U.S. adversaries fuel disinformation about LA protests
Russia, China and Iran are amplifying disinformation about protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles, researchers said Friday, adding to a surge of domestically generated falsehoods and conspiracy theories.
The findings from researchers at the disinformation watchdog NewsGuard illustrate how foreign adversaries of the United States are exploiting deep divisions in American society as a tactic of information warfare.
NewsGuard said Russian, Chinese, and Iranian state-affiliated sources have published around 10,000 posts and articles about the demonstrations that recently erupted in Los Angeles, advancing false claims framing the city as "ground zero in an American apocalypse."
Seizing on the political rift between U.S. President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, pro-China accounts on X and Chinese platforms such as Douyin and Weibo have peddled unfounded claims that California was ready to secede from the United States and declare independence.
Meanwhile, Tehran-based newspapers have peddled the false claim that popular Iranian singer-songwriter Andranik Madadian had been detained by the National Guard in Los Angeles, in an apparent effort to portray the United States as an authoritarian state.
NewsGuard quoted Madadian, better known by his stage name Andy, as denying the claim, stating: "I am fine. Please don't believe these rumors."
Russian media and pro-Russian influencers, meanwhile, have embraced right-wing conspiracy theories, including the unfounded claim that the Mexican government was stoking the demonstrations against Trump's immigration policies.
"The demonstrations are unfolding at the intersection of multiple vulnerabilities such as eroded trust in institutions, AI chatbots amplifying false claims about the unrest, political polarization, and a rollback of safety and moderation efforts by major platforms," McKenzie Sadeghi, a researcher with NewsGuard, said.
"As a result, foreign actors have a wide-open playing field to flood the zone with falsehoods at a faster rate and fewer barriers compared to previous moments of unrest," she added.
The apparent alignment across the three countries was noteworthy, Sadeghi said.
"While Russia, China, and Iran regularly push their own unique forms of disinformation, it's less common to see them move in such a coordinated fashion like this," she said.
"This time, state media outlets have escalated their messaging to advance their geopolitical interests and deflect attention from their own domestic crises."
The disinformation comes on top of false narratives promoted by U.S.-based influencers.
In recent days, conservative social media users have circulated two photographs of brick piles they claimed were strategically placed for the California protesters to hurl at police and inflame violence.
The photos were cited as proof that the protests were fueled by nonprofit organizations supported by George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist who has long been a bogeyman for the far right.
But AFP's fact-checkers found that one photo was lifted from an online marketplace, where a Malaysian hardware dealer uploaded it years ago, while the other was snapped near a construction site in New Jersey.
"Every time there's a popular protest, the old clickbaity 'pallets of bricks' hoax shows up right on cue," the Social Media Lab, a research center at Toronto Metropolitan University, wrote on the platform Bluesky.
"The fact that these types of fake images are used isn't a coincidence. It's part of a pernicious (and) persistent narrative that protests against government policies are somehow inauthentic."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
2 hours ago
- Japan Times
Nippon Steel may have gotten the deal it wanted all along
Nippon Steel has committed to spending more than $25 billion to buy United States Steel and make further investments into the storied American company, and even after all that — after buying 100% of the equity — it won't fully control the steelmaker. In the transaction, the United States government will receive a golden share in the U.S. steelmaker, which will give it veto power over a number of activities and a degree of control over its board of directors. The incredibly restrictive conditions, which are permanent, might have been accepted because they align with what the Japanese steelmaker was planning on doing all along; the conditions might not restrain the future parent at all. Nippon Steel always said it would make a big investment into the company — about equal in size to the purchase price — as well as maintain domestic U.S. production capacity, keep the company's headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and have a board in which the majority of the directors are American citizens. That's about what the U.S. government will be requiring it to do. Questions have also been raised about whether the national security requirements would pass legal muster if the U.S. government were to try to enforce the restrictions. Takahide Kiuchi, executive economist at Nomura Research Institute, wrote in a report Monday that even though the golden share fix may constrain the post-acquisition management of U.S. Steel, much of it could be interpreted as symbolic. 'It is possible that Nippon Steel accepted them in the belief that these measures are largely symbolic, aimed at reassuring the American public and others who are wary of a foreign acquisition of U.S. Steel, and that their actual enforceability is limited,' Kiuchi wrote. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump officially rolled back a January order issued by his predecessor that scotched the $14.9 billion deal on national security grounds. Trump is allowing the transaction to go ahead on the condition that a national security agreement is signed between the bidder and the U.S. government. An executive order issued Friday by Trump maintained that the transaction could jeopardize U.S. national security, but added that these concerns could be successfully mitigated with a national security agreement. The order provides few details on the terms of the agreement, but in a statement issued on Friday, the two companies said the national security agreement outlines approximately $11 billion in new investments by 2028, governance-related commitments that include a golden share to be issued to the U.S. government and commitments related to domestic production and trade matters. The acquisition is being referred to as a "partnership" by the U.S. government and the companies themselves. 'With those approvals, all necessary regulatory approvals for the partnership have now been received, and the partnership is expected to be finalized promptly,' the companies said in the statement. A rally by U.S. President Donald Trump in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, on May 30. A golden share will give the U.S. government veto power over some corporate decisions at U.S. Steel after its acquisition by Nippon Steel. | Reuters U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, in a Sunday post on social media platform X, offered details about the terms of the golden share fix. The special share, which Lutnick says will not sunset, will forbid certain corporate decisions without the president's approval, including relocating the company's headquarters from Pittsburgh, changing the company's name, transferring jobs or production outside the U.S., closing or idling plants barring safety concerns or upgrades, or reducing or delaying the investments that Nippon Steel had pledged. 'The golden share held by the United States in U.S. Steel has powerful terms that directly benefit and protect America, Pennsylvania, the great steelworkers of U.S. Steel and U.S. manufacturers that will have massively expanded access to domestically produced steel,' he wrote. Unconfirmed reports have said the special share might give the president more authority than originally expected. The president will have the power to directly appoint one of the three independent directors on U.S. Steel's board, The New York Times reported on Sunday without naming the sources. Trump publicly opposed the transaction during his presidential campaign, but later said he would support Nippon Steel's 'investment' in U.S. Steel instead of a takeover, and that U.S. Steel will 'remain U.S. controlled' after the transaction is completed. For Nippon Steel — a company that sees market expansion in the Americas and Southeast Asia as key to its growth — acquiring U.S. Steel in its entirety has been a non-negotiable objective since Day 1. Neither Lutnick nor Trump's presidential order outlined U.S. Steel's precise ownership structure after the transaction, but Japan's Nikkei and other news outlets reported that Nippon Steel will acquire 100% of U.S. Steel's regular shares, which falls in line with Nippon Steel's objective. 'There's no such thing as free technology. We're offering up all our advanced steel manufacturing know-how, so we can't make an investment without expecting a return,' Nippon Steel Vice Chairman and Executive Vice President Takahiro Mori was quoted as saying by Nikkei. Friday's announcement was made ahead of Trump's meeting with Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba during the annual Group of Seven gathering in western Canada beginning Monday, during which a preliminary trade deal could be signed. Ishiba on Sunday called the approval of the U.S. Steel acquisition 'a symbolic case' of strengthened U.S.-Japan partnership. A day earlier, trade minister Yoji Muto said in a written statement the Japanese government welcomes Trump's decision, as it views the investment as a way to strengthen the innovation capabilities of the steel industries in both countries and deepen their partnership.
Japan Times
4 hours ago
- Japan Times
ICE protests in LA are forcing a tough choice on Democrats
Until a few days ago, most Americans probably had never heard the name Alex Padilla. The 52-year-old Democrat, who serves as California's senior U.S. senator, is about as mild-mannered and low-key as politicians come. But then federal agents decided to drag him from a news conference in Los Angeles, shoving him to the ground and handcuffing him, all for having the temerity to ask a question of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. "If this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question,' an emotional Padilla told reporters on Thursday in a clip that has since gone viral, "you can only imagine what they're doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country.' Now Padilla, whose parents came to the U.S. as undocumented immigrants from Mexico, is being lauded as a hero. And the policy views he has long held about creating more protections and pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants are now being heard by more Americans. It's just one more way that U.S. President Donald Trump's contentious decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, has pushed the state's brand of unapologetically progressive, resistance-style politics back to the forefront of the Democratic Party. So much for focusing on the price of eggs. Several Democrats now sound like Padilla, who has spent a career advocating for protections for long-term undocumented residents. At a congressional hearing on Thursday, for instance, Illinois' JB Pritzker admonished Republicans that "it's wrong to tear children away from their homes and their mothers and fathers who have spent decades living and working in our communities.' In the short term, this has mostly been popular with the Democratic base, as evidenced by the swell of grassroots energy as Americans have taken to the streets in many cities this week to protest immigration raids in solidarity with the people of Los Angeles. Many more are likely to come out on Saturday for the "No Kings' protests during the Army's 250th anniversary parade in Washington, which Trump is rebranding as his own to celebrate his birthday. In the long term, though, putting Californians in charge of messaging could cause some headaches. As the rightward shift among voters in the last election made abundantly clear, the state's politics don't always translate to other parts of America. Therefore, for months, many Democrats have been trying to distance themselves from anything that smacks of "progressive,' figuring such politics were the undoing of Californian and former Vice President Kamala Harris. Even Newsom, widely expected to run for president in 2028, has previously called his party "toxic.' Trump is clearly betting he is on the right side of public opinion — and he might be correct. Polls consistently show that voters tend to give Republicans higher marks than Democrats on immigration policy and border security. But as masked federal agents have gone about carrying out Trump's mass deportation plan, indiscriminately raiding farms, car washes and Home Depot parking lots, smashing car windows and breaking up families live on TikTok, polls have started to show some cracks in public opinion. A recent poll from YouGov found that half of Americans disapprove of the president's handling of deportations, while 39% approve and another 11% are unsure. Another poll from CBS News found that most Americans believe the administration is prioritizing "dangerous criminals.' But of those who realize that's not true, 58% disapprove of Trump's deportation program. This could provide an opening for Democrats who — like Padilla and Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass — keep telling the stories of law-abiding undocumented immigrants — from men deported from jobs they've had for decades at car washes to a weeping 12-year-old boy whose parents were deported while working at a farm. "He has no brothers, no sisters, no family,' the governor said, his voice cracking. "He literally is on his own.' One thing is for sure: California Democrats are now unified in forcefully opposing Trump and in standing up for progressive values and are unlikely to back off or change course, even if some in the national party would prefer to change the subject. Quite simply, immigration is an unavoidable topic in a state with millions of residents who are undocumented and living in mixed-status households. "You had Democrats kind of going at each other about the budget, about wildfire relief, about homelessness funding and things like that,' said Raphael Sonenshein, a longtime political analyst in California and executive director of the Haynes Foundation in Los Angeles. "And this just overshadows it.' Newsom has hopped off the fence that he has been straddling ever since January, when fires leveled parts of Los Angeles and he suddenly found California was in need of billions of dollars in federal disaster aid (which Republicans still haven't agreed to). In a speech on Tuesday, he warned of authoritarianism. "Trump's government isn't protecting our communities. They are traumatizing our communities. And that seems to be the entire point.' In many ways, this moment is what Democrats at all levels of California's government have long been girding for. As Rep. Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles told MSNBC: "This is something that President Trump and his adviser, Stephen Miller, always had in mind — this confrontation between California and their federal government.' Representative Maxine Waters, also of Los Angeles, was more blunt: "He's trying to make an example out of us.' Meanwhile, Los Angeles is a tinderbox of uncertainty. The question of whether Trump has the legal right to keep the National Guard in Los Angeles, much less send in the Marines for a total fighting force that would outnumber those stationed in Iraq and Syria, won't be answered until at least next week. That's when a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will consider a lower court order it paused late Thursday that would've returned control of the troops to Newsom. "In the end, California is going to rally around itself,' a member of the state assembly, Isaac Bryan, told me recently. We'll see how long the Democratic Party rallies around California. Erika D. Smith is a politics and policy columnist for Bloomberg Opinion.
Japan Times
4 hours ago
- Japan Times
Washington divorcing SpaceX just isn't possible right now
The public spat between U.S. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, the world's richest person, was unsettling given the power these two men wield and how their verbal tussle quickly escalated to issues that directly affect national security. Trump floated the cancellation of all NASA and Department of Defense contracts with SpaceX, the space-launch and satellite-internet company Musk founded in 2002. Musk countered that he would withdraw the services of the Dragon space capsule, which is the only option now, except for resorting to the Russians, for ferrying astronauts to the International Space Station. While the details of the social-media fracas will fade over time, the power dynamics on which the threats were based won't. The U.S. government depends on SpaceX for low-cost space launches while competitors lag behind. SpaceX needs the government, ranging from the mundane (approving launch permits) to the grandiose (funding to put a human on Mars). Perhaps this realization that this dustup would only lead to mutual damage was a catalyst for Trump uncharacteristically letting go of the issue and Musk atypically admitting that he went too far in his X attacks. As the dust settles, it's clear that both NASA and the Defense Department would benefit from more launch competition from the legacy space companies, such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and startups, including Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and Rocket Lab. It's unsettling to think that a mercurial-tempered billionaire has the sole hand on the SpaceX tiller and could potentially make rash decisions that impact the nation — like leaving astronauts stranded. Steve Bannon, a Trump ally and voice of the extreme end of the MAGA movement, in his bombastic style said the government should confiscate SpaceX and deport Musk, even though he's a naturalized U.S. citizen. Such drastic measures would be counterproductive, destroying the entrepreneurial spirit that made SpaceX a success while giving pause to foreign companies seeking to build assets in the U.S. An uneasy truce between Trump and Musk seems to be taking hold, but the fallout already has real consequences for SpaceX. Trump scrapped the nomination of Jared Isaacman, the billionaire space enthusiast and Musk ally, to head NASA. Trump's next pick may not be as favorable to Musk's ambition of reaching Mars and perhaps will seek to bolster alternatives to reduce that dependence on SpaceX. SpaceX's Starship spacecraft lifts off from Starbase, Texas, on May 27. The U.S. had 145 successful space launches last year and SpaceX accounted for 134 of them. China was the second-most-active launcher, with 66, and Russia followed with 17. | REUTERS Musk will regret even more his outbursts on social media, including linking Trump to the accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, if the president picks someone with ties to the legacy space industry to lead NASA instead of an outsider entrepreneur like Isaacman. Still, it would be hard for the government to step back from SpaceX. Apart from the large lead on launches, SpaceX has built a satellite network that's 10 times as large as its nearest competitor. This has empowered SpaceX's Starlink unit to gobble up market share with its low-cost fast internet service, which has won over customers such as United Airlines and Carnival at the expense of tradition satellite providers such as Viasat and Europe's Eutelsat Communications. The reason is simple: SpaceX was the first to design a reusable rocket that drastically cuts launch costs. The U.S. had 145 successful launches last year and SpaceX accounted for 134 of them, according to statistics compiled by Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. China was the second-most-active launcher, with 66, and Russia followed with 17. In a nutshell, SpaceX is the dominant player for space launches and satellite internet, and its lead will most likely grow. The company inevitably will play a crucial role in the Defense Department's effort to create a Golden Dome, a space-based system for early detection and destruction of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This dominance is not the case for Musk's other enterprises, including Tesla, xAI and Neuralink, which all face robust competitors and have little national-security implications. While the valuation of Tesla teeters on successful rollouts of robotaxis and robots, SpaceX's road map to riches is much more certain. The argument that the federal government should cut back on contracts with SpaceX and its reliance on a single man runs into two problems. The first is that there's no viable substitute. United Launch Alliance — a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin — has the proven Atlas V rocket, but the cost to launch is more than $100 million, according to reports, compared with less than $70 million for SpaceX's Falcon 9. ULA has a new, larger rocket called Vulcan, but it has just recently been certified for flight and won't have a reusable booster, although it's designed to recover the engines in the future. Boeing's Starliner spacecraft — the alternative to SpaceX's Dragon capsule — ran into problems with its maiden voyage last year to take astronauts to the space station and returned empty. Starliner won't be available for flight until next year, leaving Dragon, which has made 46 visits to the ISS, as the only option. The second problem with trying to strangle SpaceX by withholding federal contracts is that the company would continue to launch for commercial customers and for itself, accelerating the expansion of its satellite network. Starlink has about 7,000 operational satellites compared with about 650 for OneWeb, which Eutelsat bought for $3.4 billion in 2023. Tellingly, the last launch of 20 OneWeb satellites in October was aboard a SpaceX rocket. which is seeking to build a satellite network, faces the same problem of paying higher launch costs or using SpaceX rockets. While legacy space companies in the U.S. and Europe haven't kept pace with reusable rocket technology, startups haven't fared much better. Blue Origin, the space company financed by Amazon Chairman Jeff Bezos, fired its New Glenn reusable rocket into space for the first time in January, but failed to capture the booster. It's second launch has been delayed until August. Rocket Lab is also pursuing a reusable rocket, but for now can only handle small payloads. Meanwhile, SpaceX is testing its giant Starship rocket designed for NASA's missions to take astronauts to the moon and Mars, but so far has had more failures than success. SpaceX is attempting to reuse the lower and upper stages of this rocket, which would lower even more the launch cost per kilogram of payload and increase the gap with competitors. For better or worse, Trump and Musk are stuck with each other. While its not ideal for the government to be so reliant on one person, Musk also can't turn his back on its influence and billions of dollars in contracts. They don't have to like each other, but they have little choice but to work together, harmoniously or not. Thomas Black is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist writing about the industrial and transportation sectors.
