What archived GlomarResponder posts are still publicly accessible and where can they be reviewed?
Executive summary
Archived posts from the X account @GlomarResponder—a profile the Texas Observer linked to ICE prosecutor James Rodden—remain publicly accessible primarily via the Texas Observer’s archived screenshots and republished excerpts, and through related cross-posted archives that circulated on other platforms; the live X profile itself was locked/private but still active as of multiple reports [1] [2] [3]. Independent outlets repeatedly note that the Observer archived the account’s posts before the account was restricted, while other sites picked up those archived materials and preserved quotes and screenshots [2] [4] [5].
1. The Texas Observer’s archived collection is the central public repository
The Texas Observer’s investigation included screenshots and archived copies of numerous GlomarResponder posts and is cited by multiple national outlets as the place that preserved the account’s content before it was locked, with the Observer’s author saying he archived “all the posts cited” in the story [2] [4]; readers and journalists seeking the primary archived material should start with the Texas Observer’s reporting and embedded screenshots that document racist, xenophobic, and pro‑fascist language attributed to the account [1] [6].
2. Secondary news archives and republished excerpts mirror the Observer’s records
National and regional outlets—Esquire, The Daily Beast, The Independent, The New Republic, The Prospect, Lone Star Live and others—reproduced quotes, screenshots, and summaries drawn from the Observer’s archive, meaning many of the most-cited GlomarResponder posts (for example: “America is a White nation, founded by Whites,” “Nobody is proposing feeding migrants into tree shredders,” and other explicit racist and anti-immigrant statements) can be reviewed in those articles and their screenshots even after the X account was locked [7] [1] [8] [6] [9].
3. Cross‑platform archival traces and reposts extend accessibility but vary in permanence
Beyond mainstream reporting, archived claims and screenshots of GlomarResponder content were reposted across social platforms and archiving sites—reported instances include Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Bluesky, TikTok and Reddit reproductions of the Observer material—and these secondary archives allowed wider review of the same posts [5]; however, the persistence and completeness of those reposts depend on each platform’s policies and whether posts were later removed or altered, so completeness cannot be guaranteed from those sources alone [5].
4. Older GlomarResponder content exists on other blogging platforms and can supplement the record
Separate from the X-era archives, some content by an account using the same handle exists on Hive.blog, where a GlomarResponder profile and posts from years prior remain visible, offering an additional public trail of the account’s outputs that predates the X controversy [10]; this is useful for researchers tracing long-term posting patterns but does not replace the Observer’s archive of the more incendiary X posts that drew media attention [10] [4].
5. Limits, disputes, and how to evaluate what’s available
Public reporting makes clear that the Observer matched biographical details to identify an alleged operator and archived the account’s messages before the X account was locked, but some outlets note that neither ICE nor Rodden (in some reports) had formally confirmed those linkage claims at the time of reporting and that certain legal filings referenced by coverage did not independently prove account ownership—so the archived posts themselves are accessible via the Observer and republishers, but attribution remains contested in some sources [1] [11] [5]; readers consulting archives should inspect the screenshots and contextual reportage and be aware of those caveats.