US 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 President Donald Trump and Governor 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, has 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, told AFP.
"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 US-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 the 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
DW
an hour ago
- DW
Belarus: Jailed opposition leader Tsikhanouski released – DW – 06/21/2025
Siarhei Tsikhanouski was jailed by the authoritarian regime of Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko in 2020 after challenging him in an election. The release coincided with a visit by a US special envoy. Belarus' newspaper on Saturday reported that opposition leader Siarhei Tsikhanouski had been released from prison, where he had been incarcerated since 2020. Tsikhanouski, one of the leaders the country's opposition movement, was pardoned, according to rights group Viasna. A regime-critical blogger, Siarhei Tsikhanouski intended to challenge Alexander Lukashenko for the presidency but he was locked up by the strongman before the election. Tsikhanouski's wife, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who ran against Lukashenko in her husband's place and has played a leading role in the Belarus opposition since, released a video of his release on Saturday, thanking the US for its efforts. Tsikhanouski's release coincided with a rare high-level visit to the country by US Special Envoy for Ukraine, General Keith Kellogg. Kellogg was in Minsk for talks with Lukashenko, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an effort to facilitate an end to Moscow's ongoing war of aggression in Ukraine. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Edited by Sean Sinico
DW
an hour ago
- DW
Are Jordan and Saudi Arabia defending Israel? – DW – 06/21/2025
Jordan shot down Iranian missiles and drones crossing overhead and Saudi Arabia likely allowed Israel to use its airspace to do so. That's despite both expressing opposition to Israel's attacks on Iran in public. The 21 Arab and Muslim-majority countries made it clear where they stood in the Iran-Israel conflict. In a statement published earlier this week, they expressed their "categorical rejection and condemnation of Israel's recent attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran," which started on June 13. The countries spoke of the need to halt "Israeli hostilities against Iran" and expressed "great concern regarding this dangerous escalation, which threatens to have serious consequences on the peace and stability of the entire region." The signatories included both Jordan and Saudi Arabia. But their stated opposition to Israel's attacks on Iran has not prevented them from intervening in the conflict, at least indirectly. Jordan, for example, has shot down missiles flying from Iran towards Israel. The Jordanian military confirmed they had done this in a statement, explaining that missiles and drones could have fallen onto Jordan, "including in populated areas, causing casualties." As with any other sovereign state, missiles or other unauthorized objects crossing a country's airspace are often deemed violations of either domestic or international law. The Saudi Arabians have not issued a similar statement, but experts say it's likely they've allowed Israel to shoot missiles down in their airspace and may have cooperated on surveillance too. But just as it has done in the recent past, this kind of military action could cause domestic tensions. Among the people of both nations, there is a historical antipathy towards Israel based on past wars and conflicts. That's especially true for Jordan, where at least one in five locals, including the country's queen, are of Palestinian descent. It's difficult for Jordan's government to justify shooting down Iranian missiles headed for Israel, which is why the explanation of self-defense was given. "This message — 'we are only defending ourselves' — is being repeated on all channels," says Edmund Ratka, head of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation's office in Amman, Jordan. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Ratka says this is also due to the Jordanian political scene at the moment. In April, the country's government banned the country's largest political opposition movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, over connections to an alleged plot to destabilize the country. "The [ban] seems carefully calibrated and intended to stem rising popular support for the [Muslim brotherhood] movement as the kingdom navigates a difficult regional backdrop," Neil Quilliam, an associate fellow with British think tank Chatham House's Middle East and North Africa program, wrote at the time, as well as "undermine its growing appeal among a population incensed by Israel's war in Gaza." This makes it all the more important for the Jordanian government to make sure that taking down Iranian missiles is not seen as solidarity with Israel, says Stefan Lukas, founder of the Germany-based consultancy, Middle East Minds. "Still, the decision [to do so] further escalates tensions," he told DW. There's no way Jordan wants to be seen as defending Israel, Ratka confirms, "Because the Jordanian people largely perceive Israel as the aggressor." But, he adds, they feel the same about Iran, too. "We regularly conduct surveys in Jordan, and for years, they've shown there isn't much sympathy for Iran in Jordan," Ratka noted. "Because Iran is seen as a state that repeatedly interferes in Arab affairs with the intent to destabilize." Jordan also has other reasons for shooting down the Iranian missiles, Lukas says. Jordan can't directly oppose the US, he says, referring to a 2021 defense cooperation agreement between the US and Jordan, which allows US forces, vehicles and aircraft to enter and move around Jordan freely. Jordan "is far too dependent on the US and, to some extent, on Israel too — both financially and in terms of security policy." It's a difficult argument for the Jordanians to make. If they were that concerned about protecting domestic airspace, then the government would have to protest the presence of Israeli forces overhead, too. As Ratka points out, though, Israel hasn't violated Jordanian airspace with its attacks on Iran. "So the Jordanian leadership can, with some justification, claim it would combat any airspace violation," he says. "Even if, in fact, it's only fighting the Iranians." Saudi Arabia is also in a tricky spot. It signed the same declaration as 20 other Arab and Muslim-majority countries did, and even before that, had referred to Iran as a "brotherly nation" in a statement condemning Israeli attacks on the nation of around 92 million. The use of the word "brotherly" was seen as noteworthy by analysts because it's usually reserved for fellow Arab-majority countries, whereas the Iranians are mostly Persians. But beyond the official rhetoric, Saudi Arabia is pursuing a completely different course, Lukas says. "Unofficially, Saudi Arabia is participating in the action against Iran," he confirms. There's security cooperation between the Saudis and Israelis, Lukas states. "Saudi Arabia provides radar data and tolerates [airspace] access by Israeli aircraft, especially in the northern part of the country where Iranian missiles primarily fly through. We've seen that Saudi Arabia is actually very accommodating to Israel." Saudi Arabia also depends heavily on the US for security, especially during years of antipathy toward Iran. Although the two nations recently reconciled, their relationship is still delicate. Saudi Arabia would likely turn to the US for protection when in doubt.
DW
an hour ago
- DW
Iran: The dangerous dream of regime change – DW – 06/21/2025
The longer Israel's attack on Iran goes on, the greater the speculation about the possibility of overthrowing the government in Tehran. But regime change has historically had disastrous consequences in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly told the US broadcaster Fox News on Sunday that regime change in Iran "could certainly be the result" of Israel's operation there, because, he said, the government in Tehran was "very weak." US President Donald Trump has meanwhile sent out contradictory signals. "We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding," he announced on his personal social network, Truth Social. "He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now." It remains unclear how long "for now" might last, however. The longer the conflict between Israel and an Iran goes on, the more tempting it might appear to Israel and the United States to get rid not just of the Iranian nuclear program, but of the Islamic Republic as well. "It's extremely doubtful that it would be possible to bring about a regime change like that from the outside, with the push of a button," warns Eckart Woertz, the head of the German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA) in Hamburg. "If it did come to that, whether things would then go in the right direction is a whole other question." Foreign-imposed "regime change" is a highly controversial concept. Under international law, it is a clear violation of the sovereignty of the affected state. Often, it is not democratically legitimized, and it frequently leads to a power vacuum or violence and instability. Newly installed governments often find themselves unable to cope with the challenge of resolving the country's problems, and this results in further crises and conflicts. This is was what happened in Afghanistan. After the terrorist attacks on New York on September 11, 2001, NATO invoked the mutual defense guarantee contained in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty for the first and (so far) only time. A Western military alliance led by the United States resolved to topple Afghanistan's Islamist Taliban regime, and fight the terrorist organization al-Qaeda. Initially, it was quite successful, and by the end of 2001 the Taliban had been driven out of Kabul. But various parties to the alliance disagreed on a number of things, including how military, political and development aid should cooperate. And so, for 20 years, the security situation remained extremely precarious. The country was devastated by attacks as the Taliban launched repeated counteroffensives. Between 2001 and 2021 around 3,600 Western soldiers and almost 50,000 Afghan civilians were killed. The Afghanistan mission cost a total of almost $1 billion (€868 million). After the chaotic withdrawal of the US and its allies in the summer of 2021, the Taliban returned to power. Since then, they have rolled back almost all the progress made over the past 20 years. Afghanistan is isolated and desperately poor, with 23 million people dependent on humanitarian aid. The US once armed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was in power for more than two decades. In 2003, however, it decided to overthrow him, with help of a "coalition of the willing," but without a mandate from the UN Security Council. Washington justified the decision with the assertion that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda and was in possession of weapons of mass destruction — claims later proven to be false. "Saddam Hussein was overthrown not because he possessed weapons of mass destruction, but because he did not possess them," the Middle East expert Eckhart Woertz says today. And, at the time, Iran took note. Once Saddam Hussein had been toppled, the Americans installed a transitional government, which was later heavily criticized for mismanagement and lack of knowledge of the country. Existing enmities between Iraq's different religious groups deteriorated into a situation akin to civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Deadly attacks were an almost daily occurrence. Soldiers discharged from the Iraqi army started fighting the US troops who had previously toppled Saddam. Twenty years after the American invasion and the attempted regime change in Iraq, the situation has improved. Violence has died down, and the next round of parliamentary elections is due to take place in November. Nonetheless, Iraq remains a country in the process of change. Libya is also still suffering the consequences of an attempted regime change, which came from within and was flanked from abroad. In the wake of the Arab Spring, a civil war there began in 2011 with protests against the rule of longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi. When attempted to put down the uprisings with bloodshed, NATO intervened militarily in the form of a no-fly zone to protect the civilian population. The regime held on for a few months. Then on October 20, 2011, Gaddafi was killed. But a government acceptable to the entire country was never established. Instead, there have been years of further conflict between rival militias. The state has virtually disintegrated, with two different governments fighting for control since March 2022. The human rights situation remains extremely precarious. Aside from these cautionary examples from recent history, Eckart Woertz sees another problem: Ultimately, ground force would be required to force a change of government in Iran. "I don't see a massively strong rebel movement within Iran that could topple the current regime," says Woertz. And from outside? "While there was a successful regime change in Germany once, at the end of the Second World War, that required a ground invasion," says Woertz. "And then you need a transition backed by local people. It helps if there is a common external enemy — like the Soviet bloc after 1945 — which glosses over the differences. But regime change has never happened with aerial bombardment alone, and I don't think Iran will be an exception now."
