A ‘Groyper War’ struggles to exert influence but paves the way for other bad actors

23 September 2024

By: Jared Holt and Nathan Doctor

Nicholas Fuentes, an influential white nationalist podcaster and activist, vowed last month that he and his “Groyper” followers would oppose former President Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign until their policy and personnel demands were met. So far, that opposition has taken the form of a social media pressure campaign that may have violated at least one social media platform’s policies against manipulation tactics and inauthentic behaviors. 

During the August 12 episode of his America First podcast, Fuentes officially declared a “Groyper War” against the Trump campaign. He instructed his fringe but devoted fanbase to use social media to pummel the campaign with criticisms and demands. He also said he was prepared to mobilize his followers at offline events across the country. Fuentes explained his antagonism was not because he was opposed to Trump’s candidacy, but in fact because he was so interested in its success.  

Fuentes’ war on the Trump campaign was prefaced by a set of demands. These included pushing Trump to adopt extreme policies on immigration, to promise not to go to war with Iran, and to remove campaign managers Christopher LaCivita and Susie Willes (who Fuentes alleged had softened Trump’s public policy stances). If the campaign did what he asked, Fuentes said, it would escape a self-inflicted “death spiral” that would otherwise deliver the presidency to Vice President Kamala Harris. 

This is the second such “Groyper War” directed by Fuentes. In 2019, he picked a similar fight against the conservative activist group Turning Point USA (TPUSA). Fuentes’ followers antagonized TPUSA speakers online and at public events, and many Groypers at the time declared triumph against the activist group.  

Although this campaign set its aims higher in attempting to foment turmoil at the top of the GOP ticket, it has shown few, if any, political results. Republican vice-presidential nominee, Senator JD Vance, called Fuentes a “total loser” shortly after Fuentes first teased a second Groyper War. Rather than fire Willes and LaCivita, Trump has instead lavished praise on the campaign managers. Fuentes dubiously took credit for the campaign’s decision to hire longtime Trump adviser Corey Lewandowski despite a lack of evidence that the choice had any connection with Fuentes’ activity. 

Although Groypers were successful in securing national media attention for Fuentes, coverage of their efforts has been fleeting. Fuentes’ efforts to elicit the attention of sympathetic conservative influencers such as Candace Owens were similarly temporary. Seemingly frustrated by the limited responses to their endeavors, the Groypers are now looking to escalate their activities offline. 

A heavy but brief online offensive 

In the first phase of the second Groyper War, Fuentes instructed his followers to share criticisms of the Trump campaign on social media platforms X and Truth Social, and to boost messages that Fuentes posted. His fans obliged.  

Fuentes’ tactics were crude but effective. As X owner Elon Musk and Trump were speaking in a live interview last month, the white nationalist activist directed thousands of viewers on a concurrent Rumble livestream to post specific phrases on X and “juice” posts he made on his own profile.  

In one case, Fuentes noted he was about to send an anti-immigration post and provided explicit instructions for his fans to flood it with engagement. 

“It’s going to be in Donald Trump’s replies,” Fuentes explained to viewers. “We need likes, retweets, quote tweets, replies … This is where it begins.”  

That post alone received more than 52,000 engagements and was Fuentes’ second most engaged post since he was allowed back on X in May (he was previously banned in 2021 for multiple violations against content rules, and he remains banned from most other major social media platforms). 

As the event went on, Fuentes promoted four phrases for his followers to spread: “NO MORE IMMIGRATION”, “FIRE LACIVITA”, “ISRAEL FIRST ADELSON” and “NO WAR WITH IRAN.” The spread of these phrases sometimes corresponded with topics of conversation between Musk and Trump. 

An analysis using Brandwatch found that mentions of the four phrases on X spiked dramatically in sync with Fuentes’ instructions on the concurrent livestream. His fans created thousands of posts – often within just a few minutes – after which usage of the phrases steeply dropped. 

The surges were enough to trigger X to display some of them as trending topics: a fleeting accomplishment celebrated by Fuentes and his fans. 

Figure 2: Trending phrases at different points during the interview.

In the week following Musk and Trump’s discussion, a Brandwatch analysis found that the four phrases Fuentes promoted to his fans appeared in more than 136,436 X posts. Though not all posts should be attributed solely to Fuentes’ fans, the number dwarfs the 9,445 X posts mentioning the phrases from the previous week on the platform, and the 2,719 X posts that appeared the week before that one.  

While the surge was profound, it was also short-lived. Between August 19 and 25, the week following the campaign’s peak, only 4,844 X posts mentioned the phrases. Since then, the number of appearances per day has declined further. Only 48 X posts mentioning the phrases were counted on September 8. 

Fuentes and his fans’ tactics extended beyond X. Early in the second Groyper War, supporters shared a graphic boasting that Groypers had created “thousands” of accounts on Truth Social and shared more than 30,000 posts in support of their effort. Committed followers sought to recruit multimedia creators to make Groyper War propaganda, some of which has been shared by Fuentes on his accounts.  

Other methods took fiercer aim at Trump’s campaign staff. Fuentes’ political non-profit America First Foundation created a website under campaign manager LaCivita’s name. The website was meant to disparage LaCivita and promote questions about his pro-Trump loyalties. Several Fuentes fans also claimed that they sent Trump campaign staffers emails expressing their criticisms of the campaign. 

Though the Groypers displayed clear abilities to spin up high volumes of social media posts, the changes they demanded did not materialize. During the August 26 edition of his podcast, Fuentes appeared to concede that their efforts on social media had ultimately been unsuccessful. That night, he announced the next offensive: Confronting the Trump campaign offline in Michigan. 

“They didn’t hear us on Twitter,” Fuentes said. “They didn’t hear us on Truth Social. They just censored the hashtags. They didn’t hear us when we emailed them. And they didn’t hear us when The Washington Post and every other news media outlet reported it. So, now we’re going to travel to Michigan, and we will say it to their faces with a crowd of actual America Firsters.” 

At the time of writing, Fuentes’ plans in Michigan are unclear. He attracted hundreds of Groypers to a conference in Detroit, Michigan, earlier this year. Though the Groypers lost their venue shortly before it was set to begin, it demonstrated Fuentes’ abilities to mobilize his fanbase.  

Platforms took no apparent enforcement actions against the Groyper War 

Tactics used by Fuentes and his followers on social media, namely the creation of accounts to engage in an influence campaign, meet traditional definitions of “coordinated inauthentic behavior,” a term used to describe manipulative tactics that blend “authentic, fake and duplicated social media accounts to operate as an adversarial network” on social media platforms. Platforms including Meta and X/Twitter have previously taken enforcement actions against such campaigns, but Fuentes’ Groyper War appears to have so far evaded scrutiny. Other bad actors, like hostile states seeking to influence US politics from afar, are certain to take note of the relative ease that the Groypers have experienced in conducting an influence operation on both major and fringe platforms. They could consider it when shaping their own efforts. 

Groypers have shared material instructing each other to register Truth Social accounts for the second Groyper War and boasted that they did so in the “thousands.” That push, and their subsequent efforts to manipulate the platform’s Trending feature, could be interpreted as running afoul of Truth Social’s terms of service. Fuentes’ followers have not made similarly explicit claims about their activity on X, and a review of 50 accounts that shared the highest quantity of posts with Groyper War phrases found that only five were created in August 2024 – potentially for the influence campaign. Still, X should explore the extent to which similar tactics were used on its platform.  

A key difference between the Groyper War and other coordinated inauthentic behavior campaigns launched by hostile states is that authentic influencers, like Fuentes, are involved. The Groyper War can reach far more people online than most foreign influence campaigns because Fuentes can amplify and agitate key messages. Though as evidenced by a recent indictment alleging Russian propagandists laundered millions through a handful of pro-Trump social media stars, foreign adversaries have grown wiser to the value that authentic influencers can offer them. 

Regardless of any potential success Fuentes may claim from the current Groyper War, the campaign has succeeded in establishing his narratives among national news media, bolstering perceptions of his influence in politics and creating perceived pressures at the top of a major political party. Several major news outlets published stories reporting that far-right influencers were turning on Trump, highlighting Fuentes as a key example.  

Other bad actors, like hostile states seeking to influence US politics from afar, are certain to take note of the relative ease that the Groypers have experienced in conducting an influence operation on both major and fringe platforms. They could consider it when shaping their own efforts. 

Conclusion 

Fuentes is likely to escalate his attempts to earn attention and influence from Trump’s presidential campaign in online and offline venues. But even if the second Groyper War has failed to produce its desired results, it has already demonstrated how vulnerable some social media platforms are to crude, manipulative tactics that create distorted perceptions of influence.  

As Groypers turn their focus to offline actions in Michigan, they leave behind a blueprint for other bad actors to replicate and a clear case study for scrutinizing platform policy enforcement. A campaign by these other actors could yield better results, provided they have more modest ambitions and more sustained focus than the Groypers.