The official White House X account sits at over four million followers. Created in January of 2025, the social media page’s bio reads: “The Golden Age of America Begins Now.” Like many other accounts, political or not, they share posts from others, keep followers updated on the President, and post about any relevant policies. However, if you ask the average X user what they imagine when thinking of the account, they may talk about AI generated pictures of alligators or of Donald Trump as the Pope, instead of their more average posting. 

In what Steve Rose of the Guardian calls “the slopaganda era,” the White House has seemingly decided to hop on major social media trends to appeal to voters and citizens. In the last few weeks, they have posted pictures and videos that mimic popular video games and controversial websites, and teased something new in the same way a popstar might release an album. These posts amass millions of views and sometimes hundreds of thousands of likes. However, in an attempt to connect with the people, the administration ends up creating division. 

Using social media in politics is inevitable. A recent study from Pew Research Center shows that while people get their news from a variety of sources, including classic broadcasting, about 60% use digital devices to access platforms. Additionally, about 21% use social media to get information, in comparison to the 27% that use news sites. People have an increasing dependence on social media for their news. With its level of accessibility, however, users run the risk of finding misinformation or untrustworthy sources. 

Similarly, the use of social media by political actors can influence citizens towards certain biases. In a discussion with Dr. Renée DiResta, Georgetown University explains that politicians have almost become influencers. Users create an algorithm by engaging with posts which in turn lets influencers know what people want. Modern social media creates a cycle that makes politics on social media different: “It’s powerful because it’s participatory. There’s no ‘media’ versus ‘audience’ distinction here…A single post can become a narrative through repetition and crowd validation.” With the way social media works, politicians can try to create polarization because “[w]hen the most prominent influencers in your group are telling you that the other group is an enemy, it creates a resistance to engaging.” 

Social media has become a key player in creating polarization, but in a government meant to be a democracy, why would using sites like X to encourage tensions be beneficial for the Trump administration? 

In the academic article, “The Strengthening Partisan Effect,” by Shanto Iyengar and Masha Krupenkin, the authors explain that since the 1980s, it’s polarization that has increased political participation, rather than a belief in one’s political party. They analyze data from the American National Election Studies and find that, especially since 2016, “it is outgroup animus rather than ingroup favoritism that drives political behavior” (Iyengar, Krupenkin 211). They write that feeling a hatred for the opposition increases a person’s likelihood of doing things like voting, canvassing, or sporting candidate merchandise. 

While this “ingroup favoritism and outgroup hostility” may lead to more political participation, polarization can also lead to a lack of accountability and representation within government (Iyengar, Krupenkin 205). If voters are more passionate about defeating the opposition, rather than the policy of their candidates, politicians have the ability to ignore “their own merits” and not follow through on campaign promises (Iyengar, Krupenkin 214). If politicians aren’t held accountable, a path towards democratic erosion can be made. 

When the official White House X account claims that Democrats are to blame for long airport lines and “take care of criminals…rather than American citizens,” they add onto the increasing polarization that divides the country. Of course, it’s not just GOP members who use social media to influence the public. For example, the Democrats X account has also posted about the TSA shutdown – to blame Republicans. Even so, the White House’s posts reflect the way social media can be used to generate hatred for the opposition. 

To draw from Nicolas Howe’s “Thou Shalt Not Misinterpret: Landscape as Legal Performance,” the meaning we place on certain things can create either inclusion or exclusion. While Howe’s discussion of public religious iconography differs from an Instagram post, the message remains. In the same way someone might feel excluded through a display of the Ten Commandments, they might also feel excluded when the opposition targets their party. 

In the same way, basing a party’s message on distaste for the other side can strengthen the in-group, too. Iyengar and Krupenkin also write that the “us versus them” mindset creates a group identity. Not only will the opposition feel rejected, the party’s desired audience will begin to feel that the hatred is a necessary part of being in the group. So, when faced with multiple posts claiming Democrats are the cause for America’s problems, the audience begins to believe that it’s true. 

Adrienne LeBas’ “Can Polarization Be Positive? Conflict and Institutional Development in Africa” does touch on the possible beneficial offshoots of political polarization. She writes that in certain places like Burkina Faso and Ghana, polarization has actually encouraged political dialogue and steps away from authoritarianization. However, it can also cause a decline of trust in politicians, stalls in policy making, economic issues, and decreasing democratic activity. 

The content being shared through the White House X account can range from examples of the general tension between Republicans and Democrats to unconstitutional messages (the multiple depictions of President Trump as a king, for example). In the end, no matter the type of post, the goal and result is a more divided citizenry. Continuing to use social media to expand the polarization already strong in America will intensify unease and lead us further from unity and democracy. Referring back to the interview with Dr. DiResta, it’s up to the people to stay vigilant against media polarization and remember that “we’re not powerless.”