Truth social
The relationship between authoritarian regimes and technology has a long history, with dictators often leveraging the most cutting-edge media tools available to control public opinion, disseminate propaganda, and solidify power. Starting with the advent of print media and continuing through the eras of radio, film, and television, many leaders seized on these powerful mediums to influence their populations.
Print media, including newspapers, pamphlets, and books, was one of the earliest technologies that authoritarian leaders used to disseminate propaganda on a mass scale. As literacy rates grew in the 19th century, so did the influence of print media in shaping public opinion. Leaders quickly realized its potential to control narratives and suppress dissent. One of the first to understand the power of print, Napoleon heavily regulated newspapers, only allowing those that aligned with his ideology. He also promoted his victories and achievements through state-sponsored publications, creating a heroic image of himself. Under his rule, censorship became institutionalized, limiting access to information that did not reflect positively on his empire.
In Russia, Tsar Nicholas II controlled press freedom, censoring content and punishing dissenting publishers. Although not as systematic as later dictators, he recognized the importance of the written word in suppressing revolutionary ideas. His failures in handling the press, however, left room for revolutionary pamphlets and newspapers, like Iskra, to spread anti-imperial sentiment. fter the Russian Revolution, Lenin and later Stalin fully weaponized print media for ideological purposes. Under Lenin, newspapers like Pravda became the voice of the Communist Party. Stalin further entrenched state control, using print media to enforce his cult of personality, airbrushing history, and creating myths around his leadership. Stalin’s regime utilized print media to establish a controlled, one-sided narrative that praised his policies and demonized “enemies of the people.”
Radio represented a leap forward in mass communication, allowing leaders to speak directly to millions simultaneously. Adolf Hitler’s regime demonstrated the potential of radio as a propaganda tool on an unprecedented scale. Hitler and his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, were pioneers in using radio to reach every German household. Understanding that radio could transcend barriers of literacy and convey emotion through voice, they introduced the Volksempfänger, or “People’s Radio,” a low-cost radio that made broadcast technology accessible to more German citizens. By saturating the airwaves with Nazi propaganda, they crafted a nationalistic narrative, glorifying Aryan ideals and vilifying Jews and other targeted groups. Hitler’s speeches, broadcast on the radio, created an atmosphere of intimidation and loyalty. The emotional resonance of his oratory, combined with dramatic background music and mass chants, amplified the reach and impact of Nazi ideology. These broadcasts were essential in creating an image of Hitler as Germany’s ultimate leader and in fostering a unified, controlled populace.
While radio allowed a broad reach, film had the advantage of combining visual and auditory elements, making it a powerful medium for emotional and ideological impact. Both Hitler and Mussolini used film to promote their regimes’ agendas. Films such as Triumph of the Will and Olympia were commissioned by the Nazis to glorify the regime. Riefenstahl’s work used innovative techniques like sweeping aerial shots, dramatic close-ups, and synchronized marches to portray the Nazis as a powerful and unified force. Hitler’s image was carefully crafted, and these films visually represented him as a god-like figure leading Germany to a glorious future. Mussolini also recognized the power of film and established the LUCE Institute to produce newsreels that highlighted his achievements and Italy’s modernization. Fascist Italy’s newsreels emphasized Mussolini’s leadership and national pride, often showing him engaging with the populace or overseeing monumental construction projects.
Television, with its capacity to broadcast both sound and image directly into homes, became the next frontier for dictators. Leaders in the mid-20th century recognized television as a potent tool for propaganda, particularly as access to TV sets increased globally. In the USSR, television was heavily controlled to broadcast state-approved content. Soviet leaders saw TV as a medium to portray the Soviet way of life as prosperous and superior to the West, showing idealized images of Soviet citizens working and living in harmony. Television also broadcast state ceremonies and parades, further reinforcing the power and unity of the Communist Party. Fidel Castro used television to deliver hours-long speeches, which were broadcast nationwide. He understood television’s role in reaching even remote areas, ensuring that his ideology spread across the island. His televised addresses were less about policy details and more about rallying support, portraying Cuba as a bastion of revolutionary spirit. Mao Zedong’s regime used television for its propaganda efforts, promoting Communist Party ideology and Mao’s vision of a classless society. The “Cultural Revolution” was heavily documented on Chinese television, broadcasting Maoist ideology and showing public humiliation of intellectuals and others deemed “counter-revolutionary.”
As television evolved, it became an even more sophisticated tool for controlling narratives. Dictators in the latter half of the 20th century used television to create cults of personality and manipulate public opinion with refined techniques. Saddam Hussein meticulously controlled Iraq’s television stations, ensuring that only state-approved messages were aired. His image was a constant presence, with news programs showing him engaging with citizens, inspecting the military, and performing charitable acts. This created an image of him as a benevolent yet powerful leader. North Korea’s leadership perfected the use of television for propaganda. North Korean television broadcasts are almost exclusively devoted to praising the ruling Kim family, showing their supposed benevolence and omnipotence. Television in North Korea is entirely state-run, with programming that reinforces the government’s narrative and instills loyalty from a young age. In post-revolutionary Iran, the Ayatollahs have used state television to disseminate religious and political ideology. The government strictly controls content to ensure it aligns with Islamic principles and the values of the Islamic Republic, presenting a narrow perspective that promotes loyalty to the regime.
Donald Trump’s use of social media, especially platforms like Twitter (now X) and his own Truth Social, represents a new frontier in the evolution of propaganda and political influence. His approach has demonstrated the potential power and perils of direct communication with the public through unfiltered digital platforms. Unlike past leaders who relied on traditional media, Trump harnessed social media’s immediacy and reach to bypass journalistic gatekeepers, build a loyal following, and shape public discourse in real time.
From the start of his political journey, Trump leveraged Twitter as a means to communicate directly with the public, sidestepping traditional media that he often criticized as “fake news.” His tweets were unique in their tone—informal, aggressive, and controversial—which sharply contrasted with the often measured language of most political figures. His willingness to use Twitter as an unfiltered extension of his personality allowed him to cultivate a distinctive public image and attract a dedicated following.
Trump’s approach to Twitter was marked by blunt, provocative statements, often targeting individuals or institutions he saw as adversaries. His “tweets as they come” style conveyed authenticity to his supporters, who valued his unpolished approach as a refreshing break from typical political speech.
Trump used Twitter to announce major policy decisions, often before official statements from his administration. His tweets could set the day’s political agenda, forcing traditional media to react to his comments instead of framing the discourse themselves. For instance, his tweets regarding North Korea, trade tariffs, and military actions sometimes preempted briefings or even caught his advisors off guard, illustrating his prioritization of Twitter as a primary communication tool.
Twitter allowed Trump to create a polarized “us vs. them” dynamic, casting himself as the outsider fighting for the “forgotten man” against an elite, corrupt establishment. His tweets frequently included incendiary language, casting opponents as enemies and promoting his movement’s grievances, which fueled a sense of shared struggle among his followers.
Trump’s relationship with Twitter was complex. His frequent breaches of platform policies led to warnings and fact-checks, eventually culminating in a permanent suspension in January 2021, following the Capitol riot. This suspension underscored the limits of his Twitter influence and led him to explore alternative platforms.
After his Twitter ban, Trump and his team developed Truth Social, an alternative platform aimed at replicating Twitter’s format but free from perceived censorship. Launched in February 2022, Truth Social was created not just to give Trump a platform but to provide his supporters with a space where conservative voices could post freely, without the threat of bans or content moderation often found on mainstream social media.
Truth Social is structured as a space where Trump has near-total control over the content and community standards. Without the restrictions of mainstream platforms, he is able to post unfiltered messages and maintain a presence on his own terms. This control has allowed him to reframe narratives, especially regarding the 2020 election, promoting his claims of voter fraud and criticizing the legal system’s investigations into his activities.
Truth Social functions largely as an echo chamber where Trump’s most ardent supporters gather to engage with and amplify his posts. The platform’s design promotes content favoring Trump’s ideology, with users sharing a common set of beliefs and rarely encountering opposing viewpoints. This has strengthened his base by creating a tightly controlled, insulated community where his message remains dominant.
Truth Social has become a cornerstone of Trump’s broader media ecosystem, functioning alongside sympathetic media outlets like Newsmax and One America News Network (OANN). This ecosystem allows him to bypass traditional media channels altogether, further reinforcing his image as an anti-establishment figure while maintaining his message in a controlled environment.
As Elon Musk took over Twitter and rebranded it to X, he relaxed content moderation policies and reinstated previously banned accounts, including Trump’s. This development reopened a channel that had been central to Trump’s communication strategy. With Trump’s return to X, he can leverage it alongside Truth Social to reach both a broader audience and his core supporters. By using X, he would regain access to a more diverse user base while preserving Truth Social as a space for mobilizing his loyal following.
Trump’s presence on both X and Truth Social had significant impact on the 2024 election cycle. By disseminating his messages across platforms, he had the potential to shape narratives, rally supporters, and set the political agenda, echoing the strategy that proved effective during his initial presidential campaign.
Trump’s social media strategy has had profound implications for American politics and society:
Trump’s unmediated communication style set a precedent for direct leader-to-citizen interaction, bypassing traditional media’s role as a filter. This approach has influenced other politicians and even foreign leaders to adopt similar tactics.
His social media use has been a significant factor in political polarization. By framing every issue in stark, combative terms, he reinforced divisions within American society and normalized a style of politics that thrives on conflict and controversy.
His attacks on the press, combined with the promotion of his own platforms, have fueled public distrust in traditional media outlets. Many of his supporters now rely on alternative media and social media, contributing to an environment where misinformation can spread unchecked.
Trump’s use of social media mirrors the ways that past dictators and authoritarian leaders leveraged emerging technologies as powerful tools for propaganda and influence. Just as Napoleon harnessed print media, Hitler mastered radio broadcasts, and Mussolini manipulated film, Trump has shown how social media can be used to shape narratives, build a base, and circumvent traditional information channels.
Like print and radio in earlier eras, social media provides an accessible, direct channel to mass audiences. Dictators in the past realized that controlling these media would let them shape public opinion without interference, giving them significant influence over their populations’ beliefs and attitudes. For example, Napoleon recognized that newspapers could cultivate loyalty and control dissent by crafting a glorified image of his rule. Similarly, Trump has utilized social media to paint an unfiltered image of himself, positioning as the defender of the “forgotten man” and rallying people who feel disenfranchised by traditional institutions. Hitler’s use of the “People’s Radio” to reach German households is analogous to Trump’s use of Twitter, X and Truth Social, as well. Just as radio gave Hitler a platform to promote Nazi ideology and control the narrative, Twitter and X allowed Trump to reach millions instantaneously, often setting the tone for news cycles and political discourse.
Trump’s cultivation of a devoted social media following reflects how authoritarian leaders have historically built cults of personality around themselves. His unmediated style and constant engagement with followers echo how Stalin and Mussolini used state-controlled media to reinforce their images as irreplaceable leaders. Truth Social, with its lack of moderation and direct focus on Trump, serves as a digital echo chamber, reinforcing his ideology much as Nazi film propaganda, or Soviet newsreels created a unified, closed-off narrative in support of the state. Truth Social provides a space where Trump’s ideas can circulate without challenge, insulating followers from external criticism. This resembles the controlled environments fostered by dictators, where citizens were exposed only to ideologies that reinforced the leader’s message, ensuring loyalty and reducing opposition.
Trump’s approach to social media has not only paralleled historical propaganda strategies but has also amplified them by undermining traditional media. By directly addressing the public on Twitter, X and Truth Social, he bypassed the press, echoing the efforts of authoritarian regimes to undermine or take control of media channels to push their own agenda. Trump’s portrayal of traditional media as “fake news” recalls the distrust authoritarian regimes have sown in alternative sources of information, aiming to create a singular voice that followers trust. By denouncing mainstream outlets, he has encouraged his followers to rely on him and alternative sources exclusively—similar to how dictators have branded dissenting media as subversive or dangerous.
Historically, authoritarian leaders used propaganda to create an “us vs. them” mentality, dividing people into loyal supporters and enemies. Trump’s use of social media to amplify polarization reflects this tactic, transforming social platforms into tools for social division. His messaging often portrays his followers as a persecuted group defending “American values” against an elite or corrupt establishment, a tactic that draws on authoritarian techniques of framing dissenting voices as enemies of the people.
Trump’s social media strategy has paved the way for a new era of propaganda, where leaders can directly interact with citizens in real time, unbound by journalistic oversight or editorial restraint. This unprecedented directness gives future leaders—authoritarian or otherwise—a blueprint for harnessing digital platforms to influence public opinion, foster loyalty, and shape narratives. This modern iteration of propaganda offers the speed and scalability that traditional print, radio, and even television could not achieve.
In essence, Trump’s use of social media is a contemporary take on a historical pattern: leveraging the most advanced communication technology of the time to mold public perception, cultivate loyalty, and circumvent traditional checks on power. Just as past dictators mastered the tools of their eras, Trump has shown how powerful and transformative social media can be as a political weapon. His approach underscores the enduring relationship between technology and political influence—one that continues to evolve with each new medium.
