Right-wing social media stars have become central characters in the fight over how to rein in Big Tech, often presenting themselves as organic voices of the grassroots. Yet past cases show that some of these personalities have read from someone else’s script, sometimes literally, while railing against tech regulation and other culture-war targets. The current clash over efforts to curb the power of Silicon Valley giants is unfolding against that backdrop of manufactured outrage and covert influence, not because of any proven script about a single “mystery bill,” but in a broader ecosystem where copy‑and‑paste talking points are a feature, not a bug.
As lawmakers float new ways to police dominant platforms and as President Donald Trump’s allies sketch out sweeping plans for a second term, the incentives for shaping online narratives have only grown. I am looking at how earlier influence operations, the rise of offshore Maga branding, and the policy ambitions of both Congress and conservative strategists intersect to create fertile ground for scripted campaigns that Big Tech executives have every reason to fear.
Big Tech under bipartisan fire in Washington
In Congress, the most concrete threat to Silicon Valley’s business model is coming from a mix of Democrats and Republicans who now speak openly about monopoly power. Rep. Jake Auchincloss, a Massachusetts Democrat and longtime critic of Big Tech, has introduced a package of three bills that would directly target the way dominant platforms profit and compete, a move that signals how far the political center of gravity has shifted against the largest tech firms. Auchincloss has framed his effort as a response to a “massive, bipartisan investigation” that concluded that Big Tech monopolies are, in fact, monopolies, a finding that undercuts years of industry insistence that their size simply reflects consumer choice.
Auchincloss is not acting alone. His legislation is cosponsored with a Utah Republican, an alliance that underscores how frustration with Big Tech now cuts across party lines and ideological factions inside Congress, even as the parties remain bitterly divided on other questions. The fact that a Massachusetts Democrat and a Utah Republican are jointly pushing to curb the power and profit of the same companies that dominate search, social media, and app stores shows why those firms are treating Washington as a serious threat rather than a distant nuisance, and why a new round of lobbying and messaging is likely to intensify around any bills that gain traction in committee.
Project 2025 and the conservative blueprint for tech power
While Congress experiments with bipartisan antitrust tools, a different kind of threat to Big Tech is taking shape inside the conservative movement’s policy shops. Project 2025, a sweeping blueprint for a future Republican administration, lays out an aggressive vision for reshaping the federal government’s relationship with the tech sector, casting the largest platforms as political adversaries that have allegedly tried to silence conservative voices. In the document, the authors accuse Big Tech companies of attempting to control speech and information flows, and they argue for a sharp turn in federal regulation that would put more pressure on the firms’ content moderation and data practices.
But Project 2025 would not necessarily favor all tech companies equally, instead sketching a world in which some platforms are punished as enemies while others are treated as useful allies in a broader culture war. That selective approach to regulation, combined with the movement’s media ecosystem, creates strong incentives for aligned influencers to amplify whichever narratives support the plan’s goals, whether that means attacking “woke” platforms or defending services seen as friendly to Trump supporters. The more Project 2025 gains influence inside Republican circles, the more valuable it becomes to have a cadre of online personalities ready to echo its themes in near real time.
Lessons from Russian influence operations and paid scripts
The clearest evidence that right‑wing influencers can be steered by outside agendas comes from a criminal case that unfolded in 2024, when U.S. prosecutors described a covert Russian media operation that quietly bankrolled American social media stars. Last year, the Justice Department alleged that Russian state media producers funneled nearly 10 million dollars to an unnamed Tennessee‑based company, which in turn paid a roster of right‑wing commentators to produce content that aligned with Moscow’s interests. Some of those influencers later insisted they were dupes rather than willing agents, but they also signaled that they intended to keep the money they were paid, a reminder that financial incentives can blur the line between sincere belief and scripted performance.
Prosecutors said the Russian effort relied on familiar Maga‑branded personalities to launder its messaging into the American conversation, including figures who had already built large followings by attacking mainstream media and liberal politicians. One of the most prominent was Johnson, an outspoken Trump supporter and internet personality who had previously been fired from BuzzFeed after the company found evidence he had plagiarized material, a history that makes the idea of reading from someone else’s script less hypothetical and more part of his public record. The Russian case did not revolve around any specific Big Tech bill, but it demonstrated how easily foreign producers could plug into the existing right‑wing influencer economy and how little transparency audiences have about who is paying for the outrage in their feeds.
Offshore Maga branding and the illusion of grassroots outrage
Even when foreign governments are not directly involved, the Maga influencer world is increasingly global in ways that complicate claims of homegrown authenticity. Many prominent Maga personalities on X are based outside the United States, operating accounts that present themselves as organic American voices while posting relentlessly about domestic politics. Another popular profile, IvankaNews, is an Ivanka Trump fan account with about 1 million followers that frequently posts about illegal immigration and uses the platform’s tools to make and amplify false claims, illustrating how a single branded feed can shape perceptions of border policy and crime for a vast audience without any clear disclosure about who is behind it.
These offshore accounts are part of a broader pattern in which right‑wing influencers blur the line between fandom, activism, and commercial branding, often recycling the same slogans and memes across multiple profiles and platforms. When those accounts turn their attention to Big Tech, whether to denounce alleged censorship or to attack antitrust proposals, it can be difficult for ordinary users to tell whether they are seeing a spontaneous groundswell or a coordinated campaign. The presence of large, anonymous fan accounts that trade on the Trump name while pushing hard‑line narratives about immigration and media bias shows how easily a few operators can simulate a chorus of outrage, a dynamic that Big Tech lobbyists and political operatives alike have learned to exploit.
Economic anxiety, culture wars, and the next Big Tech fight
The political potency of these influencer networks is magnified by the economic stress many Americans still feel, even as some indicators point to resilience. Analysts like But Wadford have noted that lower‑income households found ways to stretch their dollar over the past year and that bigger tax refunds could give those consumers a short‑term jolt, but they also warn that lasting financial security depends more on steady wage growth than on one‑time windfalls. In that environment, narratives that blame Big Tech for everything from job losses to cultural decay can resonate powerfully, especially when they are delivered by charismatic personalities who present themselves as truth‑tellers against a rigged system.
More from Morning Overview