Perspectives

Social media has reshaped how policymakers communicate, giving businesses and advocates a direct line to decision-makers – especially on text-based platforms like X (formerly Twitter). But today, that landscape is more fragmented than ever.

Much of this has been spawned by Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and the controversial content policy changes that came with that takeover, in parallel to growing political tensions in the US. Many users were left hungry for a platform that would take the place of “old” Twitter, characterized by lively exchanges grounded in clear content policy guidelines.

Now, a crowded field of contenders – including X, Threads, Bluesky, LinkedIn, and Truth Social – competes for influence, leaving businesses wondering: Where should we focus to reach policymakers effectively?

To answer this question, Trilligent mapped all 541 members of Congress between January 16-21, 2025, and analyzed how members of the 119th Congress are engaging with these platforms, identifying where key policy voices are most active. Our research equips corporate clients with the insights needed to navigate this evolving ecosystem – ensuring their messages land where they matter most.

Key Takeaways

1. X remains on top: X (formerly Twitter) remains the leading platform for US politicians, with 99% present on the platform and 98% posting actively (defined as at least six times in the last six months, according to recent Trilligent analysis examining activity on the platform over the past year). This is likely a remnant from when Twitter represented the be-all and end-all of political social media, but even today the platform is the most established and has proven a reliable channel over time. Of note and relevant to digital and integrated campaigns, at the time of writing, X remains the only text-based platform with a robust paid advertising offering. Until Threads and Bluesky develop their own advertising policies and tools, X is likely to remain the platform of choice for policy campaigns.
2. Threads is popular among policymakers but lacks a political culture: Threads, owned by Meta, was not an obvious choice for policymakers upon launch, given its strong content moderation limiting political content. Despite recent moderation changes to the platform, it has likely pivoted too late, and so a political culture does not exist. At the time this research was conducted, 44.5% of politicians were present on Threads, with 26.8% posting actively. It will be challenging for the platform to catch up, which makes Threads a less strategic policy stakeholder-focused platform for clients.
3. Liberals are big on Bluesky: Bluesky, founded by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, has gained recent attention as an alternative for liberal influencers leaving X. While the number of US politicians with a presence on the platform is not as high as one might expect (29%), there is a high level of activity comparatively: 60% of policymakers with an account are posting actively, and 45% of all Democrat policymakers actively post. It is important to note that Bluesky appears to be a more popular platform for Democrats and liberal-leaning audiences, meaning it is most promising for clients who are aiming to reach left-leaning stakeholders.
4. LinkedIn’s impact on Members of Congress is unclear, but still an effective platform for digital campaigns: LinkedIn primarily targets businesses and individuals in the private sector and very few members of Congress have accounts or show signs of recent activity – just 6%. At the same time, many policy elites, including Members’ staff and decision makers across federal agencies, are active on the platform. Most importantly, LinkedIn offers unique targeting opportunities – no other platform allows you to target stakeholders based on their industry or company in the same way, which can be extremely impactful in terms of reaching certain government departments with an important message as part of an integrated campaign.
5. Truth Social is one to watch under Trump 2.0: Truth Social has low participation across both parties, with only 6% of members of Congress actively posting on the platform. With that in mind, as of right now, it is not a platform to prioritize compared to X, Threads, or Bluesky. However, if clients are aiming to target the Trump administration and other friendly-to-Trump stakeholders, it is worth keeping an eye on Truth Social to analyze discussion in that political space and the platform’s long-term trajectory more broadly. At the same time, clients should carefully consider whether to create an account on the platform. Business accounts, currently few and far between on Truth Social, will likely lead to controversy with non-Trump-aligned stakeholders due to Trump’s stake in the platform. An active presence would in turn show support for the president and his business ventures, as well as the far-right, which is most associated with the platform. Our recommendation is to monitor the platform with a non-branded account for relevant discourse, given that the platform does not allow users to view posts without an account, which differs from X and Bluesky.

Deeper dive

Besides X, where the split is almost equal at 50% Republicans and 49% Democrats, most platforms have a clear partisan split.

Out of the roughly 45% of Members posting on Threads, 8% are Republicans and 91% are Democrats. This is likely related to Democrats’ appetite for an alternative to X after Musk’s takeover and the resulting conservative policy changes. Alternatively, it might suggest Democratic policymakers are more open to joining and making use of new platforms as they emerge, though the data is unclear. Importantly, the next months will be telling for the platform following recent policy changes to content moderation, in favor of community notes. In parallel, Threads will now welcome political content. These changes are seen as tending to align more with conservative viewpoints rather than liberal ones.

Bluesky continues the trend, with only 5% of active Congress members on the platform being Republicans, compared to 94% Democrats—a predictable outcome given the platform’s ideological leaning. LinkedIn is more balanced. Out of the 6% of policymakers who post on LinkedIn, 58% are Republican versus 41% from the Democratic party. This could suggest a greater willingness to engage with business audiences or stakeholders on the part of the Member. Truth Social is 100% Republican in terms of policymakers active on the platform. It will be interesting to follow the platform’s development among policy stakeholders and with non-governmental influencers.

Client considerations

1. Prioritize X for broad engagement across the aisle: X remains the dominant platform for US policymakers, with near-universal adoption and high posting activity. For clients aiming to engage Congress as a whole, X should remain a cornerstone of any social media strategy because of its established culture. However, due to changes in content moderation, it poses risks for “brand safe” communications. Clients should carefully consider their messaging and the potential risks of ad placement. Consider leveraging it for content likely to resonate across party lines, for example in-community programs or announcements that positively impact policymakers’ districts.
2. Target niche platforms for specific stakeholder objectives: Platforms like Bluesky, and potentially Truth Social, present opportunities for clients with clearly defined political or ideological goals. For example:

1. • Bluesky is ideal for reaching Democrat policymakers and liberal influencers. Clients targeting progressive audiences should consider tailored campaigns. However, as a young platform, increased brand activity may not be as warmly received until the platform matures. Additionally, the lack of ads and universal algorithms requires careful planning to effectively reach target audiences.
   • Truth Social, though limited in scope, can be valuable for understanding Trump-aligned lawmakers and stakeholders. Evaluate reputational risks before establishing a presence and consider monitoring the platform to stay updated on discussions from this political spectrum. It is important to note here that one is required to create an account to view posts and find other users, unlike most other text-based platforms.
2. Use LinkedIn for indirect policymaker engagement: While LinkedIn isn’t widely used by Congress, its value lies in reaching stakeholders beyond Members themselves and creating a space to discuss policy-relevant issues with other policy decision makers, the private sector, and organizational leaders. LinkedIn content builds credibility, fosters partnerships, and generates indirect influence on policymakers via their broader, real-life networks.
3. Align strategy with age dynamics and platform demographics: Policymakers under 50 often punch above their weight in terms of activity on newer platforms. Clients looking to engage younger members of Congress or highlight innovative, forward-thinking initiatives popular among left-leaning policymakers should focus on platforms like Bluesky. Conversely, LinkedIn may better suit campaigns aimed at older, business-minded policymakers.
4. Monitor emerging platforms and evolving trends: The digital landscape for policymakers is rapidly evolving, with platforms like Threads and Bluesky carving out distinct niches. Each platform’s use—whether for proactive corporate communication, executive visibility, or niche audience analysis—requires careful risk versus reward calculations.

Trilligent is well positioned to advise clients through ongoing platform moderation and trend analysis, offer tailored advice on how to leverage each platform effectively, and evaluate the reputational risks associated with each platform to develop mitigation strategies.

Please see below for our “The Fragmented Feed” one pager or download here: Trilligent – The Fragmented Feed