X is Now the Official Communications Channel of the Federal Government

When a single billionaire controls significant media platforms while aligning with an authoritarian-leaning political figure, the foundations of democratic discourse are fundamentally challenged.

This concentration of power, where immense wealth, information control, and political influence converge, raises profound questions about our democratic future.

The relationship between extreme wealth and political power has always existed, but the digital transformation of media has created unprecedented mechanisms for shaping public perception. This isn't merely about political disagreement but about the structural integrity of information ecosystems that democracies require to function.

Where do we go from here? In this guest piece from Deanna Troust, we explore how to maintain the open discourse essential to democratic societies.

---

In early April, a regional Social Security Administration commissioner in Kansas City announced to staff that the agency would be communicating with press and the public exclusively via X going forward. Sources told Wired, which reported this story on April 11, that the commissioner, Linda Kerr-Davis, said press releases and “dear colleague” letters that inform partners (and employees themselves) about social security benefits would be eliminated.

It was a second gob-smack moment for me, a former federal communications contractor who now educates people about information manipulation. The first was on February 1, when, with two fatal airplane crashes under investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board announced it would share updates exclusively on its X feed, @NTSB_News, going forward.

A friend of mine called this. Last fall, he said, “Watch, X will become the official communications channel of the federal government.” “Very funny”, I said.

According to fact-checkers at Snopes, the White House communications unit denied Kerr-Davis’s claim later that day. Or rather, the unit trashed Wired’s reporting, calling it “absolutely false” and “pure fake news garbage from Wired” via the @Rapid Response 47 feed on X. NTSB denied its own announcement, ironically stating in a media advisory that they’d be communicating on its social media channels and email going forward “like we have for many years.”

What I see here is standards-based reporting on changes in the federal government using multiple sources that, in the ongoing assault on journalists and truth-tellers, sometimes choose anonymity to stay safe. Wired is one of my most recommended outlets these days due to their stellar coverage of changes in institutions across the board. Those in power then retort with gaslighting-style denials. At best, it’s incredibly confusing; at worst, it suggests that agency staff are being used as pawns to grow a social media platform and do its owner’s conflicted and partisan bidding.

Really, though, you may ask, who cares how these agencies communicate? Let me explain.

Plane crash investigations and social security benefits are issues of importance to the public. As someone who just helped a social security-dependent aging parent file her taxes, trust me – you don’t know until you get there. (Don’t get me started on the recent attempts to make customer service and benefits registration less accessible at the agency.)

Reporters are our conduit when news breaks, transmitting updates in real time and offering additional context or analysis; limiting communication with them is limiting communication to us. It runs counter to agency missions and the federal ethos of accessible communication. Clogged inboxes and AI spammers notwithstanding, email is still the primary channel for sharing detailed information with a large, targeted list, and it resides on secure servers. Assuming reporters are still on X, forcing them to rely on it means they may miss important updates. It shows disdain for them and the public they serve.

Sole-sourcing to a private-sector platform is just as bad. Elon Musk controls the X algorithm that chooses what information users see. He can up or downrank content at will or shadow-ban (i.e., hide their posts for a time) journalists whose reporting he doesn’t like; since he attacks the media regularly and is a noted peddler of falsehoods, it’s not difficult to imagine.

Many are noting that most seniors are not on X, and that’s true. But government agencies have long used X/Twitter for rapid-response communication. @SocialSecurity’s X feed is moderate, around 150,000 followers, and many are likely stakeholders – reporters, thought leaders in the aging or financial spaces, partners, etc. A municipality’s feed, on the other hand, may be a primary way people get information about natural disasters.

If you visit @SocialSecurity on X today, you will see that SSA has posted that “Former President Biden is lying to Americans” about President Trump’s support for Social Security. Its profile includes an odd and poorly written disclosure: “This communication produced and disseminated at U.S. taxpayer expense.”

I can assure you that using a federal feed to share blatantly partisan propaganda would NEVER have been allowed under previous administrations, or by the terrific communications teams I’ve worked with. At my former communications firm, we created peer-reviewed fact sheets on children’s mental health disorders for the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Any social content we created went through an intense vetting process. Our work had to be fiercely nonpartisan and apolitical; anything else and our contract would have been cancelled.

Channeling government communications to a private sector platform, blacking out communications altogether, and deleting important health information from the CDC website – all reveal a clear strategy to kink the hoses that previously allowed government communications to flow freely. And it will leave Americans in the dark about what their tax dollars are funding. The communications products we developed for SAMHSA were part of the public record; anyone could access them, and that was the point.

Information manipulation isn’t just about flooding the zone with falsehoods. It’s also about canceling or diverting information flows to serve political agendas. Or for profit: If an agency succeeds in funneling communications through X, the platform gets new accounts, engagement -- one can imagine Q&As happening on X’s Spaces – and a credibility boost.

Counter to the prevailing narrative, “the feds” have long set the standard for transparency and neutrality in their operations. We should view fact-based communication about public benefits, safety, health, and other important issues similarly, as a common good, not a revenue stream or partisan opportunity. We should ask why this mandate is being dismantled and why information sources that are chartered to serve the public, like NPR and PBS, are under threat.

We, the people, don’t just need to know. We fund information production in the federal sphere with our tax dollars, and thus have the right to know.

---

Deanna Troust is a communications pro and founder whose career includes over 25 years in social change strategy development, executive leadership at a DC-based firm, and seven years in organizational development consulting. Her nonprofit, Truth in Common, offers media literacy education for communities and professionals with a goal of restoring fact-based decision-making and respectful discourse. A graduate of Cornell University, Deanna has roots in western New York and now splits her time between Washington, DC, and rural Worton, MD. Learn more at truthincommon.org.