https://madrid.hostmaster.org/articles/project_esther_israel_paying_influencers/en.html
Recent filings under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) have exposed an influencer campaign dubbed “The Esther Project,” funded by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Documents filed by Bridges Partners LLC on September 26 2025 detail contracts routed through Havas Media Group Germany to engage social-media influencers in posting pro-Israel content targeted at U.S. and global audiences. The disclosed budget totals roughly $900 000 for June through November 2025, supporting 14–18 influencers who produced 75–90 posts, with analysts estimating $6 000–$7 000 per post.
While these filings satisfy FARA’s transparency requirement for Bridges Partners as the primary agent, they spotlight cascading risks: unregistered influencers’ personal liabilities, platform-enforcement duties under advertising law, and cross-border tax obligations. The case demonstrates how digital influence operations test mid-twentieth-century statutes in an era of algorithmic amplification.
FARA (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) - originally crafted to expose Nazi propaganda - requires registration for anyone acting “at the order, request, or under the direction or control” of a foreign principal to shape U.S. policy or opinion. Filers must disclose activities, finances, and disseminated materials, updating semi-annually.
Key provisions:
Influencers aware of the Israeli sponsorship and the U.S.-targeted intent qualify as agents, requiring individual Short-Form filings. Only Bridges Partners’ principal, Uri Steinberg, appears registered. Unregistered participants could therefore be non-compliant. The DOJ’s renewed focus on online influence campaigns (see FARA Unit Annual Reports 2023–24) suggests potential scrutiny even for micro-creators.
The FTC Endorsement Guides (16 C.F.R. Part 255) demand clear #ad disclosures for paid content. Omission in political messaging constitutes a deceptive practice under § 5 of the FTC Act, subjecting creators or sponsoring agencies to orders and fines.
Sponsored-post income counts as self-employment income (26 U.S.C. § 1402). U.S. residents must report on Schedule C; non-residents may face 30 % withholding on U.S.-sourced work. Non-disclosure risks penalties of up to 75 % of unpaid tax or felony prosecution (26 U.S.C. § 7201).
Beyond statutory duties, secret coordination with a foreign state corrodes the authenticity on which influencer economies depend. For creators whose credibility is their currency, public exposure of undisclosed state payments can be career-ending.
Under both FTC rules and EU DSA Articles 26–39, large platforms must ensure transparent labeling of sponsored material. If X’s algorithms promote undisclosed political posts, regulators could deem that facilitation of deceptive advertising. Violations of the DSA’s ad-transparency or systemic-risk provisions can draw fines of up to 6 % of global turnover.
Platforms normally escape FARA liability as neutral carriers. Yet evidence of direct collaboration - such as algorithmic boosting sold as part of the Esther Project - could prompt DOJ inquiry under the statute’s “political propaganda” clauses.
Because payments were made outside X’s ad-sales system, they do not affect corporate tax liability. The exposure lies in regulation, not revenue.
The Esther Project epitomizes the convergence of state propaganda with influencer marketing. Traditional lobbying assumed a visible boundary between governments and citizens; social media erases it. When geopolitical messaging masquerades as peer-to-peer authenticity, democratic discourse becomes indistinguishable from targeted advertising.
Remedies under discussion include:
On October 4 2025, users observed mass revocations of blue and gold verification badges from accounts critical of Israeli policy or the Esther Project disclosures, including journalists, academics, and NGOs. No public rationale accompanied the action. Soon after, the analytics account @Uncensored.AI, which had scrutinized both the influencer program and X’s moderation, was suspended without notice. An internal employee comment describing a “policy-enforcement review” was later withdrawn, and the employee reportedly reprimanded.
While X’s terms permit discretionary badge removal, the timing - amid heightened discussion of foreign influence - invited allegations of viewpoint bias. Under the EU Digital Services Act, Article 34 obliges very-large platforms to mitigate systemic risks such as disinformation and politically motivated moderation. A coordinated or retaliatory takedown could thus trigger European Commission scrutiny. In the U.S., such actions reopen debates about Section 230’s scope and the quasi-public role of dominant communication platforms.
Beyond statutes and filings lies a deeper moral question: what does it mean for truth and consent when democratic conversation is quietly bought and sold?
In moral terms, the Esther Project is not merely a legal footnote; it is a symptom of a broader ethical drift where truth becomes a commodity and democratic trust a tradable asset.
The Esther Project’s FARA filings mark a small victory for transparency but reveal vast enforcement and ethical gaps. Intermediaries registered; the individual influencers apparently did not. Each faces potential exposure under FARA, FTC, and tax law, while X Corp confronts growing scrutiny under the DSA and public censure for perceived censorship.
Yet the gravest consequence may be moral: a corrosion of public faith in authentic speech. As state narratives purchase private voices and platforms arbitrate visibility, the boundary between persuasion and manipulation dissolves. Updating laws is necessary; rebuilding integrity is imperative. Until truth and sponsorship again occupy separate spaces, democratic discourse will remain hostage to the highest bidder.