In a recent surge of allegations, prominent figures such as Elon Musk and President Donald Trump have accused Reuters of engaging in “large-scale social deception” on behalf of the U.S. government. These claims center around a $9 million contract awarded to Thomson Reuters Special Services (TRSS) by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) from 2018 to 2022. The contract, titled “Active Social Engineering Defense (ASED) Large Scale Social Deception (LSD),” has been cited as evidence of Reuters’ complicity in government-led disinformation campaigns.
Elon Musk took to X to express his outrage, stating, “The US government paid Reuters millions of dollars for ‘large scale social deception.’ That is literally what it says on the purchase order! They’re a total scam. Just wow.” Former President Trump echoed these sentiments on Truth Social, demanding that Reuters “GIVE BACK THE MONEY, NOW!”
However, a closer examination reveals that these allegations may be based on a misinterpretation of the contract’s purpose. TRSS, a separate legal entity from the Reuters news organization, was contracted to evaluate defensive tools against social engineering threats—a form of cyber threat where individuals are manipulated into divulging sensitive information. The role of TRSS was to simulate adversarial attacks to assess the effectiveness of these defensive tools, not to deceive the public.
The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which funded the contract, clarified that the ASED program aimed “to develop tools to protect people from social engineering attacks.” The term “Large Scale Social Deception” referred to TRSS’s role in simulating adversarial attacks, commonly known as “red teaming,” to test the robustness of cyber defenses.
Thomson Reuters has responded to these accusations by emphasizing the independence of TRSS and reaffirming its commitment to journalistic integrity. Steve Rubley, CEO of TRSS, stated, “TRSS has provided software and information services to U.S. government agencies across successive administrations for decades, to assist in identifying and preventing fraud, supporting public safety, and advancing justice.“
This incident underscores the challenges in distinguishing between legitimate cybersecurity initiatives and perceived media manipulation. While the contract’s terminology may appear alarming, the context indicates a focus on enhancing cyber defenses rather than orchestrating public deception.
This controversy follows closely on the heels of another significant accusation against the Biden administration involving the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). Critics have alleged that USAID and the CIA provided questionable support to OCCRP, suggesting a systematic weaponization of media and journalism. OCCRP has refuted these claims, asserting its editorial independence and stating that its work is not politically motivated.
These incidents highlight the delicate balance between government collaboration and media independence. As the lines between cybersecurity efforts and information dissemination continue to blur, it is imperative for both the government and media organizations to maintain transparency and uphold ethical standards to preserve public trust.
