🧵 1/ ANALYSIS: The New Republic just ran a provocative piece headlined "The FBI Is Coming for Trans People."
The article claims that, in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing, the FBI and Trump officials are allegedly working to label trans people as violent extremists.
The article claims that, in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing, the FBI and Trump officials are allegedly working to label trans people as violent extremists.
2/ The reporting leans heavily on independent writer Ken Klippenstein’s sources, described as anonymous senior intelligence officials.
The story also references statements from Utah Governor Spencer Cox & NBC but does not include direct comments from the FBI itself.
The story also references statements from Utah Governor Spencer Cox & NBC but does not include direct comments from the FBI itself.
3/ The article says: "Discussions are reportedly underway in the Trump administration to designate transgender people as 'violent extremists' in the wake of last week's shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk."
4/ Crucially, the piece’s key evidence comes from unnamed insiders: "They are cynically targeting trans people because the shooter’s lover was trans," said a senior intelligence official; again, anonymously and without publicly verifiable documents.
5/ Who is behind the story? The New Republic is a longstanding left-leaning publication. The story’s sourcing is attributed to Ken Klippenstein, who has become known for sharing national security leaks and whistleblower reports while also being an investigative target of the FBI.
6/ ⚠️ READ WITH CAUTION: The article’s strongest claims rely almost entirely on a single reporter’s anonymous sources and provide no direct documentary or first-hand evidence to support the allegations.
7/ The headline ("The FBI Is Coming for Trans People") sensationalizes the core narrative, which could amplify fear, division, and misunderstanding, even as the article itself critiques these alleged government actions.
8/ Journalistic watchdogs urge extra care: When stories rely mostly on unnamed or indirect sources, always look for corroboration in reputable outlets, and be wary of how headlines may shape emotional reactions before facts are established.
9/ High-profile stories about marginalized groups and state power deserve scrutiny, but headlines that outpace the evidence can deepen social rifts and unintentionally further harmful associations, even if critical of them.
10/10 🗝️ Takeaway: Stay vigilant about headlines and sourcing. Demand more evidence before treating early reports as conclusive.
Informed debate is grounded in solid documentation and factual evidence.
Informed debate is grounded in solid documentation and factual evidence.
Source: newrepublic.com/post/200688/fb…
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
