things in under four hours.
The details displayed about the user come from Elon Musk's recent decision to show where each account was registered, when it was created, how often it has switched usernames and how the app was downloaded. It also details where someone might be trying to circumvent monitoring attempts. Caroline, for example, shows that X believes the user deployed a "VPN," or Virtual Private Network, to mask their true location.
Once the tool was rolled out, a reporter noticed that scores of the top MAGA influencers and right-wing personality accounts weren't posting from the United States. Each of them was fishing for likes and shares.
---
CLI OBST ROBERTS
This chapter synthesizes research that explains how climate dis-
information circulates through media and contributes to climate obstruction
that benefits carbon-based industries and status-quo actors at the cost of soci-
ety and the environment (see Chapters 5 and 7). It focuses on the discourses
and structures that shape the terrain of these practices and then points to areas
where this disinformation and obstruction can effectively be countered.
Contrarians in the Mediated Public Sphere
A growing—at times cacophonous—chorus of climate-contrarian voices has
gained prominence through multiple media platforms and modes of com-
munication. Contrarian views are promoted by a network of obstructionist
organizations and actors with aligned ideological and cultural inclinations
:{:{(see Chapter 1).9}:
These movements often gain attention to their outlier}:
:{:{:{views through media channels.10}:
At least four arguments for climate delay}:}:
can be observed in media communications: (1) shifting the responsibility
for climate action; (2) arguing that mitigating climate change is impossi-
ble; (3) advancing nontransformative solutions; and (4) emphasizing thedownsides of any climate solution.11 }:}:
Captured in media portrayals, advertising}:
and PR campaigns, these discourse types demonstrate the growing tendency
among disinformation actors to move from overt denial of climate change
and its anthropogenic causes to more subtle tactics of delegitimation of cli-
mate solutions. Choices about how to frame communications through media,
advertising, and PR—shaping perceptions of responsibility and solutions, for
example—can channel public attention and action in important ways. In many
cases, this agenda setting can foster preferences for system preservation over
structural transformation.12 Mass media enable the formation of political
structures and norms that condition public responses to climate change. Ulti-
mately, such obstruction efforts seek to advance special-interest goals and
objectives to maintain the status quo or to distract from, delay, and/or deny
science—effectively obstructing climate engagement and action.
How Disinformation Spreads in the Mediated Public Sphere
The deliberate circulation of climate disinformation is partly enabled by
the unprecedented economic and social power of the global media system.
Power structures were further consolidated during the COVID-19 pandemic
when many independent and local newsrooms were shuttered as digital
media expanded and consolidated.13 Boosted by new digital technologies and
legacy/social media, disinformation campaigns can now operate at greater
scale and expanded scope, influencing human experience with increasing con-
trol and precision.14 Technology companies and their platforms allow pow-
erful actors to shape cognition and actions in ways that lack accountability.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and communications technologies in
political campaigns has had profoundly negative consequences for global cli-
mate mitigation, even when climate policy obstruction was not an explicit or
direct aim.15
New media technologies can boost longstanding patterns of control and
socioeconomic inequality that are harmful for the environment. Social dispar-
ities, a lack of democratic practices, and environmental destruction tend to
reinforce one another.16 To address the problem of disinformation and how it
shapes climate and environmental outcomes, it is vital to broaden the scope
:{:{of what we commonly think of as climate and environmental policy.}:
Collective goals in the name of the public interest, such as democracy, environmental
protection, and socioeconomic equity, are threatened by the concentration of
ownership and corporate control of communications and digital technologies
and how information then becomes subject to financial and political incen-
tives. This concentration is enabled by current policies in the United States and
many other countries that are determined by the wealthiest and most power-
ful players.17 The concentration of media control in relatively few news outlets
and internet companies is a global phenomenon—though concentration can
strategic management, where PR agents engage in intelligence-gathering in
the environmental community, at government agencies and in other organiza-
tions that influence public policy on environment, climate, and energy issues;
and (2) industry-friendly research, public-opinion polling, and data collection
to promote clients’ viewpoints in the media, in addition to producing scien-
tific, legal, or technical expert material for media circulation. One way various
agencies, think tanks, boards and associations are tightly bound with PR firms
is through a revolving door strategy (e.g., former government agency admin-
istrators are hired by PR firms, former PR firm employees are hired as trade
association administrators, and so on).
Media communications aiming to advance climate denial and opposition
often amplify existing patterns of polarization.36 A study of polarizing tweets
on X (Twitter) during United Nations climate (COP) summits identified five
styles of climate contrarianism, from outright denial (“@COP26 You have been
lying to the public and mocking them for decades with your climate scam”)
to (untrue) rejection of climate solutions (“China is not going to COP26.
So what’s the point?”).37
In 2022, the Third Working Group of the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report
pointed to “public discourses of media and organized countermovements” as
fuel for polarization, with damaging potential for climate action.38 The tech-
nical summary noted that “accurate transference of the climate sciences has
been undermined significantly by climate change countermovements, in both
legacy and new/social media environments through misinformation.”39 It also
noted that “on occasion, the propagation of scientifically misleading informa-
tion by organised countermovements has fuelled polarisation, with negative
:{:{implications for climate policy.”40}:
Further linking obstruction activities and}:
polarisation, the report mentions “political polarisation leading to erosion of
environmental governance” (see Chapter 10).41
Digital platforms have also been identified as sources of climate disinfor-
mation. Meta (Facebook), for instance, has overridden the determinations of
its independent fact-checkers for climate science, allowed fossil fuel compa-
nies to purchase misleading ads, and limited the transparency and usefulness
of its data sharing tool, Crowdtangle, relied upon by journalists and academics
to analyze engagement with content on the platform.42 There are claims that
Meta’s own Climate Science Center is underequipped to serve its purpose.
One report estimated that Google alone received $23.7 million between 2020
and 2022 from the five largest oil companies in the world (ExxonMobil,
British Petroleum [BP], Chevron, Shell, and Aramco) to promote their advertis-
ing.43 The nonprofit coalition Climate Action against Disinformation (CAAD)
has found that the major tech platforms (TikTok, Meta, YouTube, and X)
have become “complicit” actors in the spread of climate denial, since “dis-
information is now a guaranteed byproduct, if not a central part, of social
media companies’ business models.”44 Among several findings in the study,
X ranked last among platforms for its absence of policies on climate disin-
formation, lack of public transparency mechanisms, and failures of effective
policy enforcement.45
---
AN 11 25
Arizona Central reports high school teachers in Pima County are still reeling from online harassment and attacks after their Halloween costumes sparked outrage from Turning Point USA and Republican critics last week. But school officials say the educators wore the “bloody” shirts to advocate for math education, not to mock the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
“These shirts were part of a math-themed Halloween costume meant to represent solving tough math problems,” Vail School District Superintendent John Carruth said in a letter to the school community. “The shirts were never intended to target any person, event, or political issue.”
AZ Central reports the firestorm erupted on Oct. 31, after teachers in the Cienega High School math department were photographed wearing bloodied white T-shirts with the phrase “Problem Solved” in black text. The school district shared a photo of the Halloween costumes on Facebook, which exploded over the internet thanks to lingering tension around Kirk’s murder seven weeks ago.
Turning Point’s online megaphone opened the gates to a blast of criticism and denunciation on X and other social media platforms, according to AZ Central. But the costumes had been used in reference to solving math problems at earlier events in 2024, long before Kirk’s assassination.
“But to leaders at Turning Point USA, Kirk’s political organization, the costumes resembled the white T-shirt Kirk wore when he was shot in the neck at an event in September. That shirt had also been emblazoned with black text, which read ‘FREEDOM.’ It became a symbol for his mourners after he died,” AZ Central reports.
“@vailschools, shut your school down, it's nothing more than a den of vile verminous scum. Shut this place down,” posted one commenter on X the day after Halloween, seemingly without knowing the full context of the image. “At the very least defund it entirely.”
Top elected leaders in the Republican Party also chimed in, with Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis accusing the teachers of “glorifying a murder just because they disagreed with the victim” in a post on X.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who is himself known for incendiary comments regarding accident and death when victims are Democrats, amplified a post identifying each teacher with their name, phone number and email address.
Arizona state Sen. Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) called the teachers “BLOODTHIRSTY” and “psychopaths” before deleting his post demanding they be fired.
“The fact that this photo was taken so out of context and spread so quickly without doing some simple fact-checking has been really harmful,” said Superintendent Carruth.
But Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet was unwilling to let go of his claim against the teachers despite the shirts also appearing last year.
“It's a very weird costume for teachers in general, but after what happened to Charlie, I'm absolutely floored they wore it again,” Kolvet said on X. “I do not believe for a second that all of them are innocent.”
Read the AZ Central report at this link.
---
AN 10 25
UnHerd Editor Sohrab Ahmari tells the Washington Post that the ravings of the right-wing media's pundit class have lately gotten even crazier.
“Much of right-wing media now resembles star-child radio: a vast chamber of oft-malignant fantasies, where even once-reasonable minds go to get euthanized,” said Ahmari. “Each flick of the feed pulls up a paranoia-monger more wild-eyed than the previous, warning about the evil machinations of all-powerful ... apparitions of their fever dreams.”
It doesn’t’ matter that “the establishment” has been largely dethroned, Ahmari adds. “Populists are in power and still there seems to be no stopping the online right’s slide into irrationality.
Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, was wearing clothing that matched security images. There are also bullet engravings, messages to a friend, family members’ recollection that he’d grown increasingly militant in defense of certain causes and even a confession on an online message board. Despite this, some of the right’s biggest voices, like Candace Owens and others had their own theory of who’d killed Kirk.
“Turning Point will not release the footage,” said Owens, referring to the right-wing campus group founded by Kirk. She insinuated that Kirk’s own organization might have been in on the killing, while weaving in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman, who, she claims, threatened Kirk over his growing skepticism of the Jewish state.
“Years ago, your average amateur broadcaster raving about alien babies could, at best, hope for a few thousand listeners. Today’s star-child anchors command enormous audiences,” Ahmari said. “[Tucker] Carlson and Owens host the No. 1 and No. 3 news podcasts on Spotify (as of this writing). … Liberal America still generally tunes into mainstream outlets while much of the right half of the electorate seems hooked on star-child radio. As UnHerd columnist Richard Hanania concluded, ‘the right is in deep trouble.’”
Ahmari adds: “There is a difference between a progressive (or conservative) worldview coloring the framing of stories and the quest to ‘prove,’ as the some on the right have, that the president of France’s wife is a man.”
Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter heralded a new X algorithm that “positively promotes the crank right,” said Ahmari, and the effects of that spread and others are exacting a toll on U.S. democracy.
“This media system promotes mental degeneration and a sense of learned helplessness that can only yield destructive politics,” Ahmari warned. “People convinced that an amorphous they controls events are unlikely to take political responsibility for the shape of our common life — and far more likely to fall in thrall to demagogues and dictators.”
Read the Washington Post report at this link.
---
// CONTEXT REICHSTAG BIG BALLS DC
9 25 an
After it was confirmed that far-right activist Charlie Kirk died after being shot during a Wednesday event on a college campus, and while the shooter remains at large as of Wednesday evening, MAGA activists are still blaming the political left for Kirk's death on social media — and vowing revenge.
Initial responses to the news of Kirk's death, including from President Donald Trump, were encouraging conservatives to pray for the conservative commentator and his family. However, several MAGA influencers and other public figures influential on the far right insisted that Kirk's death should be seen as a mass mobilization event.
"Left-wing violence is out of control, and it’s not random," former Arizona Republican U.S. Senate candidate Blake Masters tweeted. "Either we destroy the NGO/donor patronage network that enables and foments it, or it will destroy us."
READ MORE:'Put two and two together': Conservative argues CNN told hosts to be soft on Trump-Epstein
:{:{MAGA influencer Sam Hyde called on his hundreds of thousands of X followers to watch the video of Kirk being struck by a bullet, writing "It could have been any one of us exercising the first amendment" while adding: "You all need to know what our enemies want." Conservative social media personality FischerKing tweeted: "If this isn't a wake-up call then we're never going to wake up."}:
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk reposted a separate tweet from FischerKing, who said the "left-wing mainstream media" had created a "climate of hysteria against right-wing figures that could radicalize any number of unstable people to engage in political violence." Musk commented: "Exactly."}:
"We're in a war," conspiracy theorist Alex Jones said in a video. "The left has been saying put a bullseye on Trump, put a bullseye on his supporters, they've been calling for violence ... they're going to attack."
"The Rubicon has been crossed. Not by Trump or MAGA, but by the far left," wrote far-right activist Mike Cernovich, who spawned the "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory. "Randy Paul can shove his book reports up his a--. F--- everyone who played footsie with these dark demonic forces. We will not be scolded any longer."
"The attack on Charlie Kirk and free speech is evil, pure and simple. The hate, violence and evil being peddled by radical extremists has no place in this country! Schools and social media have become breeding grounds for liberal hate," the Utah Republican Party's official X account posted. "Enough!"
READ MORE:House hearing derailed after Dem calls GOP rep 'lapdog to the president' in shouting match
---
AN 10 25
Most of us, whether we admit it or not, engage in a great deal of passive scrolling through social media daily.
And while the platforms have proliferated for years, experts are only now beginning to demonstrate their full impact on our attention, mental health, spending habits and politics.
Despite the benefits, social media is also creating new problems. A pressing concern is the dissemination of misinformation by political extremists, a trend amplified by the unprecedented reach of platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). When it comes to issues like immigration, many activists, experts and pundits point to social media as a vehicle for the spread of prejudice, conspiracy theories and false claims targeting immigrant and minority populations.
Even before launching his 2016 presidential bid, for example, Donald Trump used Twitter to share messages attacking immigrants and ethnic minorities with millions of people, giving him the power to dominate news cycles and shape public policy.
Does social media make people more xenophobic?
Polarizing platforms
For decades, scholars studying how people consume information about immigration have argued that print and TV news stories often portray the economic and social impact of immigration negatively.
Studies on major American newspapers and news stations show that traditional media coverage has encouraged prejudice toward Latin American immigrants and Muslims.
Does social media follow this trend? Social scientists are beginning to disagree.
Some scholars point to racist and anti-immigration messages on social media as evidence that platforms like Facebook, X and Reddit encourage users to speak freely without the constraints of social norms to a broad and diverse audience.
Other studies argue that social media creates uniquely polarizing environments where users organize themselves into political tribes that fight one another using aggressive dialogue. Even in Canada — a country often touted as pro-immigration — social media has allowed users to attack immigrants and minorities.
Users’ attitudes, however, may matter more than the specific platform.
Politically aggressive users
Recent studies from the United States and Western Europe show that social media attracts politically aggressive users who often do most of the talking in heated online conversations.
Based on my recent research on Canadian X users, I found similar results. I analyzed roughly 13,000 English-language posts discussing immigration and Canada’s housing crisis in 2023. Unsurprisingly, I discovered that many users blamed immigrants for a lack of affordable housing, including influencers with tens of thousands of followers.
In August 2023, discussions about housing on X peaked, with 3,638 posts mentioning both immigration and housing. This significant increase in online conversation coincided with federal government’s public comments linking international students to the housing crisis. The data supports the idea that Canadians were actively discussing the housing crisis in relation to immigration during this time.
Does this mean that Canadian X users are now seething with hatred for immigrants? While some are, a closer look reveals the partisan nature of these posts.
When I examined users’ identities and networks, it became clear that their anti-immigration messages were often a means of criticizing Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government. In other words, right-wing users (with large and small followings) were chiefly responsible for creating and sharing these posts, including People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier.
For instance, Fringe Albertan (about 2,500 followers in August 2023) posted in response to a post by Rebel News:
“@RebelNewsOnline Its a lie! Typical Liberal. Hes lying bc Canada is a UN member, and as a member, has signed onto an immigration pact to flood Canada with migrants, destroying our economy, social network, housing, and culture. #EndUNMembership @UCPCaucus @CPC_HQ @Buffalo_AB @BuffaloPartySK”_
Similarly, lloyd (about 50 followers at the time) posted in response to a post by CTV News:
“@CTVNews Thanks CTV News it’s no wonder why they are leaving as Canada is so poorly governed ! Housing shortage when Immigration brings millions of Migrants and never checked to see how many homes they had and shortage worst ever for Canada! Worst blunder in Canadian History! HELP.”
Right-wing social media users significantly contributed to public discourse blaming immigrants for Canada’s problems.
Some might argue polarizing content is simply a reflection of free speech.
This is true to some degree, but recent studies suggest online polarization can also threaten free societies. Algorithms designed to focus users’ attention on threats and conflict can reliably make users engage with content; this is what makes social media platforms potentially dangerous. Fortunately, users are far from powerless.
Reducing online polarization
While figures like Trump show that social media can be used to spread prejudice to mass audiences, it also matters that users often self-select into networks they like.
New studies make clear that users’ socio-political context, partisanship and behaviour seem to matter as much as the platform itself.
It turns out both platforms and users are responsible for online polarization.
What can we do about social media platforms?
Ultimately, we need socially responsible online platforms that focus less on producing outrage and division to attract users. This means including researchers, governments and civil society in designing social media interfaces and algorithms to establish reasonable community standards for sharing information and regulating users’ behaviour.
But we cannot wait for politicians to solve this problem. Even if we get platforms that focus less on outrage, trolls will still exist.
Social media’s rapid pace and the lack of consensus over online behaviour create ethical dilemmas for users everywhere. For example, many people passively scroll and react to content they skimmed, but if conflict arises later in the thread, many users are unsure how to respond or whether they should respond at all.
To see less polarizing social media content, we need to both consciously choose what platforms we wish to join (and why), and we need to cultivate better ways to handle online conflict.
Nicholas A. R. Fraser, Senior Research Associate , *Toronto Metropolitan University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
---
Right-wing media and MAHA figures are celebrating Trump’s Tylenol announcement and pushing unproven claims that vaccines cause autism
Some right-wing media figures celebrated the announcement while others pivoted to claim that “Tylenol is not what’s driving this epidemic” and vaccines are “the primary driver”
Written by Jack Winstanley & Payton Armstrong
Research contributions from Helena Hind & Gideon Taaffe
Published 09/26/25
President Donald Trump’s promotion of an unproven connection between the use of Tylenol during pregnancy and autism has drawn widespread rebuke from world health officials and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, even as right-wing influencers cheered the news, declaring that “what was once dismissed as ‘conspiracy’ is now official policy discussion” in the Trump White House.
Right-wing media personalities and “Make America Healthy Again” acolytes have bolstered the HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.-created movement to exploit post-pandemic mistrust of public health infrastructure and pharmaceutical companies. Now, they are celebrating the president’s announcement as “incredibly bold” and the “most decisive action that could be taken.” Others highlighted Trump’s comments about vaccines, with some declaring that “Tylenol is not what’s driving this epidemic” and claiming that vaccines are “the primary driver.”
Trump announced the FDA will notify doctors that the use of Tylenol during pregnancy is linked to autism, leading OB-GYNs to denounce the policy as “not backed by the full body of scientific evidence”}:
- On September 22, Trump pushed an unproven causal connection between autism and the use of Tylenol (also known as acetaminophen or paracetamol) during pregnancy. In a press conference, Trump thanked Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — who has a long history of promoting discredited theories about vaccines causing autism — for bringing the subject to the “forefront of American politics, along with me,” adding, “We understood a lot more than a lot of people who studied it.” CNN, [9/22/25;The Guardian, 9/24/25]
- World health officials have rejected Trump’s claim that acetaminophen use during pregnancy causes autism. The European Medicines Agency told NBC that “a large amount of data from pregnant women who used paracetamol during pregnancy indicates no risk of malformations on the developing fetus or on newborns.” Australian health officials also rejected the claims, saying they are “a misrepresentation of the science.” NBC News, [9/23/25]
- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — a group that represents more than 60,000 doctors — rebuked Trump’s announcement and called it “irresponsible” and “not backed by the full body of scientific evidence.” The group’s president, Dr. Steven Fleischman, said in a statement: “Today’s announcement by HHS is not backed by the full body of scientific evidence and dangerously simplifies the many and complex causes of neurologic challenges in children,” adding, “it is highly unsettling that our federal health agencies are willing to make an announcement that will affect the health and well-being of millions of people without the backing of reliable data.” PBS, [9/22/25; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, accessed 9/24/25]
- Discussing vaccines during the press conference, Trump also said, “Don’t let them pump your baby up with the largest pile of stuff you've ever seen in your life.” However, studies have shown no causal link between vaccines and autism, and “over the last 50 years, it is estimated that essential vaccines have saved at least 154 million lives,” according to UNICEF USA president and CEO Michael J. Nyenhuis. Reuters, [9/23/23; NPR, 9/23/25]
- ## Some right-wing and MAHA media figures praised and endorsed Trump’s press conference connecting Tylenol to autism
- Ahead of the press conference, Daily Wire host Michael Knowles claimed Trump “has apparently cured autism.”Knowles said that Trump’s announcement was “another feather in the cap” for the administration, which he claimed has “achieved some of the greatest scientific progress in our lifetimes.” The Daily Wire, *The Michael Knowles Show*, [9/22/25]
- On Steve Bannon’sWar Room, MAHA Action President Tony Lyons declared: “I don’t think you can look at what happened today and think that it was anything short of the boldest and most decisive action that could be taken.” He added: “They see that the science done for the last 20 or 30 years has been fake corporate science, and so we are getting gold standard science, total transparency, and we’re going to make progress. And there are dozens of possibilities for all of the different chronic diseases, and they’re going to do research into every last one of them.” In July, The Hill reported that Lyons’ group “has launched a six-figure ad campaign backing President Trump” and Kennedy’s MAHA agenda. Twitter/X, [9/22/25; The Hill, 7/22/25]
- Podcaster and Kennedy 2024 running mate Nicole Shanahan: “Today was incredibly bold. @POTUS you have exceeded my expectations in truth telling.”She added, “Keep it up, team! This is only the beginning.” Twitter/X, [9/22/25; Politico, 5/11/24; BlazeTV, accessed 9/24/25]
- Actor Rob Schneider said, “This incredible and courageous and important news conference would have NEVER happened if President Trump was not elected.” Twitter/X, [9/22/25; Entertainment Weekly, 10/1/24]
- Infowars host Alex Jones shared footage of Trump’s press conference and wrote: “Tylenol and so-called ‘vaccines’ eat your brain and liver.” Twitter/X, [9/23/25]
- Podcaster Sherri Tenpenny, an ally of Kennedy who has pushed false claims about vaccines, praised the announcement: “What was once dismissed as ‘conspiracy’ is now official policy discussion. The truth always surfaces.” Tenpenny became well-known after she falsely claimed during a 2021 hearing in Ohio that the COVID-19 vaccine makes people “magnetized.” Twitter/X, [9/22/25; DrTenpenny.com, accessed 9/24/25; Media Matters, 7/19/23; PolitiFact, accessed 9/24/25; Agence France-Presse, 3/3/25]
- Turning Point USA’s Alex Clark praised Trump for tying Tylenol to autism, writing “We finally have a president that says: ‘I BELIEVE MOTHERS.’” Clark continued, “The most recent studies link Tylenol to autism, and we know that the current vaccine schedule is not helping. President Trump LOVES AND SUPPORTS WOMEN enough to not gaslight them—something the medical establishment REFUSES to do.” Twitter/X, [9/22/25]
- On Newsmax, host Chris Plante said that “since the Democrats are so angrily denouncing it and they're wrong about everything, it's probably more likely to be true.” Newsmax, *Chris Plante: Right Squad*, [9/22/25]
- After the announcement, Newsmax host Carl Higbie claimed that “Libs are now pro-autism.” Higbie also stated, “It just seems to me like people who don't like Trump will just do anything to oppose him,” claiming that “pregnant women are posting taking acetaminophen products while pregnant.” During the segment, an on-air graphic read “Libs claim autism ‘doesn’t need to be cured.’” Newsmax, *Carl Higbie Frontline*, [9/23/25]
- ## Others highlighted Trump’s comments about vaccines, suggesting they are "the primary driver”
- Alex Jones: “They're going to say it's Tylenol and pesticides but not be specific. … But the main thing is the so-called vaccines.” Jones also said that “on the off chance that they cover it up, I will go to complete war with the administration.” Infowars, *The Alex Jones Show*, [9/22/25]
- During an interview onWar Room, Mary Holland, CEO of Kennedy-founded Children’s Health Defense, said: “We know Tylenol is not what’s driving this epidemic. … Vaccines are driving this epidemic.” Host Steve Bannon added: “This Tylenol thing stinks to high heaven. Not the fact that Tylenol causes it, but to do it today and then you’re never going to see a report, it’s just going to kind of fade into memory.” Holland noted that she’s worked with Kennedy for “many years” and repeated that “vaccines are the primary cause.” Real America’s Voice, *War Room*, [9/22/25; Politico, 1/29/25]
- MAHA Action Editor-in-Chief Tracy “Beanz” Diaz, whom NOTUS also described as “a podcaster, YouTuber and writer” and “one of the earliest promoters of the QAnon movement,” said: “It’s the vaccines. There’s my opinion. It isn’t Tylenol.” Diaz, who was hired by MAHA Action in March, reportedly “pushed vaccine skepticism and advocated for the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19” during the pandemic. Twitter/X, [9/22/25; NOTUS, 3/11/25]
- Podcaster Thomas Renz, who reportedly “boosted his profile with lawsuits challenging coronavirus vaccines,” said that “Tylenol was made over the counter in 1959. Autism exploded as the childhood vaccine schedule grew. Tylenol isn’t good but vaccines are the root problem.” Twitter/X, [9/23/25; The Washington Post, 9/20/21, Substack, accessed 9/24/25]
- Podcaster Peter McCullough, who pushed false claims about vaccines and promoted debunked treatments for COVID-19 during appearances on Fox in 2021, complained, “The pathway to developmental regression begins with vaccines, not acetaminophen.” He added: “A leading cause of Tylenol use during pregnancy is maternal vaccination that started about 25 years ago. Systemic inflammation and the reason why Tylenol is indicated (eg post combination vaccination) is the real driver of encephalitis, and the post-encephalitic state of autism.” Twitter/X, [9/22/25; America Out Loud Network, 9/24/25; Media Matters, 12/30/21; MSNBC, 6/8/25]
- On Instagram, Moms Across America, which CNN described as a “grassroots network” founded by a North Carolina mom “cheering for RFK Jr. to ‘Make America Healthy Again,’” posted a graphic that read, “Tylenol adds the fuel, but vaccines strike the match.” Instagram, [9/23/25; CNN, 12/12/24]
- Sherri Tenpenny stated that “vaccines are — and always have been — the primary driver of autism.”She added, “Tylenol doesn’t replace that reality, it compounds it. … This is not about either/or. It’s about exposing the entire toxic system that has harmed our children for decades.” Twitter/X, [9/22/25]
- OnWar Room, Toby Rogers, whom Politico has described as “a prominent anti-vaccine activist,” celebrated that Trump went after vaccines, calling his comments the “best case scenario.” Rogers said: “Yesterday was historic. We thought it was just going to be about Tylenol and instead, President Trump went all-in, and he made it very clear that he wants to make major changes to the childhood vaccine schedule to stop the autism epidemic.” These comments follow Rogers' testimony before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, claiming that “after conducting my systematic review of 1,000 studies my belief is that the autism and chronic disease epidemics are primarily caused by toxicants — mostly from vaccines and about a dozen additional toxicants.” Real America’s Voice, *War Room*, [9/23/25; Politico, 9/23/25; Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 9/9/25]
MMA //
09/18/25 3:52 PM EDT
07/09/25 12:07 PM EDT
09/17/25
---