Friday, November 28, 2025
Indians Power Trump’s “America First” Campaign! X Location Tags Spill The Secret On MAGA Warriors
By Sumit Ahlawat
“America First!”, “Build the Wall!”, “They’re Rapists!” “No more Amnesty!”, and “Deport them All!”, are just some of the popular MAGA slogans.
At the heart of all these slogans is a sentiment that America is for the Americans. They helped shape a narrative that ‘outsiders’ are ‘invading’ the US, termed ‘A Silent Invasion’ by the MAGA supporters.
They contended that outsiders are coming to the US, stealing our jobs, and replacing the American/Christian cultural ethos.
They demanded mass deportations, stronger border control, and stricter H-1B visa norms.
These slogans propelled Donald Trump to the White House a second time in January this year.
A lot of these culture and narrative wars are fought on X (formerly Twitter) every day.
Now, thanks to a new location feature on X, it turns out that even these narratives and culture wars were fueled by foreign lands, most prominently by Indians.
For instance, a popular X account called “TRUMP_ARMY” (over half a million followers, including a senior Republican senator) is based in India, and its username has changed four times since March 2022, the last in July 2022.
Another account called “IvankaNews_”, which describes itself as a fan account for Trump’s daughter, has gathered more than one million followers and has previously posted about voting for the president last year.
Credits Platform X.
However, the account is based in Nigeria, and its username has changed 11 times since 2010, according to X.
Another account, ‘MAGA NATION’, with over 392,000 followers, is based in Eastern Europe. Similarly, ‘Dark Maga’ (15,000 followers) is based out of Thailand. ‘MAGA Scope’, which boasts over 51,000 followers, is actually based in Nigeria, and ‘America First’, with over 67,000 followers, is based in Bangladesh.
Though MAGA supporters are not the only ones who are enraged, it turns out that a lot of popular anti-government X accounts in India are based outside of India.
Similarly, many X accounts claiming to be activists based in Gaza were operating from Europe.
This, in essence, sums up the ironies of the modern US polity, or of political discourse in any country.
Two decades ago, as we entered the new millennium, we were told that the World Wide Web would turn the whole world into a ‘global village’.
That might not have happened. If anything, we are living in a world with increasingly stringent visa restrictions. Freedom of movement is limited to those born into ideologically similar political systems and those with large bank balances.
However, regardless of strengthened national boundaries or the erection of new border walls (for instance, the US-Mexico border wall or the fencing of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border), there is one space where national boundaries have literally disappeared. The virtual space.
However, the account is based in Nigeria, and its username has changed 11 times since 2010, according to X.
Another account, ‘MAGA NATION’, with over 392,000 followers, is based in Eastern Europe. Similarly, ‘Dark Maga’ (15,000 followers) is based out of Thailand. ‘MAGA Scope’, which boasts over 51,000 followers, is actually based in Nigeria, and ‘America First’, with over 67,000 followers, is based in Bangladesh.
Though MAGA supporters are not the only ones who are enraged, it turns out that a lot of popular anti-government X accounts in India are based outside of India.
Similarly, many X accounts claiming to be activists based in Gaza were operating from Europe.
This, in essence, sums up the ironies of the modern US polity, or of political discourse in any country.
Two decades ago, as we entered the new millennium, we were told that the World Wide Web would turn the whole world into a ‘global village’.
That might not have happened. If anything, we are living in a world with increasingly stringent visa restrictions. Freedom of movement is limited to those born into ideologically similar political systems and those with large bank balances.
However, regardless of strengthened national boundaries or the erection of new border walls (for instance, the US-Mexico border wall or the fencing of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border), there is one space where national boundaries have literally disappeared. The virtual space.
Ukraine and Europe are planning to build a drone wall on their frontiers with Russia. That drone wall might be effective against Russian soldiers.
Still, it will be of no use against Russian online propaganda that, many Western governments complain, has permeated online political discourse in those countries, creating instability, questioning the credibility of institutions, fueling culture wars, and influencing elections.
While the problem is not limited to a single platform, Twitter is in many ways the prime site where these ideological, cultural, and narrative wars are fought.
Twitter (X): Not Social Media But Political Tool Par Excellence
According to a recent Pew Research Center paper, ‘Americans’ Social Media Use 2025,’ YouTube is the most popular social media platform in the US, followed by Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, Reddit, Snapchat, and Twitter.
Even among young people (ages 18-30), Twitter is not very popular.
In this age group, YouTube is once again the most popular, followed by Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit, WhatsApp, and Twitter.
In terms of Daily active users (DAUs), while over 125 million Americans use YouTube and Facebook, Twitter’s DAUs are around 26 million. Meaning for every one active Twitter user in the US, there are five Facebook and YouTube users.
However, despite this minuscule number, Twitter wields disproportionate influence in shaping the US political agenda.
Similarly, in India, only 24 million people actively use Twitter, which is less than 2 % of the country’s population of 1.4 billion. However, despite this minuscule number, Twitter often sets the agenda of mainstream media and political discourse in India.
One important reason is the demographic profile of Twitter users.
According to the Pew Research Center paper, in the US, Twitter use is more common among Asians, young people, those with an average household income of over USD 70000, highly educated people, urban residents, and Republican supporters.
Credits Pew Research Centre.
In other words, Twitter use is more common among elites.
Another reason is how people use Twitter. Every social media platform carves out a niche audience. For instance, YouTube is used for watching videos and talk shows, Instagram for sharing images, TikTok for reels, WhatsApp for messaging, and Twitter for staying updated on political developments and news, and for expressing opinions.
Furthermore, Twitter is more influential because of its widespread use by political elites and journalists, leading to an intermedia agenda-setting effect that shapes mainstream media coverage.
Twitter is used extensively by politicians, pundits, journalists, and other public figures. These actors use the platform for direct communication, bypassing institutional restrictions and the mainstream media.
Additionally, mainstream news outlets (TV, radio, newspapers) frequently monitor Twitter for breaking news, story ideas, direct quotes, and public reaction to events. What goes viral on Twitter often becomes a headline in traditional media, effectively driving public debate on a much broader scale than the platform’s user numbers would suggest.
Additionally, Twitter users are generally more politically interested and engaged than the general population. A smaller, highly active segment of users produces a large volume of political content, amplifying certain topics and creating a perception of widespread public opinion, even if it doesn’t reflect the general public.
In other words, Twitter use is more common among elites.
Another reason is how people use Twitter. Every social media platform carves out a niche audience. For instance, YouTube is used for watching videos and talk shows, Instagram for sharing images, TikTok for reels, WhatsApp for messaging, and Twitter for staying updated on political developments and news, and for expressing opinions.
Furthermore, Twitter is more influential because of its widespread use by political elites and journalists, leading to an intermedia agenda-setting effect that shapes mainstream media coverage.
Twitter is used extensively by politicians, pundits, journalists, and other public figures. These actors use the platform for direct communication, bypassing institutional restrictions and the mainstream media.
Additionally, mainstream news outlets (TV, radio, newspapers) frequently monitor Twitter for breaking news, story ideas, direct quotes, and public reaction to events. What goes viral on Twitter often becomes a headline in traditional media, effectively driving public debate on a much broader scale than the platform’s user numbers would suggest.
Additionally, Twitter users are generally more politically interested and engaged than the general population. A smaller, highly active segment of users produces a large volume of political content, amplifying certain topics and creating a perception of widespread public opinion, even if it doesn’t reflect the general public.
A man in a Make America Great Again (MAGA) hat cheers amid members of the US army as the US president speaks at Fort Bragg, a US Army military installation, near Fayetteville, North Carolina, on June 10, 2025. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP)
In effect, Twitter is less of a social media platform than a political tool to shape (and manipulate) public opinion and to set the political agenda, the modern equivalent of the “public sphere”.
The German sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas coined the term “public sphere” in his 1962 book, ‘The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere‘. He defined it as a social space where individuals can come together to discuss matters of common interest and form public opinion, acting as an intermediary between the state and the citizens.
In the digital age, Twitter has taken the role of the ‘public sphere’.
However, unlike the US primary elections or the US Presidential elections, in which only citizens can participate, on Twitter, literally anyone (even foreigners) can join the debate, shape or manipulate public opinion, and set the agenda.
These foreign actors can have diverse interests and motivations. It can range from more benign reasons, such as earning money (accounts that generate more engagement earn more from the US market than anywhere else), to more dangerous motivations, such as destabilizing a society, creating conflict and social unrest, or influencing elections.
They can act as lone warriors or as large, coordinated groups on behalf of foreign states.
This manipulation of public opinion by foreign actors is akin to “digital infiltration,” in which accounts based abroad can influence the US political agenda without ever crossing the physical border.
Genuine citizens and MAGA supporters are correct in feeling cheated and enraged on finding that many of the accounts they followed are actually based in India, Pakistan, and Nigeria.
Even if the narrative is “America First,” if it’s driven from New Delhi or Islamabad, the impact is similar: loss of agency or disenfranchisement.
In this sense, Twitter’s new policy of showing account locations is a welcome step that will ensure greater transparency; however, the rules are still evolving, and there is considerable confusion.
For instance, what about those who deliberately use VPNs not to spread disinformation, but to escape the wrath of repressive governments?
What if genuine US citizens are based in a foreign country?
While the new Twitter policy is welcome, more robust identity checks must be put in place to ensure that citizens know who they’re following.
Foreign accounts can participate in public discourse, but it should not happen under the cloak of secrecy or deliberate disinformation.
In effect, Twitter is less of a social media platform than a political tool to shape (and manipulate) public opinion and to set the political agenda, the modern equivalent of the “public sphere”.
The German sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas coined the term “public sphere” in his 1962 book, ‘The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere‘. He defined it as a social space where individuals can come together to discuss matters of common interest and form public opinion, acting as an intermediary between the state and the citizens.
In the digital age, Twitter has taken the role of the ‘public sphere’.
However, unlike the US primary elections or the US Presidential elections, in which only citizens can participate, on Twitter, literally anyone (even foreigners) can join the debate, shape or manipulate public opinion, and set the agenda.
These foreign actors can have diverse interests and motivations. It can range from more benign reasons, such as earning money (accounts that generate more engagement earn more from the US market than anywhere else), to more dangerous motivations, such as destabilizing a society, creating conflict and social unrest, or influencing elections.
They can act as lone warriors or as large, coordinated groups on behalf of foreign states.
This manipulation of public opinion by foreign actors is akin to “digital infiltration,” in which accounts based abroad can influence the US political agenda without ever crossing the physical border.
Genuine citizens and MAGA supporters are correct in feeling cheated and enraged on finding that many of the accounts they followed are actually based in India, Pakistan, and Nigeria.
Even if the narrative is “America First,” if it’s driven from New Delhi or Islamabad, the impact is similar: loss of agency or disenfranchisement.
In this sense, Twitter’s new policy of showing account locations is a welcome step that will ensure greater transparency; however, the rules are still evolving, and there is considerable confusion.
For instance, what about those who deliberately use VPNs not to spread disinformation, but to escape the wrath of repressive governments?
What if genuine US citizens are based in a foreign country?
While the new Twitter policy is welcome, more robust identity checks must be put in place to ensure that citizens know who they’re following.
Foreign accounts can participate in public discourse, but it should not happen under the cloak of secrecy or deliberate disinformation.
Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment