Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did X just find 2/3 of MAGA accounts foreign propaganda
Executive summary
X’s new “country-of-origin” / “About This Account” transparency feature has revealed that many accounts prominent in MAGA circles operate from countries outside the United States — reporting across The Guardian, The Wrap, Raw Story, The New Republic and others documents a wave of revelations and user threads showing accounts based in places like Russia, Nigeria, India, Bangladesh and parts of Eastern Europe [1] [2] [3] [4]. Available sources do not provide a verified, platform-wide statistic that “2/3 of MAGA accounts” are foreign-run; reporting shows dozens or “many” prominent MAGA accounts were exposed, but not a definitive two‑thirds proportion [1] [2] [3].
1. What X revealed and how the story broke
X rolled out a transparency tool (described as an “About This Account” or country-of-origin feature) and users quickly combed its outputs, posting threads and screenshots that showed a number of high‑profile MAGA and related right‑wing influencer handles traced to locations outside the U.S.; those posts then drove mainstream coverage and commentary [2] [1] [3]. Journalists and influencers shared example accounts based in Eastern Europe, Russia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, India and Morocco, which produced the viral reaction across social platforms and news outlets [2] [1] [3].
2. Claims vs. what reporting actually shows
Multiple outlets use words like “many,” “dozens,” or “a large number” to describe the accounts exposed; none of the supplied pieces presents a rigorous, platform‑wide audit that quantifies what share of all MAGA accounts are foreign-operated — so the precise claim “2/3 of MAGA accounts are foreign propaganda” is not supported in the cited reporting [1] [2] [3]. Some commentary on social media extrapolates from high‑visibility examples to broader conclusions, but news coverage stops short of reporting a verified two‑thirds statistic [1] [2].
3. Types of accounts identified and the limits of inference
Coverage shows a mix: some influential “fan” or influencer accounts that portray themselves as US patriots appear to be managed from abroad; other exposed accounts openly list non‑US bios and some users insist they never pretended to be Americans [2] [4]. Reporting also notes that the feature revealed foreign‑run accounts across the political spectrum — including pro‑Russian, pro‑Palestine and pro‑Israel handles — not only MAGA ones, which complicates any conclusion that foreign activity is singularly or exclusively targeting MAGA [2] [5].
4. How sources and commentators framed motives and impact
Some observers and influencers framed the discoveries as evidence of foreign propaganda operations aiming to inflame U.S. politics, accusing actors of profit‑motivated “grifting” or state‑linked influence [6] [7]. Others cautioned that the feature mainly exposed location data and didn’t, by itself, prove coordinated state‑directed campaigns; coverage points to long‑standing concerns about bots and foreign influence but does not substitute platform data for formal attribution [1] [5].
5. Pushback, political reactions and partisan spin
Reactions were immediate and partisan: liberal influencers celebrated the exposure as vindication of long‑standing warnings, while voices in the MAGA orbit described the revelations as evidence of a targeted campaign to fracture their movement and warned against taking the feature at face value [1] [8] [5]. Some affected users pushed back, noting bios that always stated non‑US locations or accusing the feature of creating needless division [2] [4].
6. What the reporting leaves unanswered
Key questions remain unresolved in the cited reporting: how many MAGA‑aligned accounts exist overall on X; what percentage of those are foreign‑operated; whether the foreign accounts are coordinated by state actors, independent commercial operators, or individual freelancers; and how much influence these accounts actually exert on American public opinion [1] [2]. Available sources do not provide a platform‑level audit or attribution analysis to justify a precise “two‑thirds” figure.
7. Bottom line for readers
The new X feature has exposed numerous high‑visibility MAGA‑adjacent accounts that operate from abroad and has rekindled legitimate concerns about foreign actors’ roles in U.S. political discourse [1] [2]. However, the claim that X “just found 2/3 of MAGA accounts [are] foreign propaganda” exceeds what the current reporting documents — outlets cite many examples but do not supply a validated two‑thirds statistic or systematic attribution [1] [2] [3]. Readers should treat viral percentage claims cautiously and look for further platform audits or independent research before accepting a precise numerical conclusion [1] [2].