What evidence supports the claim that 2/3 of MAGA accounts are foreign propaganda?
Executive summary
X’s new “About this account” / country-of-origin feature has revealed that dozens of high-profile accounts that promote MAGA or “America First” messaging were created or are based outside the United States, including countries such as Eastern Europe, Russia, Nigeria, India, Thailand and Bangladesh (examples: MAGA NATION, MAGA Scope, MAGA Nation, America First) [1] [2] [3]. Multiple news outlets describe “dozens” or “many” accounts unmasked; none of the provided sources claim a rigorous 2/3 fraction supported by platform-wide data — reporting emphasizes sampled popular accounts and viral crowdsourced lists rather than a definitive denominator [4] [1] [5].
1. What the X “About this account” rollout actually showed
When X rolled out the transparency tool, users could see where accounts were started, how they joined and other metadata; journalists and users immediately posted examples of prominent MAGA-branded accounts that the tool showed were created or operated abroad — notable illustrations include MAGA NATION shown as based in Eastern Europe and MAGA Scope / MAGA accounts listed from Nigeria, Thailand, Bangladesh and South Asia [1] [2] [3]. News outlets describe this as “dozens” or “many” accounts, and social-media threads collected examples quickly after the feature appeared [5] [6].
2. How people turned examples into broader claims
Citizens, influencers and some outlets compiled lists and screenshots of influential MAGA accounts revealed to originate overseas; those viral compilations fueled headlines asserting that large swaths of MAGA influencers are foreign-run [5] [7]. Commentators then extrapolated from the visible examples — popular accounts with thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers — to suggest the movement’s online footprint is heavily composed of foreign actors [8] [9].
3. What the reporting does and does not prove about “2/3”
The available coverage documents many prominent instances but does not present a platform-wide audit that measures the proportion of all MAGA accounts or even all high-following MAGA accounts that are foreign. Major outlets report “dozens” or “many” unmasked accounts and highlight several with large followings, but none of the provided sources offers evidence that two-thirds of MAGA accounts are foreign-run or provides the statistical method to reach that exact share [4] [1] [5]. Therefore the specific 2/3 figure is not substantiated in the materials you supplied.
4. Quality and limits of the underlying signal
X’s tool reports metadata such as where an account was started or if a VPN was used; that metadata can reveal location but can also be masked, changed or ambiguous (the Guardian notes flags for VPN use in some cases) [4]. Reporting also cautions there is “no evidence of links between foreign state actors and the most recently discovered accounts” in these articles — outlets distinguish between individual foreign creators, troll-farm activity and state-directed operations [1]. In short, the tool increases transparency but does not by itself prove intent, coordination, or state sponsorship.
5. Competing interpretations and political framing
Some sources and users framed the revelations as proof of foreign disinformation campaigns “trying to destroy the United States,” while others and some articles focus on the long-standing phenomenon of foreign-based influence operations on social platforms without necessarily tying every example to geopolitically motivated campaigns [4] [5]. Outlets such as Fortune and The Verge emphasize the transparency win and note past evidence that adversaries use fake accounts, but they also warn against leaping to broad conclusions about state-backed propaganda links without more forensic evidence [1] [6].
6. What would be needed to substantiate “2/3” more rigorously
A defensible 2/3 claim would require: (a) a clear population definition (e.g., top X accounts by followers that self-identify as MAGA); (b) systematic sampling of those accounts; and (c) platform-supplied metadata or independent forensic analysis establishing origin for each sampled account. None of the provided reporting supplies that kind of transparent methodology or full-scope dataset — coverage instead aggregates high-profile examples and viral lists [5] [6].
7. Bottom line for readers
There is strong, consistent reporting that many prominent MAGA-branded accounts on X were revealed by the new transparency tool to have been created or based outside the U.S., with dozens of notable examples cited across multiple outlets [1] [2] [5]. However, the specific quantitative claim that “two-thirds of MAGA accounts are foreign propaganda” is not supported by the sources provided here; available reporting documents compelling examples and a wider problem but stops short of a platform-scale percentage or evidence of direct state orchestration [4] [1].
If you want, I can try to build a more quantitative estimate using the accounts named in news compendiums and crowdsourced threads from these stories — that would at least show what share of a chosen sample appears foreign in the current reporting.