In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, the former president wrote, “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,” without going into any specific reason, although her endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris last week likely is what spurred Trump to make his view clear.

The question, however, is why he waited several days to make the statement, but also what—if anything—he expected he sought to get from airing his personal opinion about the recent Grammy Award winner. Last Wednesday, he told Fox & Friends that he “was not a Taylor Swift fan,” and expected that she would endorse Harris.

“She’s a very liberal person. She seems to always endorse a Democrat and she’ll probably pay a price for it in the marketplace,” Trump said, suggesting that her public endorsement might drive away Conservative voters.

That fact may be true as there have been some on social media who have said they’re through with the pop singer, but the story seems to have passed. Now Trump’s post may have only served to energize the masses of Swifties—but likely not in his favor!

“Trump clearly understands her influence—and his ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT’ post could be interpreted as a defensive or one-dimensional move aimed at influencing his followers. As their leader, he perceives himself as having complete control over his cohort,” explained technology industry analyst Susan Schreiner of C4 Trends.

“With Taylor Swift, Trump has met his greatest match yet,” Schreiner suggested. “Beyond a fight, he’s picking a battle with a Titan.”

It is still possible that as a former TV celebrity Trump may think his reach is as great as Swift’s, and he may feel to see that her appeal reaches potential segments of the electorate that both campaigns are eager to attract—namely women, young people, and most importantly, people who don’t pay attention to politics very much.

“If anything, Trump has underscored why he’s not the candidate for Swifties,” Schreiner suggested. “Trump has drawn attention to his policies and statements that could motivate people to vote—against him. Many of Swift’s fans are already outraged by the loss of access to abortion care and other rights following Dobbs. They also understand that implementing Project 2025 could mean women being demoted to second-class citizens.”

Swift Response

Although Taylor Swift hasn’t responded to Trump’s post, many of her fans have, and #ILoveTaylorSwift has been trending on Monday morning—again highlighting her reach.

“Taylor Swift’s influence on social media is undeniable. Especially with younger generations who are newer voters,” said celebrity business strategist, stylist, and creator Nina Vargas. “Her call for voter registration has worked and had an influence, and that’s the true power of a celebrity with cultural reach.”

Trump may have the comments before the second assassination attempt on his life and may have been an attempt to change the conversation away from the claims he made about Haitian migrants eating pets last week—in other words trading one controversy for another.

Yet, if that is the case, Vargas said it would be a strange play to make.

“Why would Donald Trump respond by saying ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT’ on social media because it’s not about liking or disliking her, it’s about understanding that this kind of response, in front of her massive following, could have the opposite effect from what he is hoping for,” Vargas continued.

Fans who may not have even been leaning politically one way or another could now take this as a reason to vote against him regardless of how they feel about Harris.

“Instead of turning people against Swift and thereby Harris, he has sparked a backlash. She’s expanding the electorate in ways that could be negative to Trump,” said Schreiner.

“End of the day, this is a prime example of how perception can turn into reality in today’s world and why our actions or reactions really do matter,” added Vargas. “If anything, candidates should be focusing on how to respond thoughtfully to cultural shifts like this, not just emotionally.”

Gen-Zers grew up as smartphones reached the mainstream, and were born with social media already well-established.

“They are true digital natives and social media is an integral part of their daily life,” explained technology and social media analyst Susan Schreiner of C4 Trends. “Gen Z is growing up, and using social media in different ways, as they transition from student to professional life. They also spend more time on their mobile device than any other generation—an average of four-and-half hours daily.”

Social media has become the preferred platform for entertainment, information, shopping, and engagement. The established networks such as Facebook, YouTube and even the rebranded X—formerly Twitter—continue to maintain usage while newer platforms such as TikTok have emerged.

“Most of Gen Z is now accustomed to finding information on social media, and they naturally gravitate towards these platforms because it’s convenient and familiar, with ‘informative’ content being displayed in ways they are used to consuming. Traditional news outlets struggle to connect with this generation, social media speaks their language, making it an attractive place to find news and advice,” said Claire Wright, founder of social media platform BUDDY targeting these younger users.

Misinformation Concerns

There are also growing concerns that because of Gen Z’s reliance on social media for news and information, they could be served misinformation/disinformation that is accept it as fact. That can include posts from sources that may have hidden agendas—such as impacting the 2024 Presidential Election.

“Social media platforms do not vet the accuracy of information or provide proper source references, which can complicate the landscape of trust and truth,” said Wright. “Despite the concerns, it’s important to understand that turning to social media for information is a natural and normal behavior for Gen Z. They are a curious generation, trying to understand the world around them in ways that resonate with their digital upbringing. To better support them, trusted sources need to adapt and provide reliable, accurate information in the formats and on the platforms where Gen Z is comfortable.”

Social Media May Still Need To Evolve

Even though Gen-Z are digital natives, there is no denying that they could be tempted by the next big thing—or could just as easily be the generation that tunes out entirely. For those reasons, social media may need to adapt, though the changes will need to be more evolutionary than revolutionary.

“Social media needs to evolve to the tastes of Gen Z,” added Wright. “The next generation yearns for authenticity and real connections. Many social media platforms have become marketing and advertising focused, often detracting from genuine, unfiltered content that truly resonates with the audience.”

She further suggested that a constant barrage of superficial content fails to meet their desire for real interaction and can also impact their mental well-being.

“Social media’s addictive nature has, in many ways, robbed time from what could have been real-life experiences, which is vital for growth and development,” Wright continued. “To support this generation, social media must shift the focus towards building true community, considering their mental health, and encouraging IRL experiences that allow them to thrive and feel genuinely connected.”

The Established Brands Will Live On

Even if social media doesn’t entirely evolve, it is likely the way it is used will—and that includes by content creators.

“For many, there’s a tendency towards fandom and niche, rather than mass market. Consequently, niche creators are building powerful relationships with smaller audiences,” said Schreiner. “YouTube found that nearly half of GenZ belong to a fandom that none of their friend group shares, while 80% claim to be a big or superfan. We expect that usage motivations and engagement in social media will evolve as the users age.”

Users can see which posts they liked, but others cannot. Likewise, the poster will still see who liked it, while the like count will remain the same as before.

X, which rolled out the change with little fanfare, said it was done “to better protect” the privacy of users. Previously the ability to hide likes was an option for premium subscribers on the platform.

“Public likes are incentivizing the wrong behavior. For example, many people feel discouraged from liking content that might be ‘edgy’ in fear of retaliation from trolls, or to protect their public image. Soon you’ll be able to like without worrying who might see it,” Haofei Wang, X’s director of engineering, announced via a tweet last month.

Making likes private on X is just the latest change the platform formerly known as Twitter has seen since tech entrepreneur Elon Musk gained control of the company nearly a year and a half ago.

“Musk has a history of floating edgy ideas for X and not implementing or slow walking them, using these announcements as a distraction from other challenges that he’s created for the site, or getting on a soap-box related to free speech. Often there is a hidden agenda,” said technology industry analyst Susan Schreiner of C4 Trends.

Will It Impact Accountability

There is no denying that some people may have wished they didn’t like a controversial post, yet, this may only encourage more people to offer their support on such issues.

“This change by X will be a large change on the platform,” suggested Dr. Cliff Lampe, professor of information and associate dean for academic affairs in the School of Information at the University of Michigan.

“The statements by the company express this as a move to privilege privacy. However, the power users of X are public figures—and sometimes transparency of public figures has to offset their privacy,” Lampe added. “Making likes private will mean that people won’t be as accountable for what they like on the platform.”

That could take away a type of public review and consequent accountability that comes with it.

“More subtly, likes deeply shape the algorithm and what people see. Removing that layer of transparency makes the algorithm for the feed of X all that more opaque,” Lampe continued.

Are Likes A Poor Form Of Acknowledgement?

The fact also remains many people like the posts of those they follow, often without paying any significant attention to what they are clicking on. The fact that likes are no longer public could likely increase the likes—but without anything meaningful coming from it.

“Likes serve two functions,” explained Schreiner. “One is to provide data to that platform so that it can deliver more personalized information, and also serve as a tool to sell advertisers. The other is more passive and functions as a nod of approval or appreciation, which is a major tool of online community building. This is part of the user experience.”

For most uses on X, likes have been a signal that the people seeing your content “liked it”—but that may not have always been the case. Some of the likes may have been the result of muscle memory with users going through the motions, and liking posts from friends and colleagues.

“Many people subtly, almost subconsciously, share their posts to receive more likes,” said Lampe. “But likes are also an important external signal. For example, they show people what is normative in an online space. They also show who liked a post, which can shape how people see content one way or another. All of this adds up to what is quietly going to be a major change to how X operates.”

X has said that this update was to encourage free expression, but even that isn’t so cut and dry.

“The rationale for obscuring likes is ridiculous,” she added. “By concealing the identity of tweet-likers, is Musk allowing people to stick to their convictions, or by shielding the identity of accounts that like posts, is he opening the door to mischief?”

For one with the country being in an election cycle, obscuring likes could enable foreign governments and bad actors to influence and interfere in campaigns and elections by superficially inflating numbers. It could help misinformation and disinformation seem more credible as likes are too often seen as a form of accountability and confirmation.

“Is there another nefarious purpose,” pondered Schreiner. “Could it be that Musk is attempting to conceal the embarrassing deluge of spam, bots, and platform manipulation on X—especially since he eliminated so many safeguards? He even dismantled the content moderation infrastructure that was designed to prevent antisocial behavior.”

“Creators are generally multi-platform nowadays, so continuing to grow their followings on other platforms is crucial. Given that growth on TikTok has been stalling for quite some time, building a content strategy that puts more focus on other platforms is a good idea,” suggested Harry Gestetner, co-founder and CEO of Fanfix, a social media technology platform that hosts membership clubs for content creators. “If your followers are predominantly on TikTok, consistently encourage them to follow you and engage with your content on other platforms.”

Though TikTok maintains a massive following, its popularity could wane even if there isn’t a ban, and those creators and influencers who are already established on multiple platforms may be best positioned.

“Creators are entrepreneurial by nature and have shown resilience during a rapidly evolving social media landscape in recent years,” added Fanfix CMO Loren Piretra. “Although a TikTok ban may rattle their businesses in the short term, creators have been building empires around their personal brands as opposed to a single platform.”

The Clock Is Ticking…

Even if a full-on ban is avoided, TikTok could see its growth slowed—especially as the deadline approaches. It would therefore be wise for those who have monetized the platform to consider their options.

“It’s not the only game in town,” explained technology industry analyst Susan Schreiner of C4 Trends. “Platforms come and go. Since this isn’t an overnight ban, creators, live event producers, brands and others still have a year to diversify the ways they monetize across multiple platforms and transfer their following.”

Moreover, some creators have warned of the transparency problems with TikTok, with it failing to answer why accounts were removed, shadow banned, or otherwise reported.

“Consequently, creators have already begun to diversify to multiple platforms as a mechanism to also reduce financial risk and generate income from a variety of sources,” said Schreiner.

For now, it would seem that Meta and Google are immediate alternatives to TikTok with Instagram and YouTube respectively.

“YouTube Shorts has started sharing ad revenue on short-form videos, and Instagram Reels is continuously improving,” Schreiner continued. “Snap is also well-positioned to benefit since their TikTok-style competitor Spotlight has seen a 125% year-over-year increase, while Meta has been attempting to neutralize the TikTok juggernaut for years. There may be room for another short-form video app—not owned by a massive corporation—but it’s uncertain whether it can scale quickly enough.”

What Do Creators Think?

We’ve already seen the protests in Washington, while TikTok’s parent company has run ads featuring uses of the platform. A handful of other creators also weighed in to share their opinions on why they are considering alternatives including Instagram, YouTube, Fanfix, and other alternatives.

“I am really upset about the TikTok ban because that was the platform that helped my social media career take off in 2019,” said Abby Berner, a small business owner who makes custom-painted shoes. “Now, I am working to push my followers from TikTok to other platforms.”

Actress and social media personality Teala Dunn, who amassed 13 million followers across multiple platforms said that change could be good, but hopes there could be a way that TikTok could be maintained. “Most of the concern is about misuse and security breaches, and TikTok is being singled out when similar concerns can be raised for other major platforms. That being said, I have always had a multi-platform content strategy including Instagram, YouTube, and Fanfix.”

Sondra Blust, who posts in both Spanish and English and has more than 9 million followers, said, “TikTok is an important tool for creators, small businesses and families. She also maintains a presence on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, and Fanfix.

“So many lives have been changed forever, including mine, thanks to TikTok. Whether the ban happens or not, no creator or business should rely on one source of income or marketing channel,” said Blust. “The world is always changing and evolving—I can’t control that, but I can control how I evolve with it.”

Rachel Pizzolato, former host of “Mythbusters Jr.” on the Discovery Channel, as well as inventor and model, also said she expanded to subscription-level platforms like Fanfix due to the potential ban of TikTok.

“The most important thing creators should focus on is diversification. Because of the possibility of the platform potentially vaporizing overnight, creators should consider spreading their content across as many social media platforms as possible,” suggested Pizzolato. “Content is an extremely valuable commodity! Therefore, everyone should treat their social media content as an investment in themselves and utilize every available asset to broaden their reach in an attempt to build their brand.”

That is because the Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939—and named for Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico, who introduced the legislation—prohibits civil-service employees in the executive branch from engaging in some forms of political activity. The president and vice president are exempt.

Earlier this month the Office of Special Counsel also announced it would increase its Hatch Act oversight. Some former federal employees could face proceedings before the independent, quasi-judicial Merit Systems Protection Board despite their departure from government service.

The Hatch Act And Social Media

OSC has made clear that all federal employees may use social media and still comply with the Hatch Act, but they must follow three prohibitions:

(1) On Duty or in the Workplace Prohibition – Employees may not engage in political activity while on duty or in the federal workplace.

(2) 24/7 Prohibition – Employees may not knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution for a political party, candidate in a partisan race, or partisan political group.

(3) 24/7 Prohibition – Employees may not use their official authority or influence to affect the outcome of an election

Moreover, some employees are considered “Further Restricted” and they cannot take part an active part in any partisan political management or campaigning, including on social media.

“The Hatch Act is certainly relevant these days—and the recently confirmed head of the Office of Special Counsel, Hampton Dillinger announced an enforcement update to close a loophole,” said technology industry analyst Susan Schreiner of C4 Trends.

“Since the inception of the Hatch Act in 1939, government workers have faced strict limits on their political activity. Federal employees should be working for the greater public good and not for partisan ends,” Schreiner added. “Violators should face consequences and be reprimanded, fined and even barred from federal service.”

The issue of the Hatch Act does get more confusing as the rules state that employees may not like, follow, or friend the social media account of a political party, a candidate in a partisan race, or partisan political group while on duty or in the workplace. This includes those who work remotely from home—except in their own time, and when using their own personal devices.

“Employees should be aware of the social media rules and as always, if an employee is uncertain, they should contact an attorney,” explained Stephanie Rapp-Tully, partner in the Tully Rinckey Law Firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

“For agencies that have a ‘bring your own device’ policy for telework, employees have to be very intentional about separating time spent working and not working,” Rapp-Tully clarified. “Rules still apply if the employee is posting during duty hours.”

Is This Really Necessary?

It would seem that given how vocal so many Americans are today the rule would seem out of step, but in fact, the Hatch Act would be more important than ever.

“In these times of growing polarization and the future of democracy at stake, the enforcement and closing of the Hatch Act’s loophole has never been more important,” suggested Schreiner. “Dillinger announced the end of deferential treatment for senior White House personnel including assistants to the president and others deemed commissioned officers to the law’s full enforcement. He also announced new enforcement mechanisms and clear guidance and rules for federal workers.”

Given that more and more Americans get their news from social media and the fact that misinformation and disinformation spread so quickly on the platform, those serving in the executive branch—which includes most independent agencies—are bound by the rules put in place by the Hatch Act.

“In this time of social media influence, increasing political polarization, and as seen on and post-January 6th the skyrocketing of intimidation tactics, threats, vulgarity, corruption, and coercion, does the Hatch Act go far enough,” pondered Schreiner. “At a time when we’re witnessing Supreme Court judges voicing political opinions and coercive political support is starting to mainstream, the Hatch Act can be a greater force for good, fairness and decency, and ensuring that democracy prevails.”

Is The Hatch Act Keeping Up With Technology?

Obviously, the Hatch Act was signed into law decades before social media and even the Internet, however, it was only last updated in 2012.

“Like most legislation, the Hatch Act tries to keep up with the technology, but that is where interpretation and enforcement play a critical role,” said Rapp-Tully. “Depending on whether an employee is a further restricted employee or not, one may want to avoid any type of political post on social media altogether. However, it is important to remember that there is a difference between discussing current events or legislation and endorsing a specific candidate or seeking donations to support a candidate.”

In other words, those in the federal government can engage in some political discussions. They just need to be careful how their activity is conducted.

“I don’t think the government will ever seek to silence political discussion of policies or current events because that would potentially infringe on a person’s freedom of speech and be inherently unAmerican,” Rapp-Tully continued. “There will not ever come a time that employees cannot engage at all on social media regarding politics. That is not to say that some will choose not to engage at all because of potentially crossing over that line, even inadvertently.”

In fact, TikTok CEO Shou Chew, who was made an honorary chair for the event earlier this year, made his first appearance since the ban was passed in Congress two weeks ago.

TikTok, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, was also the first social media platform to sponsor the annual event, known as “fashion’s biggest night out.” It has been seen as fitting, as TikTok really has become an arbiter of fashion in the 2020s, and thus fitting its CEO was named honorary co-chair.

There is also the feeling that Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, who oversees the event, essentially legitimized the dance app’s place in the fashion space. Yet, Wintour couldn’t have predicted the Met Gala would come just days after the ban was announced, and she had to carefully navigate the fallout.

“The public lashing of Anna Wintour seems like an overreach by her detractors, at best,” explained technology industry analyst Charles King of Pund-IT. “The fact is that the platform is legal, available and functional in the U.S. for the next eight to 12 months. Plus, it seems unlikely that the People’s Republic of China could glean valuable information from the Met Gala, outside of picking up leading edge and over-the-edge fashion tips.”

The Dallas, Texas resident posted a mirror selfie photo of herself on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, where she was seen in a bikini emblazoned with the logo of the brand Ultra Right while holding the company’s beer.

“Wonder how many people I’m gonna p*** off with this post…,” she tweeted from her @Tiffany_Gomas account last week.

The tweet has been seen 8 million times, yet it still has not exactly taken the world by storm. Still, it could still serve as a reminder that social media does enable those who have had their proverbial 15 minutes of fame to get an extension.

“There are always going to be individuals who look to further their 15-minutes of fame. Ms. Gomas is no different,” explained Jason Mollica, professorial lecturer in the School of Communication at American University. “Since the American Airlines incident over ten months ago, she’s seen her social media presence grow exponentially.”

It could also prove that while necessity is the mother of invention, opportunity remains the mother of reinvention, and Ms. Gomas is attempting to use her fleeting fame to launch a career as a right-wing influencer.

“Social media clearly has the power for people to reinvent themselves—but they first need to do something outrageous to get that attention,” suggested technology industry analyst Susan Schreiner of C4 Trends.

A very public meltdown on an airplane would certainly fit into the category of “outrageous,” and perhaps it was all part of a carefully staged episode. She has only stated that it wasn’t her “best moment.”

“It seems that the incident with the ‘Crazy Plane Lady’ was probably a publicity stunt,” said Schreiner. “However, why did she remain hidden at home for four weeks? Also, why was she not prepared for the level of response she received? Was her emotional outburst actually a test to see if she’s ready to become an influential figure focused on empowerment?”

It is possible her emotional outburst was actually a test to see if she’s ready to become an influential figure focused on empowerment, but the question now is whether her reinvention will catch on. It could be her final opportunity to cash in on last summer’s video.

“While she’s collaborated with Barstool Sports for a charitable effort, this move is more extreme,” added Mollica. “Promoting a beer and doing so without compensation, she posted for one reason: to gain more followers. It provided Gomas with plenty of views, likes, and comments; it will also give her some standing within right-wing circles.”

Yet, for the reinvention to succeed she needs to be genuine and the jury may still be out on that matter, while Mollica also said he isn’t convinced it will allow her to reach out to a wider audience. For now it would seem she’s picking a lane and sticking to it.

“Is her current persona as a right-wing influencer genuine,” pondered Schreiner, “Or just a cynical ploy based on the reaction and attention she is getting from right-wing supporters.”

“Ultimately, [we’re] trying to help parents navigate this very difficult terrain that we have now with raising kids, and so I appreciate the work that’s been put in,” DeSantis said in remarks during the bill-signing ceremony.

The Sunshine State’s governor previously vetoed a more restrictive version of the bill that would have banned social media accounts for those under 16, while it also required Florida residents to submit an ID or other identifying materials in order to join social media.

As Goes Florida So Goes The Country?

Though it is often California that leads the way when it comes to social programs and consumer-friendly legislation, the new law in Florida could gain traction in other states. Yet, some warn it is still far from perfect.

“The general concept is reasonable, as a mechanism to aid in children’s addiction to social media, online bullying, peer pressure, lower self-esteem, and other harmful effects on minors,” said technology industry analyst Susan Schreiner of C4 Trends.

“However, as the Florida law is written, it is more a call to action than a proposed solution,” added Schreiner. “There are questions about effective age verification, concerns about privacy breaches, and over-regulation. How will it be enforced, since it offers no solution to the third-party verification section? Current age-verification solutions have been fooled by children under 14. A likely unintended consequence will be that it will jump-start the fake ID market for pre-teens.”

Is Such A Ban Necessary?

The law comes as there has been a significant body of research indicating a variety of detrimental consequences associated with overexposure to social media use among children today.

“Some findings indicate that the more a kid engages with social media the more likely they are to express less life satisfaction or even more disconcerting higher reports of depression,” explained Dr. Kent Bausman, professor of sociology in the College of Arts and Sciences at Maryville University in St. Louis.

He noted that the connection to higher reports of depression isn’t quite conclusive.

“In fact, a 2020 study found the negative effects associated with social media among children are often negated when you control for adverse childhood experiences,” Bausman continued. “Furthermore, there is a growing body of research that notes engagement in social media use has become a routine activity for children that is shown to help in the development of their social connections and technical skills.”

Thus, the reality is that social media use has become a part of young individuals’ social identity.

“Social media is the primary way that children and young adults communicate and express themselves,” added Bausman. “Older generations may not understand it or like it but to remove children’s access to social media platforms would likely further isolate youth from one another and inhibit their social development. Social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat are the spaces that youth use for self-expression, identity exploration, and community building.”

A danger is that to restrict their access to a tool that has always been a part of their existence will likely add to feelings of alienation, which they are already struggling with in this post-pandemic period.

“Furthermore, restricting their access will limit the development of their digital literacy skills necessary to successfully and safely compete in our growing digital based economy,” suggested Bausman.

The Latest Hot Thing to Demonize

Before social media was blamed for the woes of the youth, there were video games, violent movies, TV, and all sorts of musical genres from heavy metal to hip hop to good old rock and roll. And there were also comic books, and if we go back far enough, even books!

It could be argued that if the kids liked it, it must be bad and need to be banned.

“Let’s not forget that banning things from kids historically produces what we call the ‘forbidden fruit effect.’ When we ban something we can create a sense of curiosity and rebellion with something that children often seek out more earnestly,” said Bausman. “For the State to limit access to something that already has been a part of most children’s lives to this point, would only create generational antagonisms as children would likely perceive this as arbitrary and unjustified.”

It is likely the Florida law could face future legal challenges, as it could be seen to infringe on digital privacy and First Amendment rights surrounding censorship. That isn’t to say that the problems of social media use among kids today should be ignored.

“A better alternative would have been to consider the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act introduced in April 2023 which explains reasonable steps for age verification, for instance—and considers a more balanced approach to healthy human development,” said Schreiner.

“It would have been better if the Florida law had considered a middle-ground approach. The law could have promoted digital literacy education for children and parents, empowering them to navigate the information ecosystem more effectively,” Schreiner added. “Additionally, the law could have introduced regulations to prevent the targeting of minors and prohibited algorithm tracking and data collection practices. This could have potentially served as a model to blunt the negative effects of TikTok, Meta, YouTube and Snap.”

Even worse, the FDD suggested that those in charge at the command may lack the necessary skills to lead the force of cyber warriors.

“In the U.S. military, an officer who had never fired a rifle would never command an infantry unit. Yet officers with no experience behind a keyboard are commanding cyber warfare units. This mismatch stems from the U.S. military’s failure to recruit, train, promote, and retain talented cyber warriors,” wrote retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery and Dr. Erica Lonergan from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs in the FDD report.

It called for the creation of a new independent armed service — a U.S. Cyber Force — alongside the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force. Such a force doesn’t need to be as sizable as the U.S. Army or States Navy, at least not initially. Instead, it could begin as a far leaner force, akin to the United States Marine Corps or United States Space Force, about 10,000 strong.

“As the Space Force has shown, a smaller service can be more selective and agile in recruiting skilled personnel,” the FDD report further explained.

THE ARMY COULD LEAD THE WAY

In their report, Montgomery and Lonergan also called for placing any new Cyber Force within the Department of the Army – much like how the U.S. Marine Corps is in the Department of the Navy, while the U.S. Space Force is in the Department of the Air Force.

Once established, this would see that each military department would lead two service branches – as the U.S. Coast Guard is now within the Department of Homeland Security and outside the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) larger umbrella.

One issue might be that any Cyber Force billets would draw from the 133 teams currently spread across all the services that conduct everyday cyberspace operations. Moreover, the authors noted that a CYBERCOM could be treated much more like the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), which also draws forces from across the services and has some of its own acquisition authorities. But they also addressed the fact that SOCOM and CYBERCOM have stark differences.

“In the SOCOM model, each of the services provides the force employer — SOCOM — with expert personnel who possess skills suited to their particular domain. For instance, an Army Ranger trains for special operations on land, while Navy SEALs possess skills tailored to maritime special operations. Rangers and SEALs are not interchangeable. The Army cannot train SEALS, nor the Navy Rangers. Thus, SOCOM actually gains strength from this one-of-a-kind distributed force-generation model,” the report noted.

Citing a U.S. Navy captain, the authors suggested that SOCOM’s “Success is achieved by allowing each of the service-specific commands to specialize in discrete types of warfare, technologies, and operational environments” while “Cyberattacks will not be, nor are they currently, service-specific nor sector-specific, so it does not make sense to have created service-specific mission teams, different designators, MOSs, etc., to respond to the broad scale of cyberattacks.”

ADDRESSING THE CYBER THREAT

The cyber threat isn’t going to go away, and just as Space Force will serve to protect the domain of outer space, a Cyber Force could protect cyberspace.

“Headlines are filled with vulnerabilities to our infrastructure and power grids – as well as security breaches or ransom attacks,” said Susan Schreiner, analyst at C4 Trends. “While the call for a cyber force sounds like Star Wars – it may not be that far-fetched.”

That could be true given that a few years ago, Space Force may have sounded like something out of Star Trek.

“With AI, it’s also likely that more nefarious actors will emerge, and take a wrecking ball to our personal data as well as adversaries, resulting in unfathomable damage and destruction,” Schreiner told ClearanceJobs. “Science fiction might be paving the way for companies, regions, and countries to think more expansively, cooperatively, and differently as new tools and approaches need to be developed to tackle, and more effectively manage the threats posed by the increasing complexity and multi-facets to our security, privacy and safety.”

AI NOT PEOPLE FOCUSED

Though a Cyber Force remains hypothetical, there is the opinion that perhaps it is looking at the problem incorrectly, as well as a possible solution.

Instead of a 10,000-strong force, technology industry analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group told ClearanceJobs, “While it is clear we need a much stronger Cyber Force, the focus, given the timing, should be on spinning up AI-driven defenses not people. People just can’t react quickly enough to modern threats without substantial AI support and more people, without adequate AI assistance, would likely just get in each other’s way and not provide better protection.”

The fact also remains that enterprises can barely fill the current cybersecurity openings, so creating and then growing a Cyber Force could present challenges. The result could be exactly what the FDD reports said should be avoided.

“This should be a quality over quantity effort and even finding 10,000 qualified people would be problematic in the current market let alone 10 tech folks who work well with others and like doing security work,” added Enderle. “So, I agree, we need a much stronger cyber force, but I think much of it should be staffed by AIs, and AI human teams, otherwise it will be incapable of doing what needs to be done. “

One image, created by conservative radio show host Mark Kaye and his team, showed Trump with his arms around a group of Black women. Kaye shared the image on social media, where he has more than one million followers, according to the BBC.

Another image, created by a user identified as “Shaggy,” featured the former president sitting on a porch with a group of young Black men. That photo was also posted on social media where it received thousands of likes and 1.4 million views.

A Trump campaign official told The Hill that the campaign had no involvement in the creation or sharing of the images. However, the former president has been actively courting Black voters—which could be a critical voting block in the general election.

AI content is more of the same, but the barrier to entry is much lower. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of AI tools can potentially create similar content.

“This relatively benign example of Trump with supposed Black supporters will be an expedited blurring of the line between truth and falsehood,” added Kirschner. “In prior years, Trump and other candidates could make claims and expect their followers to believe them. Now, they can create ‘evidence’ to support such claims.”

Breaking No Rules—At Least Not Yet

There are currently no regulations as how such manipulated images or even videos can be employed in a political campaign. It is likely lawmakers will have to act sooner than later.

“Election security is a bigger issue than ever because GenerativeAI and deepfakes threaten our civil discourse, the democratic process, and election integrity,” warned technology industry analyst Susan Schreiner of C4 Trends. “GenerativeAI is a potent new tool for disinformation campaigns to sway voters, deliberately spread false information, and enable organized coordination and incitement of violence and related problems.”

Such AI-created content could be seen as concerning because this new AI technology is so realistic-looking and sounding. It could result in something that looks and sounds authentic.

“In today’s climate, nefarious actors could easily convey a dangerous false narrative that hurts the reputation or support for a candidate,” Scheriner continued. “They could spread false claims that seek to erode trust in public institutions, such as claims of voter fraud, claims that your vote won’t count in a primary, misrepresenting the date of an election, or creating a false narrative by misrepresenting a candidate’s support and position on certain issues. It’s become easy to spread falsehoods with the perception that it’s the truth!”

Thus, the greater danger is that deepfakes could stretch the truth so far that rivals can be framed in a bad light.

“This is especially concerning when that framing is based on lies,” said Kirschner. “As AI improves over time, it will be hard for people to discern the difference between a real and a fabricated event. It will not matter what policies and ideals candidates stand behind anymore. The political landscape will then be based on who can harness AI better than their opponent.”

Media ethics will become more critical in the coming years, because misleading AI content should not be the predominant way that political discourse is carried out.

“Disclosures of AI usage must be provided, as we currently do with revealing the sponsor of political advertisements. As we learn more about advances in AI, people will need to be educated in media and digital literacy, so they can navigate this new political reality,” Kirschner continued.

Not Just a U.S. Problem

Though deepfakes could certainly play a role in the 2024 election, the problem is only going to get worse as the technology improves. Moreover, this isn’t just about the race for the White House in November,

“Globally more voters will head to the polls than ever in history, representing 49% of the world’s population,” said Schreiner. “This is likely to be the most consequential election, with at least 64 countries plus the European Union, expecting to hold national elections in 2024.”

Fortunately, many of the world’s leading tech companies—including Microsoft, Meta, Google and others—have voluntarily pledged to adopt shared practices for detecting and labeling AI-generated deepfake content aimed at misleading voters in elections.

“A total of thirteen firms signed onto the pledge, signaling their intent to monitor their platforms for deceptive election-related deepfakes and provide swift, proportional responses when such content is identified,” Scheiner noted. “However, the measures agreed to are non-binding, leaving some questioning whether this amounts to meaningful progress or merely virtue signaling in an era of heightened regulatory scrutiny.”

“Often, a lot of successful approaches for political candidates have not been facilitated by their campaigns at all. Social media has enabled a user to have some impact, especially if they already have a large following. Trump and other politicians have been known to share content regardless of its basis in truth or reality, so these efforts are not new,” said Dr. Julianna Kirschner, lecturer in the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California.