Connect with us
Twitter and the FBI Belly Button revealed in new Twitter Files Twitter and the FBI Belly Button revealed in new Twitter Files

News

Twitter Files reveal FBI’s role as “belly button”

Credit: Matt Taibbi

Published

on

The latest installment of the Twitter Files revealed the FBI’s desire for Twitter to rely on it to be the belly button of the U.S. government (USG). The first Twitter Files installment of 2023 revealed shared the events that led up to the intelligence community’s influence on Twitter. Following that installment, journalist Matt Taibbi released another, which revealed the Global Engagement Center’s (GEC) role.

Taibbi described the GEC as “a fledgling analytic/intelligence arms of the State Department,” and screenshots revealed how this new entity would go directly to the media. In one such instance, a report titled, Russian Disinformation Apparatus Taking Advantage of Coronavirus Concerns, was released, which wrecked a bit of havoc for Twitter.

Twitter’s then Trust and Safety head, Yoel Roth, pointed out the motives of Clemson’s Media Forensic Hub when it complained that Twitter hadn’t “made a Russia attribution” in some time.

Advertisement

Credit: Matt Taibbi

Credit: Matt Taibbi

Roth told researchers like Clemson that Twitter would be happy to work directly with them instead of the media. He was unsuccessful. Simultaneously, Twitter was trying to reduce the number of agencies that had access to Roth. Twitter’s then-policy director, Carlos Monje, pointed out that once Twitter gave these agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, access to Roth.

“If these folks are like House Homeland Committee and DHS, once we give them direct contact with Yoel, they will want to come back to him again and again,”  Monje said.

Taibbi noted that the GEC report appeared to be based on DHS data that was circulated earlier that week. The data included accounts that followed two or more Chinese diplomatic accounts and ended up with a list “nearly 250,000” names long. The list included Canadian officials and a CNN account.

Credit: Matt Taibbi

In an email, Roth said that the GEC attempted to insert itself into conversations Twitter had with several government agencies, including the FBI and DHS. The GEC began to agree to loop Twitter in before going public; however, the agency used a technique that trapped Twitter previously.

“The delta between when they share material and when they go to the press continues to be problematic,” a comms official wrote, adding that they primed the media to be “curios and inquisitive of this dynamic, too.”

Credit: Matt Taibbi

This led to Twitter’s disputing a State Department claim that China coordinated coronavirus disinformation accounts. The FBI then informed Twitter that the GEC wanted to be included in their regular “industry call” between companies like Twitter and Facebook and the DHS and FBI. At first, Twitter didn’t want to go this route. Executives at Facebook and Google were united with Twitter in its opposition to the GEC’s inclusion.

“The GEC’s mandate for offensive IO to promote American interests. The relative lack of discretion and caution from senior GEC leadership in sharing reports/analysis based on shaky methodology. A limited track record of successful collaboration with industry.”

Roth noted that an actor such as GEC being introduced to a stable and trusted group of practitioners and experts, especially with the election heating up, posed major risks.

Advertisement

Credit: Matt Taibbi

Roth added that another reason was that the DHS and FBI were “apolitical,” whereas the GEC was “political.”

“GEC has a track record of actively advancing specific ideological agendas (e.g., their work w/r/t Iran). We should not lose sight of this distinction,” Roth wrote.

Credit: Matt Taibbi

The FBI argued for a compromise solution that would allow other U.S. government (USG) agencies to participate in the industry calls, with the FBI and DHS acting as sole conduits. When Roth reached out to FBI agent Elvis Chan with concerns, Chan reassured the Twitter executive that it would be a “one-way” channel and “State/GEC, NSA, and CIA have expressed interest in being allowed on in listen mode only.”

“We can give you everything we’re seeing from the FBI and USIC agencies,” Chan told Roth, adding that the  DHS agency Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) “will know what’s going on in each state.” Chan then asked if the industry could “rely on the FBI to be the belly button of the USG.”

Credit: Matt Taibbi

The group eventually chose Signal due to its operational security. Following that, Twitter began taking requests from various government bodies starting with the Senate Intel Committee (SSCI), which needed reassurance that Twitter was taking FBI direction.

Twitter also received various requests from officials wanting individuals they didn’t like to be banned from the platform. In the screenshot below, the office for Democrat and House Intel Committee chief Adam Schiff asked Twitter to ban journalist Paul Sperry.

Credit: Matt Taibbi

At the time, Twitter refused. However, Sperry was later suspended. “No, this isn’t feasible/we don’t do this,” Twitter replied.

 

Twitter honored many of the requests, including those from the GEC, to ban accounts the GEC identified as “GRU-controlled” and linked “to the Russian government.”

Advertisement

A former CIA staffer working at Twitter called the GEC requests “Our window on that is closing,” which meant that the days Twitter could say no to serious requests were over. In the Twitter Files that were released earlier today, Taibbi noted that in public, Twitter would remove content at its “sole discretion.”

Privately, the platform would “off-board” anything that was “identified by the U.S. intelligence community as state-sponsored entity conducting cyber-operations.” That was in 2017. By 2020, agencies were flooding Twitter with “identifications” or users that it wanted Twitter to remove.

Credit: Matt Taibbi

Taibbi pointed out that some reports were only a paragraph long and that Twitter would be forwarded an Excel document without further explanation. Twitter was also warned about the publicity surrounding a book written by former Ukraine prosecutor Viktor Shokhin, who alleged “corruption by the U.S. government” – specifically by Joe Biden.

Screenshots reveal that by mere weeks before the 2020 election, Twitter was so confused by the multiple streams of incoming requests that staffers had to ask the FBI which was which.

Credit: Matt Taibbi

Taibbi noted that this led to the situation described in an earlier Twitter Files release by Michael Shellenberger on December 19, 2022.

In that release, it was revealed that Twitter was paid $3,415,323. Taibbi noted that Twitter wasn’t just paid but underpaid for the amount of work it did for the government.

Your feedback is welcome. If you have any comments or concerns or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter at @JohnnaCrider1.

Advertisement

Teslarati is now on TikTok. Follow us for interactive news & more. Teslarati is now on TikTok. Follow us for interactive news & more. You can also follow Teslarati on LinkedInTwitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

Johnna Crider is a Baton Rouge writer covering Tesla, Elon Musk, EVs, and clean energy & supports Tesla's mission. Johnna also interviewed Elon Musk and you can listen here

Comments

News

Tesla best-rated car brand in UK, beats Toyota in reliability: survey

The survey asked readers to rate their cars across metrics like efficiency, reliability, practicality, safety, comfort, and performance.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla critics would typically paint the company’s electric vehicles as reliability nightmares with subpar build quality and cheap materials. As per a survey from the U.K., however, the opposite is true, as Tesla is not just the country’s overall best-rated car brand, it is also the second most reliable carmaker.

The survey was conducted by HonestJohn.co.uk, which asked its readers to rate their cars across several metrics, such as efficiency, reliability, practicality, safety, comfort, and performance. Over 6,000 respondents participated in the recent survey.

UK’s Overall Best-Rated Car Brand

Based on the respondents of the Honest John Satisfaction Index survey, Tesla was the U.K.’s best-rated car brand for 2025 with a satisfaction index rating of 89.41%. In second place is Japanese premium carmaker Lexus, which garnered a satisfaction index rating of 86.32%. In third place is Porsche, which garnered a satisfaction index rating of 84.79%.

Tesla’s Reliability Surprise

While Tesla’s high customer satisfaction index scores in the survey were not that shocking, the company’s rankings in reliability are especially surprising. Tesla critics typically accuse Tesla of producing vehicles that are not reliable or are prone to imperfections like panel gaps. But as can be seen in the U.K. survey, Tesla’s reliability has actually improved a lot. 

Tesla’s reliability rating in the Honest John survey was an impressive 95.29%. That’s just below Lexus, which was the number one at 97.01%. Tesla was also above Toyota, which was in third place with a reliability rating of 94.65%.

What Honest John Says

In its rankings for the U.K.’s most reliable car brands, Honest John highlighted that while Tesla tended to be hit or miss with things like build quality in the past, the company has matured a lot in recent years. 

“While we were always impressed by the technology within Tesla’s range of exclusively electrically powered cars, build quality seemed to be a little hit and miss, to say the least. Evidently, matters have improved significantly in this regard according to our readers’ feedback as not only has the brand scored well for reliability across its four-strong range but the Tesla Model 3 was also rated as the most satisfying car to own overall,” the publication wrote. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Unveils Model Y RWD 110 customized for Singapore

Published

on

tesla-model-y-rwd-110-custom-singapore
(Credit: Tesla Singapore)

Tesla unveiled the Model Y RWD 110 for Singapore’s Category A certificate of entitlement (COE) rules. This custom SUV tweaks the updated Model Y, which was launched in Singapore in January.

Tesla tuned the Model 3 RWD 110 for Singapore before, and that customized version’s success spurred this Model Y adaptation. The Model Y RWD 110 runs at 110kW, down from 255kW in the standard RWD. It qualifies for Singapore’s Category A COE, unlike the Model Y 255kW version, which sits in Category B.

Category A COEs are for mass-market cars. They score lower premiums than Category B COEs. BMW and Mercedes-Benz register vehicles as Category A COEs in Singapore as well.

In Singapore, buyers need to pay the COE to register a car. The latest tender showed an SGD 22,388 gap between Category A and B premiums.

Advertisement

The Model Y RWD 110’s road tax is significantly reduced from SGD 3,478 to SGD 1,562 yearly. The Strait Times calculated that the cheaper Model Y in Singapore would save SGD 19,160 over a 10-year COE.

The Model Y RWD 110 matches the 255kW version otherwise. The more affordable Model Y’s battery size holds steady. Its energy use, equipment, and design stay the same.

Tesla prices the Model Y RWD 110 at SGD 103,476 before COE. The Model Y RWD 110 costs SGD 3,026 less than the 255kW version, excluding COE costs. It uses a 62.5kWh lithium iron phosphate battery.

Tesla has released cheaper versions of its cars before. For instance, it rolled out a more affordable Model 3 in Mexico last year. The cheaper Tesla Model 3 in Mexico did not use the same materials and had different features to reduce costs.

Tesla might consider releasing custom, cheaper versions of its vehicles in other countries. Industry sources in China hint at a “lower-priced Model Y” for the Chinese auto market, which keeps the Juniper’s battery and chassis

Advertisement

Continue Reading

News

Tesla US Gigafactories shields from Trump’s 25% Tariffs

Tesla US Gigafactories Shielded from Trump’s 25% Tariffs

Published

on

Credit: Elon Musk/X

Tesla stocks climbed after U.S. President Donald Trump announced tariffs on imported cars and auto parts, standing out in the United States auto industry.

Automaker stocks tanked after President Trump slapped 25% tariffs on foreign autos and parts. Tesla slightly dodged the tariff blow thanks to local production. Its gigafactories in China and Germany don’t supply Tesla vehicles to the United States market. The company builds all U.S.-sold EVs in Fremont, California, or at Giga Austin in Texas.

TD Cowen analyst Itay Michaeli sees the American EV automaker as a winner in Trump’s tariffs games.

“Tesla [is] a relative beneficiary given [its] 100% U.S. production footprint, substantial U.S. sourcing, and with Model Y competing in a midsize crossover segment where close to ~50% of vehicles could be subject to tariffs,” Michaeli wrote on Thursday.

Advertisement

Rivian and Lucid also make all vehicles sold in the United States domestically. Ford hits 77% U.S. production, while Stellantis sits at 57%. Nissan and GM each clock in at 52%.

Trump’s 25% tariff on non-U.S.-made vehicles kicks in next week, on April 2, 2025. Elon Musk confirmed that Trump’s tariff will still affect Tesla, despite its plants in America.

Musk posted on X about tariff impacts. He said foreign-sourced parts will drive up costs. It’s not a small hit. Tesla warned of this in a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative. “Certain parts and components are difficult or impossible to source within the United States,” the letter stated, even with “aggressive localization.”

Continue Reading

Trending