By BARBARA ORTUTAY, Associated Press

They go by names like @TRUMP_ARMY— or @MAGANationX, and their verified accounts proudly display portraits of President Donald Trump, voter rallies and American flags. And they’re constantly posting about U.S. politics to their followers, sounding like diehard fans of the president.

But after a weekend update to the social media platform X, it’s now clear that the owners of these accounts, and many others, are located in regions such as South Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe.

Elon Musk’s X unveiled a feature Saturday that lets users see where an account is based. Online sleuths and experts quickly found that many popular accounts posting in support of the MAGA movement to thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers, are based outside the United States — raising concerns about foreign influence on U.S. politics.

Researchers at NewsGuard, a firm that tracks online misinformation, identified several popular accounts — purportedly run by Americans interested in politics – that instead were based in Eastern Europe, Asia or Africa.

The accounts were leading disseminators of some misleading and polarizing claims about U.S. politics, including ones that said Democrats bribed the moderators of a 2024 presidential debate.

Related Articles

Political consultant defies court order in lawsuit over AI robocalls that mimicked Biden

Trump EPA moves to abandon rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution

FBI seeks interviews with Democratic lawmakers who urged US troops to defy illegal orders

Dismissal of Comey, James cases won’t be the final word. Here’s what the path ahead may look like

Some DACA recipients have been arrested in the Trump’s immigration crackdown

What is the location feature?

Nikita Bier, X’s head of product, announced Saturday that the social media platform is rolling out an “About This Account” tool, which lets users see the country or region where an account is based. To find an account’s location, tap or click the signup date displayed on the profile.

“This is an important first step to securing the integrity of the global town square. We plan to provide many more ways for users to verify the authenticity of the content they see on X,” Bier wrote.

In countries with punitive speech restrictions, a privacy tool on X lets account holders only show their region rather than a specific country. So instead of India, for instance, an account can say it is based in South Asia.

Bier said Sunday that after an update to the tool, it would 99.99% accurate, though this could not be independently verified. Accounts, for instance, can use a virtual private network, or VPN, to mask their true location. On some accounts, there’s a notice saying the location data may not be accurate, either because the account uses a VPN or because some internet providers use proxies automatically, without action by the user.

Which accounts are causing controversy?

Some of the accounts supported slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk as well as President Donald Trump’s children. Many of the accounts were adorned with U.S. flags or made comments suggesting they were American. An account called “@BarronTNews_,” for instance, is shown as being located in “Eastern Europe (Non-EU),” even though the display location on its profile says “Mar A Lago.” The account, which has more than 580,000 followers, posted on Tuesday that “This is a FAN account, 100 % independent, run by one guy who loves this country and supports President Trump with everything I’ve got.”

NewsGuard also found evidence that some X users are spreading misinformation about the location feature itself, incorrectly accusing some accounts of being operated from abroad when they’re actually used by Americans. Investigators found several instances where one user created fake screenshots that appear to suggest an account was created overseas.

It’s not always clear what the motives of the accounts. While some may be state actors, it’s likely that many are financially motivated, posting commentary, memes and videos to draw engagement.

Users were divided over the new ability to see an account’s location information, with some questioning whether it went too far.

“Isn’t this kind of an invasion of privacy?” One X user wrote. “No one needs to see this info.”

Associated Press Writer David Klepper contributed to this story.

By HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A political consultant who sent artificial intelligence-generated robocalls mimicking former President Joe Biden to New Hampshire Democrats said Tuesday he will not pay $22,500 to three voters despite a recent federal court order.

The order, issued Friday in a lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters, came five months after a jury acquitted Steven Kramer of voter suppression and impersonating a candidate. In the civil case, the judge entered a default judgement after Kramer failed to appear in court.

“I never responded to them because I was already acquitted on 22 counts,” Kramer said in an email, insisting that the lawsuit was a publicity stunt that wasted the court’s time. He also has refused to pay a $6 million fine issued by the Federal Communications Commission.

Related Articles

X’s new feature raises questions about the foreign origins of some popular US political accounts

Trump EPA moves to abandon rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution

FBI seeks interviews with Democratic lawmakers who urged US troops to defy illegal orders

Dismissal of Comey, James cases won’t be the final word. Here’s what the path ahead may look like

Some DACA recipients have been arrested in the Trump’s immigration crackdown

Though jurors sided with Kramer in the criminal trial, the judge in the civil case not only ordered him to pay $7,500 to each voter who sued but banned him from engaging in the same conduct nationwide. Caren Short, director of legal and research at the League of Women Voters, described the decision as a “critical precedent against the weaponization of artificial intelligence in elections.”

Plaintiffs will explore further action if Kramer doesn’t pay up, said Courtney Hostetler of Free Speech for People, which provided the League with legal assistance.

“Mr. Kramer has shown a consistent disregard for the law and the rights of voters,” she said. “His plan to defy the court’s order continues this pattern, and reinforces the importance of the injunction and the damages award.”

Kramer, 56, of New Orleans, admitted orchestrating a message sent to thousands of voters two days before the state’s Jan. 23, 2024, presidential primary. Recipients heard an AI-generated voice similar to Biden’s that suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting ballots in November.

“It’s important that you save your vote for the November election,” voters were told. “Your votes make a difference in November, not this Tuesday.”

Kramer, who would have faced decades in prison if convicted, testified that he wanted to send a wake-up call about the potential dangers of AI when he paid a New Orleans magician $150 to create the recording. He said he was getting frequent calls from people using AI in campaigns, and, worried about the lack of regulations, made it his New Year’s resolution to take action.

“This is going to be my one good deed this year,” he recalled while testifying in Belknap County Superior Court in June.

Kramer argued that the primary was a meaningless straw poll, and therefore the state’s voter suppression law didn’t apply. The primary was held in defiance of the Democratic National Committee, which had dislodged New Hampshire from its traditional spot in the nominating calendar, though the state’s delegates were still seated at the national convention. Biden did not put his name on the ballot or campaign there but won as a write-in.

Lingo Telecom, the company that transmitted the calls, agreed to pay $1 million in a settlement with the FCC in August 2024. The agency, which did not respond to requests for comment, was developing AI-related rules when Donald Trump won the presidency, but it has since shown signs of a shift toward loosening regulations.

And though multiple states have enacted legislation targeting the use of video or audio content that mimics candidates in political campaigns, Trump is considering pressuring states to stop regulating artificial intelligence. Trump and some Republicans argue that such regulation will dampen innovation, while critics worry about allowing big AI companies to operate with little oversight.

The Campbell’s Co. said Tuesday it has placed one of its executives on leave while it investigates claims that he made racist comments and mocked the company’s products and customers in an audio recording.

Martin Bally, Campbell’s vice president of information technology, was named in a lawsuit filed last week by Robert Garza, a former Campbell’s employee. The lawsuit was filed in Michigan, where both men live. Campbell’s is headquartered in New Jersey.

In the lawsuit, Garza claimed he met with Bally in November 2024 to discuss his salary. During the meeting, which Garza allegedly recorded, Bally described Campbell’s as “highly process(ed) food” and said it was for “poor people.”

Garza claimed that Bally made racist remarks about Indian workers, whom he called “idiots,” according to the lawsuit. Garza said Bally also told him that he often went to work high after consuming marijuana edibles.

Garza said he told his manager, J.D. Aupperle, on Jan. 10 that he wanted to report Bally’s comments to Campbell’s human resources department. Garza said Aupperle didn’t encourage him to report the comments but also gave him no advice on how to proceed.

On Jan. 30, Garza was terminated from Campbell’s. He is seeking monetary damages from Campbell’s. He also names Bally and Aupperle in the lawsuit, saying they were responsible for his termination.

In its statement Tuesday, Campbell’s said that if the comments on the audio recording were in fact made by Bally, they are unacceptable.

“Such language does not reflect our values and the culture of our company,” the company said. “We do not tolerate that kind of language under any circumstances.”

Campbell’s added that the comments were allegedly made by someone in IT “who has nothing to do with how we make our food.”

“We are proud of the food we make, the people who make it and the high-quality ingredients we use to provide consumers with good food at a good value,” Campbell’s said. “The comments heard on the recording about our food are not only inaccurate — they are patently absurd.”

Related Articles

Federal agency boosts size of most single-family loans the government can guarantee to $832,750

Political consultant defies court order in lawsuit over AI robocalls that mimicked Biden

Trump EPA moves to abandon rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution

Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson leaves hospital after treatment for neurological disorder

FBI seeks interviews with Democratic lawmakers who urged US troops to defy illegal orders

By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is seeking to abandon a rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution, arguing that the Biden administration did not have authority to set the tighter standard on pollution from tailpipes, smokestacks and other industrial sources.

The action follows moves by the administration last week to weaken federal rules protecting millions of acres of wetlands and streams and roll back protections for imperiled species and the places they live. In a separate action, the Interior Department proposed new oil drilling off the California and Florida coasts for the first time in decades, advancing a project that critics say could harm coastal communities and ecosystems.

The Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule last year that imposed strict standards for soot pollution, saying that reducing fine particle matter from motor vehicles and industrial sources could prevent thousands of premature deaths a year.

Twenty-five Republican-led states and a host of business groups filed lawsuits seeking to block the rule in court. A suit led by attorneys general from Kentucky and West Virginia argued that the EPA rule would raise costs for manufacturers, utilities and families and could block new manufacturing plants.

In a court filing this week, the EPA essentially took the side of the challengers, saying the Biden-era rule was done “without the rigorous, stepwise process that Congress required” and was therefore unlawful.

Related Articles

Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson leaves hospital after treatment for neurological disorder

FBI seeks interviews with Democratic lawmakers who urged US troops to defy illegal orders

Dismissal of Comey, James cases won’t be the final word. Here’s what the path ahead may look like

Some DACA recipients have been arrested in the Trump’s immigration crackdown

New limits for a rent algorithm that prosecutors say let landlords drive up prices

“EPA now confesses error and urges this Court to vacate the Rule” before Feb. 7, the agency said in a brief filed with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Vacating the Biden-era rule would revert the soot standard to a level established a dozen years ago under the Obama administration. The Trump EPA is set to propose its own rule early next year.

Environmental groups said the agency’s action — which follows a pledge by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to roll back the soot rule and dozens of other environmental regulations — threatens public health and undermines its obligations under the Clean Air Act.

“EPA’s motion is a blatant attempt to avoid legal requirements for a rollback, in this case for one of the most impactful actions the agency has taken in recent years to protect public health,” said Hayden Hashimoto, an attorney at the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force.

The 2024 rule set maximum levels of 9 micrograms of fine particle pollution per cubic meter of air, down from 12 micrograms established under former President Barack Obama. The rule sets an air quality level that states and counties must achieve in the coming years to reduce pollution from power plants, vehicles, industrial sites and wildfires.

“An abundance of scientific evidence shows that going back to the previous standard would fail to provide the level of protection for public health required under the Clean Air Act,” Hashimoto said.

EPA said in creating the rule that the new standard would avoid 800,000 cases of asthma symptoms, 2,000 hospital visits and 4,500 premature deaths, adding up to about $46 billion in health benefits in 2032. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the rule would especially benefit children, older adults and those with heart and lung conditions, as well as those living near highways, factories and power plants.

“Walking away from these clean-air standards doesn’t power anything but disease,” said Patrice Simms, vice president of healthy communities at Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm that represents environmental groups in the legal case.

President Donald Trump “has made it clear that his agenda is all about saving corporations money,” Simms said, adding under Zeldin, the EPA “has nothing to do with protecting people’s health, saving lives or serving children, families or communities.”

Soot, made up of tiny toxic particles that lodge deep in the lungs, can result in severe health harms, including premature death, and comes from sources such as vehicle exhaust pipes, power plants, and factories.