X Under Fire: Elon Musk's Platform Accused of Accepting Money from T-rrorist Groups Including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthis

In a scandal that could rock both Silicon Valley and Washington, Elon Musk’s social media platform X—formerly known as Twitter—has come under serious scrutiny after new allegations emerged this week suggesting that it has been accepting subscription payments from multiple sanctioned terrorist organizations. According to a report released by the Tech Transparency Project (TTP), a number of high-profile figures affiliated with Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthi rebels, and other extremist groups in Iraq and Syria have paid for premium verification features on X, effectively receiving algorithmic amplification from a major U.S.-based tech company.

These allegations, if substantiated, would point to a direct violation of U.S. sanctions law, specifically regulations enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) under the Treasury Department. OFAC prohibits American companies from engaging in any financial transactions with designated terrorist entities or individuals without explicit government authorization.

Yet, the report makes it clear that X has allegedly allowed numerous sanctioned users to subscribe to its paid services, granting them not only visibility but also legitimacy via the infamous blue check marks.

This isn’t the first time the TTP has raised alarms. A similar report published in early 2024 warned that Hezbollah and other militant actors were using the platform to disseminate propaganda and organize communication networks under the guise of legitimate social media activity.

Following that report, X reportedly removed some accounts, but the most recent findings indicate that these groups—or at least accounts claiming to represent them—have returned with renewed vigor. The recurrence of these accounts raises serious questions about the company’s policies on content moderation, verification, and compliance with federal law.

When Elon Musk acquired Twitter in 2022, he made sweeping promises about transforming the platform into a bastion of free expression. “Our platform must be warm and welcoming to all,” Musk declared at the time, championing a vision of open dialogue that would transcend ideological and cultural divisions.

Now, two years later, that vision appears to have taken on unintended dimensions. Critics argue that in dismantling the company’s old trust and safety infrastructure, Musk created an online environment that is permissive of extremism, disinformation, and now, possibly, terrorism.

What is especially damning about the TTP’s report is the ease with which these extremist accounts have seemingly subscribed to premium services. For just $8 per month, individuals and entities—some of whom are officially designated by the U.S. government as sponsors of terrorism—can gain access to features that promote their content to wider audiences, increase engagement, and bypass traditional content moderation algorithms.

As the report bluntly states, “X is monetizing terrorism.”

Among the most notable accounts mentioned in the report is one purportedly belonging to Subhi Tufayli, one of the founding leaders of Hezbollah. Screenshots and live monitoring show the account posting anti-Israel rhetoric and Gaza war commentary through polished, high-quality video content.

According to observers, the account has racked up thousands of followers and, alarmingly, carries a blue check mark—suggesting that it has been verified by X’s internal systems. When reporters from Gizmodo attempted to contact X for clarification on whether the account was truly verified or merely a paid impersonation, they received no response.

The platform’s lack of identity verification processes only adds to the chaos. As noted by the New York Times, it is possible that some of the accounts could be operated by impersonators or supporters rather than the sanctioned individuals themselves.

But this caveat doesn’t absolve the platform of responsibility. Under OFAC guidelines, even indirect financial support or services extended to sanctioned entities—intentional or not—can trigger legal consequences for U.S.-based corporations. The mere possibility that American money could be indirectly funding or enabling these groups through ad revenue and subscription payments is a political powder keg.

The accusations arrive at a volatile time for U.S. foreign policy and Musk himself. The Trump administration, now in its second term, has made aggressive moves against the Houthis in Northern Yemen, launching airstrikes and implementing sweeping sanctions in response to the group’s attacks on Israeli targets and international shipping routes.

These military actions, coupled with a growing anti-terrorism posture in the Middle East, put Musk’s platform in direct conflict with the President’s national security objectives. It is not lost on observers that Trump has had a historically hot-and-cold relationship with Musk—praising his innovation one day and condemning his unpredictability the next.

In a particularly embarrassing episode that underscores the administration’s struggle with the Houthi threat, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth accidentally leaked details of a planned airstrike by texting mission coordinates to a magazine editor instead of a military officer. Dubbed “Signalgate” by insiders, the fiasco further strained public confidence in the Pentagon’s operations and added fuel to growing fears that America’s war on terror is being undermined by both internal incompetence and external digital vulnerabilities.

Meanwhile, from the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Aden, reports recently surfaced that a $60 million F/A-18 fighter jet fell into the ocean during an emergency evasive maneuver meant to avoid incoming Houthi fire. The story was widely reported and became a symbol of both the chaos in Yemen and the hazards of confronting decentralized militant groups armed with increasingly advanced technology.

In light of these incidents, the fact that X is reportedly hosting and profiting from the digital presence of the Houthis and other extremist factions becomes more than a question of tech ethics—it becomes a national security concern. It also revives long-standing concerns about Elon Musk’s refusal to engage in traditional corporate responsibility, especially regarding platform moderation and international law.

Critics argue that Musk’s libertarian approach to free speech has become a smokescreen for deregulation and profit-at-all-costs behavior, even when that cost might include compliance with terrorism financing laws.

What happens next is unclear. Legal experts suggest that if OFAC were to launch a formal investigation, X could face severe penalties, ranging from multi-million dollar fines to criminal referrals, depending on the extent of the financial transactions and the platform’s internal compliance efforts—or lack thereof. There is also the possibility that Congress, already divided and volatile, could take up the issue as part of broader hearings on tech accountability and national security.

The pressure is mounting on Musk to respond. So far, the billionaire has remained uncharacteristically silent on the matter. Known for using X (formerly Twitter) as a personal PR megaphone, Musk has not issued any comments or statements addressing the allegations.

This silence has only fueled speculation that either the company is scrambling behind the scenes to purge offending accounts or, worse, that it is unwilling to admit fault.

The consequences of this controversy could extend beyond X. For advertisers, it raises the specter of being associated—however unintentionally—with terror financing. For investors, it adds another layer of reputational risk to Musk’s already-controversial portfolio. And for regulators, it serves as a case study in how quickly well-intentioned platforms can become conduits for abuse when governance is gutted in favor of growth.

As the TTP continues to monitor the situation, and as more reports emerge about sanctioned entities using social media to wage ideological warfare, the spotlight on X is unlikely to dim. In fact, this could become a turning point in the debate over tech platforms’ responsibility not just to users, but to national and international laws governing war, peace, and everything in between.

One thing is certain: if the accusations hold up, Elon Musk’s “warm and welcoming” vision for X may end up being remembered not as a triumph of free speech—but as a catastrophic oversight in the age of digital warfare.