A forensic analysis of 5,000 posts from Donald Trump’s social media accounts has uncovered a systematic pattern of misinformation that, sources confirm, stretches back years. The study, conducted by a team of British fact-checkers at the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Data Ethics, reveals that nearly one in three of the former president’s statements contained factual inaccuracies or outright falsehoods.
The investigation, which I have obtained exclusive documents from, tracked Trump’s output from January 2021 to the present. The findings are stark: 31.7% of posts – over 1,500 individual claims – were rated as false or misleading by the team. The most common themes were election integrity, the COVID-19 pandemic, and immigration, each averaging a falsehood rate above 40%.
One leaked internal memo from the project states: “This is not a partisan attack. It is a data-driven audit of a public figure whose platform has been used to spread narratives that undermine democratic institutions.” The researchers used a methodology that cross-referenced claims against official records, court rulings, and statements from government agencies.
The pattern is clear. Trump’s misinformation is not random; it follows a calculated rhythm. During election cycles, false claims spike by 60%. When news breaks of legal setbacks, the rate of misleading statements triples. The data suggests a coordinated effort to create an alternative reality for his supporters.
I spoke to a senior fact-checker who asked not to be named: “We found the same false claims recycled verbatim months later. It’s a deliberate strategy to repeat lies until they become gospel.” The study also identified a network of 45 accounts that consistently amplify Trump’s most egregious posts, suggesting a coordinated disinformation apparatus.
The implications are profound. With over 88 million followers across platforms, Trump’s reach dwarfs that of most news outlets. The report estimates that his false posts have been viewed over 2.7 billion times. This is not a footnote to history; it is the raw material from which political movements are built.
A spokesperson for Trump’s campaign dismissed the study as “a partisan hit job funded by liberal donors.” But the documents I have reviewed show the research was independently funded by the Leverhulme Trust, a non-partisan foundation. The data is transparent. The methods have been peer-reviewed.
This is not about one man. It is about the machinery of misinformation that corrodes public trust. The British fact-checkers have done their job. Now the question is whether anyone will act on what they have uncovered. The money trail and the body count are there for all to see. The only thing missing is accountability.
