Imagine scrolling through your feed during a presidential election and coming across a headline that makes you pause. Maybe it claims a candidate has secretly done something scandalous, or that voting results have been rigged, or that a policy will destroy the country. It is alarming, and before you can double-check the facts, it has already been shared by a relative, a friend, or a public figure you follow. During the 2024 United States presidential election, this kind of scenario was not just an occasional accident. Political actors and anonymous online users deliberately and regularly spread false information as part of an open campaign strategy. The old image of a shadowy troll factory secretly manufacturing lies from a basement does not capture what actually happened. Instead, lying had become a normalized tactic, used proudly and publicly by all kinds of people. A recent study published in the journal American Behavioral Scientist sheds light on who exactly promoted these hoaxes and who ended up in the crosshairs. The researchers wanted to move beyond the content of fake news and look at the human beings involved. They discovered that political figures and everyday citizens approach the creation of false content in very different ways, with different motives, different methods, and different targets. False narratives in politics can distort public perception and erode trust in democratic systems, and the spread of fabricated claims often spikes during election seasons, when voters are paying close attention to public discourse. In the past decade, digital platforms have made it easier than ever for people to circulate misleading material, blurring the line between the newsroom and the living room. Disinformation, defined as the intentional spread of false content to gain a strategic advantage or cause harm, has become a defining feature of modern political life. Much of the academic research on this topic has focused on the stories themselves, their themes, their wording, or how quickly they travel across the internet. Fewer studies have examined the specific people generating these falsehoods and the people they are aimed at. Understanding those individuals helps build a better picture of political communication in the digital age, and that is exactly what this study set out to do.
The study was led by Alba Córdoba-Cabús and Andreu Casero-Ripollés, communication researchers at Universitat Jaume I in Spain. They wanted to categorize the spreaders of political hoaxes, whom they call issuers, and the subjects of those hoaxes, whom they call recipients. To do this, they analyzed a carefully selected sample of 374 false messages related to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. These items were collected from PolitiFact, a prominent journalistic organization that verifies political claims and tracks misinformation in real time. The period analyzed spanned from January 2024 through the presidential inauguration in January 2025, covering the primaries, the general election campaign, Election Day, and the transition of power. For every single verified hoax, the research team systematically recorded a range of details. They noted the channel where the message appeared, whether it was a social media post, a television interview, a campaign rally, a press release, or an advertisement. They cataloged the specific topic, from the economy and immigration to voting procedures and candidates’ personal lives. They identified the exact type of falsehood, such as a completely fabricated story, a twisted statistic, or real footage placed in a misleading context. Most importantly, they looked at the political affiliations and public roles of both the people spreading the claims and the people the claims were about. The findings were striking. In more than 90 percent of the cases, the team could readily identify the person or group issuing the false statement. This single detail reveals a lot about the contemporary political climate. Spreading falsehoods appears to be a normalized, public tactic rather than a secretive operation. People generating this content did not typically try to hide their identities behind anonymous accounts or vague attributions. The researchers suggest this reflects a political environment in which actors do not fear being penalized by voters for sharing unverified claims. In previous decades, a politician caught telling a blatant lie might have faced serious consequences. In 2024, the opposite seemed to be true. Sharing an outrageous claim could energize supporters, attract media attention, or dominate the news cycle, and the risk of being fact-checked was seen not as a deterrent but as a badge of honor. The public nature of these falsehoods made them more dangerous, because they were woven directly into the fabric of everyday political discourse.
When the researchers broke down the sources of these hoaxes, a clear pattern emerged. Anonymous online users were the most common source, responsible for nearly 40 percent of the false messages. These are the nameless people posting on social media platforms, sharing memes, writing misleading captions, and amplifying rumors from within their own digital communities. Political candidates and celebrities or internet influencers tied for the second most common sources, and each of these groups accounted for roughly 16 percent of the items. This means that while anonymous accounts were heavily involved, well-known figures were also major contributors, using their platforms to spread falsehoods to large audiences. The data also revealed an important association between the type of person sharing the claim and the medium they used to share it. Anonymous users and influencers relied almost exclusively on social media platforms to circulate their messages. They lived and breathed in the digital ecosystem, posting on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, where algorithms could quickly push their content into the feeds of millions of people. Political candidates and public officials took a completely different approach. They distributed their unverified claims across a much wider variety of channels, including campaign rallies, television interviews, press releases, and official statements. This strategy suggests an effort to reach voters across many different formats, rather than relying solely on internet algorithms. By speaking directly at events and through traditional news media, politicians could control the narrative in a more personal and authoritative way. The subject matter of the hoaxes also varied depending on who was talking. Politicians tended to center their false statements around public policies, such as the economy, immigration, and crime. They would exaggerate the number of jobs created, misrepresent the cost of a proposed program, or inflate the threat posed by a particular group. Anonymous users and influencers, on the other hand, focused heavily on the mechanics of the campaign itself. Their posts frequently targeted the voting process, polling numbers, or the private lives of political figures. They spread rumors about rigged voting machines, shared fake polls showing a candidate unexpectedly ahead or behind, and dug into personal details that had little to do with governance. This division of labor suggests that different actors play different roles in the disinformation ecosystem, with trusted public figures shaping policy debates and online voices setting the emotional tone.
The study also found meaningful differences in the mechanics of deception. Political actors often used misleading content, which involves twisting real statistics or misinterpreting data to fit a specific narrative. For example, a politician might take a legitimate economic report and cherry-pick one figure to make it seem as if the economy is collapsing, or take a crime statistic and present it in a way that ignores crucial context. This approach has a veneer of credibility, making it harder for fact-checkers to dismiss it as an outright lie. Anonymous users and influencers more frequently relied on false context. This occurs when real images, videos, or quotes are shared alongside fabricated background details to change their original meaning. A video from a completely different event might be presented as if it happened during the election campaign, or a photo of a crowd at a rally might be captioned with a claim that the candidate is struggling to draw supporters. The researchers also looked closely at the political affiliations of the people behind the hoaxes. Actors aligned with the Republican party issued about 73 percent of the false messages in the sample. Democratic actors were responsible for roughly 22 percent of the unverified claims. This imbalance is significant, although the study does not attempt to explain why it existed, whether because of campaign strategies, media environments, or the fact-checking process itself. Most of this fake content was designed to attack political rivals. Candidates were the primary targets, appearing as the subject in 38 percent of the analyzed items. Democratic figures were on the receiving end of about 57 percent of the falsehoods, while Republicans were targeted by about 22 percent. In other words, the disinformation universe was not symmetrical. Some candidates were more likely to be attacked than others, and some were more likely to be bolstered by artificially positive claims.
One of the most intriguing findings of the study was the growing trend of what the researchers call constructive disinformation. Traditionally, false claims are used as weapons to attack opponents. A campaign might spread a lie about a rival’s health, criminal record, or policy positions in order to damage their reputation. But the 2024 election revealed another use: fake news as an artificial booster. Republican actors directed nearly 20 percent of their false claims at their own party or candidate in a positive manner. These messages were intended to inflate accomplishments or bolster public support, rather than tear down an opponent. They might overstate the size of a rally, claim that a policy had achieved miraculous results, or invent testimonials from satisfied supporters. Democratic actors used this same supportive tactic, though at a lower rate of roughly 7 percent. This highlights an evolution in political deception. It shows that fake news is not strictly used as an offensive weapon against adversaries, but can also act as a kind of virtual fertilizer, making a candidate appear more attractive to the electorate. This is perhaps even more unsettling than direct attacks, because positive misinformation can be harder to recognize as harmful. When a message makes you feel hopeful or excited about a candidate, you are less likely to question whether it is true. It also creates a cycle of unrealistic expectations. If a candidate is persistently portrayed as a flawless superhero who can solve every problem, voters may become disillusioned when reality inevitably falls short. Constructive disinformation may be intended to help a campaign in the short term, but it can ultimately contribute to deeper cynicism about politics and governance. The researchers note that this tactic reflects a strategic understanding of modern media. A positive story is more likely to be shared, because people enjoy sharing good news. By flooding the information environment with flattering falsehoods, campaign supporters can shape public perception without ever saying a negative word about the other side.
As with any study, there are important limitations that should be kept in mind. The findings rely on data collected by a single fact-checking organization, PolitiFact. Fact-checkers cannot review every questionable statement made during an election, so the sample likely does not capture all the unverified content that circulated online. The study is based on a specific subset of verified falsehoods rather than the entirety of the internet’s political discourse. Some hoaxes may have flown under the radar, while others may have been fact-checked but not included for various reasons. The study also focuses entirely on the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The communication tactics observed in this specific political environment might not translate to other countries or local political races. Different nations have different media landscapes, political cultures, and levels of trust in institutions, all of which shape how disinformation spreads. Future studies will need to examine elections in different global regions to see if these patterns hold steady across different political systems. Nevertheless, the implications of this research are profound. It reveals that disinformation is not a marginal phenomenon driven by a few bad actors. It is a deeply embedded feature of modern democratic campaigns, used openly by anonymous users, influencers, and politicians alike. It also shows that voters are not simply passive recipients of misleading information. They are part of an ecosystem in which falsehoods are created, shared, and sometimes countered. In an age of information overload, media literacy is more important than ever. The study, “Actors of Disinformation: Issuers and Recipients of Hoaxes in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election,” authored by Alba Córdoba-Cabús and Andreu Casero-Ripollés, offers a sobering snapshot of how lies have become normalized in political life. But by understanding who spreads falsehoods, why they do it, and who they target, citizens and researchers can begin to develop better ways to protect democratic systems from the corrosive effects of misinformation. Ultimately, the health of a democracy depends on the willingness of both leaders and citizens to value truth, even when it is inconvenient, uncomfortable, or less exciting than a good story.