Reuters and the Pentagon: A Dangerous Alliance in Media Manipulation
In a time when the line between national security and political manipulation grows ever thinner, it is imperative that Congress undertake a serious investigation into the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Active Social Engineering Defense (ASED) program. The contract, awarded to Thomson Reuters Special Services LLC, officially claimed to develop tools for defending against cyber threats. But upon closer scrutiny, the program’s true purpose may be far more insidious: rather than protecting against cyber threats, it appears more likely that Reuters’ technology was designed for offensive purposes, particularly to identify, track, and neutralize domestic and international opposition to the political establishment.
While Reuters insists there is a firm boundary between its journalistic endeavors and its defense contracting arm, that claim is as flimsy as it is convenient. Money is fungible, and the tools developed for the Pentagon—particularly those designed to interact with adversaries in digital spaces—may have been weaponized against President Trump and conservative political movements in the United States. Likewise, these tools could be deployed to interfere in the political affairs of foreign nations, undermining democracy under the guise of national security.
The contract in question was nominally intended to develop automated defenses against social engineering attacks, a well-documented cybersecurity threat. Phishing schemes and online manipulation campaigns have long posed risks to both private corporations and government entities. But as is often the case, what begins as a defensive measure quickly becomes an offensive capability. The very same bots and artificial intelligence programs designed to detect and counteract deception could just as easily be repurposed to identify and suppress ideological adversaries.
One of the most concerning aspects of this project is its potential application in suppressing dissent. Social media has become the primary battlefield for political discourse, and Reuters’ DOD-funded tools may have been deployed to control narratives, stifle alternative viewpoints, and manipulate the digital town square. If the Pentagon, through its private contractors, has developed mechanisms for tracking and neutralizing opposition voices online, the implications for free speech are dire. By engaging adversaries, wasting their time, and diverting their efforts, these tools can serve as a form of digital attrition warfare—gradually eroding the ability of opposition figures to organize and influence public opinion.
Reuters, for its part, insists that its journalism and its defense contracting are completely separate. Yet such assurances ring hollow when one considers the broader history of intelligence agencies leveraging private corporations for covert influence operations. The intelligence community has long relied on media partnerships to shape public perception, and the notion that Reuters’ military contracts would never influence its editorial stance is wishful thinking at best.
Moreover, the fungibility of money means that every dollar Reuters receives from its military contracting arm indirectly supports its journalistic endeavors. Even if there is no direct editorial interference, the resources and infrastructure of the company benefit from this influx of government funding. This raises serious ethical concerns: can a media organization that profits from military psyops contracts truly claim to be independent?
The timing of this contract is also suspicious. The Trump administration faced relentless opposition from the intelligence community and elements of the permanent bureaucracy, many of whom sought to undermine his presidency through leaks, investigations, and media-driven scandals. If Reuters’ ASED tools were leveraged to monitor and suppress pro-Trump voices online, that would constitute one of the most egregious examples of election interference in American history. Given the known efforts of intelligence agencies and tech companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story and silence dissenting opinions on COVID-19 policies, it would be naïve to dismiss the possibility that Reuters’ technology was used in a similar manner.
Beyond domestic concerns, this program also raises red flags in the realm of international relations. The United States has a long history of interfering in foreign elections and political movements under the pretext of defending democracy. Reuters’ technology, ostensibly designed to counter social engineering attacks, could easily be deployed to monitor and disrupt opposition groups in foreign countries. Regimes that do not align with Washington’s interests could find themselves targeted by sophisticated digital campaigns aimed at undermining their influence and propping up more compliant governments.
This is not speculation; we have already seen similar tactics employed in the past. During the Arab Spring, the U.S. government actively engaged in online operations to support certain factions while suppressing others. In Ukraine, social media has played a pivotal role in shaping narratives around the conflict with Russia. If Reuters’ technology has been integrated into these efforts, it represents a dangerous expansion of digital warfare capabilities—one that blurs the lines between cybersecurity and state-sponsored propaganda.
Given the stakes, Congress must act swiftly to demand transparency. Several key questions need to be answered:
What specific capabilities were developed under the ASED program?
Were these tools ever deployed against American citizens, particularly those with political views disfavored by the intelligence community?
Did Reuters’ military contracting arm share technology, personnel, or data with its journalism division?
Has this technology been used to interfere in the political processes of foreign nations?
What oversight mechanisms, if any, were in place to prevent abuses?
The American people deserve to know whether their tax dollars were used to fund a program that, rather than protecting national security, may have been weaponized against them. If Reuters has aided the government in constructing tools of digital suppression, it is not merely a case of journalistic hypocrisy—it is a fundamental betrayal of the principles of a free and open society.
If left unchecked, these capabilities will only grow more sophisticated and more pervasive. The combination of AI-driven deception detection, bot networks designed to engage adversaries, and the vast reach of social media creates a perfect storm for digital authoritarianism. Today, the targets may be foreign dissidents or Trump supporters; tomorrow, they could be anyone who dares to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy.
This is not a partisan issue. It is a question of government accountability, corporate transparency, and the future of free speech in the digital age. Congress must move beyond partisan theatrics and conduct a serious investigation into what exactly Reuters helped the DOD build—and whether those tools are now being used to silence political opposition under the guise of cybersecurity.
If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.