DHS Israel Location Sparks Uproar as Users Doubt X's 'Glitch' Explanation

Confusion and anger spread across X over the weekend after users claimed the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appeared as 'based in Israel' through the platform's new 'About this account' feature. The rollout of the tool was already chaotic, yet the DHS screenshot triggered a wave of alarm as users insisted the platform's explanation of a glitch was not believable.

A Feature That Arrived in Confusion

According to Gizmodo, X activated a new setting that allows users to view the country associated with their account. The company had signalled that this feature was coming, yet the rollout was unclear from the moment users discovered it on 20 November. Some people said they could see the locations of other accounts. Others said only their own location was visible. The platform did not clarify how much of the feature was active.

This gap allowed manipulated screenshots, faked videos and speculative claims to spread. In that environment, any confusing detail was amplified. The most explosive claim came from a screen recording posted by an Australian user, which appeared to show the DHS account labelled as created in Israel.

Reddit Threads Accelerate the Panic

A post on Reddit repeated the claim, insisting the DHS account had been exposed as 'created and located in Israel' before X removed the information. Users in the thread questioned why the label vanished and why the platform did not immediately offer a detailed explanation.

The Reddit discussion quickly framed the event as a cover-up, with commenters claiming the screenshot was captured before X erased the evidence. The speculation gained momentum because users could no longer verify anything themselves. The feature was unstable, and the location field for several government accounts appeared to be missing altogether.

DHS Denies Any Foreign Origin

As the claim spread, DHS broke its silence and issued a statement on X. The agency wrote: 'I can't believe we have to say this, but this account has only ever been run and operated from the United States.' The message added that screenshots and videos can be easily altered. The official denial echoed X's head of product, Nikita Bier, who stated that government accounts using grey check marks never had location data visible at any point. He also said DHS had only shown US-based IP activity since the account was created.

Despite these statements, many users remained unconvinced. The confusion surrounding the rollout made it difficult for X to counter false claims. By the time the feature stabilised on 22 November, the DHS controversy had already taken on a life of its own.

Foreign Influence Accounts Revealed Hours Later

The controversy intensified when, shortly after the feature officially went live, a wave of pro-Trump and MAGA-branded accounts were exposed as being based in Eastern Europe, Nigeria and other regions.

Gizmodo reported that high-profile accounts such as MAGANationX and Barron Trump News appeared to be operated outside the United States. The sudden flood of foreign locations reinforced users' suspicion that earlier glitches had revealed genuine information rather than produced random errors.

Other accounts with large followings also surprised users. DogeDesigner, frequently boosted by Elon Musk, displayed an India-based location. Ian Miles Cheong, long believed to be posting from Malaysia, was now listed as UAE-based. The revelations created a broader crisis for the platform, as users questioned how long foreign influence networks had been operating undetected.

A Crisis of Confidence for X

The DHS screenshot may have been false, yet the feature's chaotic rollout made the correction difficult for users to accept. A tool intended to expose foreign interference instead exposed confusion about how X handles its data. The fallout from the incident has highlighted growing distrust in both government accounts and platform transparency.

As users continue to debate the credibility of the location tracker, the incident has become a case study in how fragile digital trust can be. Even brief inconsistencies are enough to ignite widespread suspicion, especially when they involve a government agency with a major national security role.