By Ahmed Bashir

There was a time—not very long ago—when the most sensitive matters of governments were conducted behind closed doors. Diplomacy unfolded through backchannels, quiet meetings, and carefully worded communiqués. Heads of state relied on teams of advisors, intelligence briefings, and institutional processes designed to reduce error and prevent escalation. Words were chosen carefully, slowly, precisely, and often reluctantly.

Today, those same matters can be initiated—or even decided—in seconds, typed and sent on a phone social media app and then immediately broadcast to the world. Social media platforms like Twitter (now X) and Truth Social have not merely supplemented traditional governance; they have begun to displace key parts of it. What we are witnessing is the emergence of something new: a form of executive power exercised in real time, in public, and often without consultation. In effect, the executive branch has acquired a new operating system—one driven by immediacy, visibility, and personal voice.

No figure embodies this shift more clearly than President Donald Trump. In his current presidency, as in his first term, social media has become not just a communication tool but a governing instrument. Policy positions, diplomatic signals, and wartime narratives are delivered directly to the public—sometimes before advisors, allies, or even members of his own administration have been fully engaged.

This marks a sharp break from centuries-old norms. Traditionally, governance is a process: proposals are debated, risks are assessed, language is vetted, and only then is a position made public. That system exists not out of bureaucratic habit, but because the stakes—war, peace, alliances, and economic stability—are extraordinarily high.

Social media collapses that process.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the handling of active conflicts. During the war with Iran, the president has used his personal platform to issue threats, declare victories, and shape the narrative of military operations in real time. In doing so, the line between strategic communication and spontaneous expression becomes blurred. The concern is not simply what is said, but how and where it is said: through a medium designed for speed, reaction, and amplification rather than deliberation.

A similar dynamic appears in his commentary on the Russia–Ukraine war, where public statements posted online have at times diverged from traditional diplomatic positioning and forced both allies and officials to interpret policy in real time. In earlier eras, such signals would be conveyed through structured channels—diplomatic cables, official speeches, negotiated statements—not short-form posts subject to instant global reaction.

But perhaps the most revealing aspect of this transformation is not how leaders address adversaries—it is how governance itself is conducted through these platforms.

In recent weeks, President Trump has publicly clashed with some of his most prominent and loyal supporters, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Alex Jones, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. These figures, once closely aligned with his political agenda, voiced disagreement over foreign policy decisions, particularly regarding the Iran conflict.

The response was not internal deliberation or quiet negotiation, but immediate, public confrontation. Disagreements that would traditionally unfold behind closed doors—within administrations, parties, or coalitions—are instead broadcast in real time to millions. Policy debate becomes spectacle. Governance becomes performance.

This is the deeper shift: social media is not just changing how leaders communicate—it is changing how they govern.

First, it compresses time. Decisions that once unfolded over days, weeks, months, or even years are now shaped in minutes. The pressure to respond immediately leaves little room for reflection, consultation, or revision.

Second, it expands the audience. Leaders are no longer speaking primarily to diplomats, legislators, or advisors, but to masses. Every statement is both policy signal and public performance, crafted—or at times improvised—for maximum visibility.

Third, it erodes institutional mediation. The traditional buffers of governance—staff work, interagency review, expert input—are increasingly bypassed. The result is a more personalized form of power, in which the leader’s voice is not filtered, but projected directly.

Finally, it transforms political relationships. Allies, adversaries, and even supporters are addressed in the same public arena, often with little distinction in tone or method. Loyalty and dissent are managed not through private channels, but through visible, immediate exchanges.

None of this is to suggest that social media has no role in modern governance. It can increase transparency and allow leaders to communicate directly with the public. But when it begins to substitute for the processes of governance rather than complement them, the consequences are profound.

Diplomacy has always depended on a measure of restraint—on the ability to delay, to reconsider, to speak carefully rather than instantly. Social media, by its nature, pushes in the opposite direction. It rewards speed, certainty, and visibility, even when the situation demands caution, nuance, and discretion.

“The Use of Twitter as an Executive Branch” is no longer a metaphor. It is a governing reality. The question is whether institutions and norms can adapt quickly enough to manage it—or whether the logic of the platform will continue to reshape governance in its own image.

Ahmed Bashir
Email: Bashir1631@gmail.com