@@@
The Tradwife Psyop You Kind Of Suspected - But Worse
I went IN on researching the sourdough-to-surveillance pipeline in the name of internet literacy.
Encryptress · Jul 13, 2026
I’ve been hearing a rumor circulate across a couple different outlets over the past few weeks: the Heritage Foundation, the think tank behind Project 2025, has secretly infiltrated tradwife TikTok. A psyop in a prairie dress. As an avid gardener, aspirational homesteader (says the city girl), and someone who leans more girl moss than girl boss, I actually get a fair amount of exposure to tradwife TikTok so it inspired me to dig.
What I found is actually scarier than the conspiracy (as most things are these days).
They’re Not Hiding It
I actually couldn’t find any evidence of a suspected covert Heritage operation. What I found instead was sitting in plain sight on heritage.org; the think tank’s own website publishes commentary by a research assistant who describes herself, in her own words, as a tradwife influencer. She writes that her videos exist to persuade Gen Z audiences of the value of marriage and family. That’s her stated goal, under the Heritage logo, next to her job title. Another Heritage policy analyst wrote a book on womanhood that gets marketed through the same tradwife-adjacent Instagram ecosystem, pitched at women who don’t feel at home in either the girl-boss or tradwife label.
So no, Heritage didn’t infiltrate tradwife TikTok. They flat out hired it very blatantly and publicly. In some cases the influencer and the think tank are literally the same person, on the org chart, publishing under the letterhead. A policy shop figured out that a twenty-something making warm content about bread moves culture in a way a white paper never will, and they didn’t need to sneak around because nobody reads the byline on a reel.
The money around the aesthetic runs the same direction. Evie Magazine (the glossy women’s lifestyle site that looks like a tradwife mood board, if you’ve somehow avoided it) is funded by Peter Thiel, per reporting from Marie Claire. Thiel is one of the biggest Republican financial backers in tech and one of the most powerful evangelical Christians in the world.
To be fair to the women in the videos, many tradwife creators are just people filming their lives, and nobody should be accusing every wholesome farm account of being on a payroll. That’s actually why the sloppy “infiltration” version of this story bugs me... it gets debunked, everyone relaxes, and the true/just as scary documented version goes unexamined. The documented version is that the aesthetic became a delivery system (can be applied to anything and used against any one/group), and the organizations using it as one will tell you so on their own websites because if they’re not hiding it, it’s not wrong - right?
The Paper Trail
The undisclosed version of this machine exists too, it’s just not a Heritage story.
In 2024 federal prosecutors indicted two employees of RT, Russia’s state media network, for secretly funneling nearly $10 million through a Tennessee media company that was paying right-wing influencers including Tim Pool and Dave Rubin. Per prosecutors, the creators themselves didn’t know where the money came from. Their combined millions of followers definitely didn’t.
This year WIRED reported that one of the biggest liberal dark money groups funded a program paying more than 90 influencers, some up to $8,000 a month, to push Democratic-leaning messaging, with contracts that reportedly barred them from disclosing the arrangement (some participants dispute that characterization). In California right now, campaign finance filings show Tom Steyer’s campaign for governor has paid over $123,000 to influencers, and state regulators opened an investigation after some of those posts went up with no disclosure at all.
Different politics, same purchase. What’s being bought in all of these cases isn’t content, it’s the trust between a creator and an audience that thinks of them as a friend. Years of parasocial relationship, sold as ad inventory nobody can see.
After digging into the legal side of all of this, here is what really shocked me: most of this is totally fine. “Legal” or close enough. The FTC’s endorsement rules were written for protein powder, not politics. The FEC has never clearly said influencer political content needs the disclaimers a TV ad does! Isn’t that nuts?? California passed one of the first state disclosure laws in the country and experts who watched it get written noted it has essentially no penalties.
The Evil Runs Deeper… Wider… Higher?
As of this January, TikTok’s US operations belong to a new joint venture that’s about 80 percent American-owned and serves over 200 million US users. Oracle holds a stake, alongside the investment firm Silver Lake and MGX, a state-owned Abu Dhabi fund, with ByteDance keeping 19.9 percent. Oracle also got the technical keys meaning it will retrain, test, and update TikTok’s recommendation algorithm on US user data, and moderation rules (what’s allowed, what’s suppressed, what you and I can post) get set by the investor-controlled entity.
Oracle is one of the oldest giants in tech, roughly fifty years old, and it doesn’t sell anything to you. It sells the invisible plumbing such as databases and cloud infrastructure that corporations and governments run on. Your health insurer, your bank, the streaming service you fell asleep to last night... decent odds Oracle’s systems are somewhere underneath. Its very first customer in the late 1970s was the CIA (the name “Oracle” is the code name of that project), and it has held contracts with the NSA, the Department of Defense, and Homeland Security in the decades since. Fifty years of getting paid to store and analyze other people’s information, frequently for the state.
Its track record with your information specifically is worth knowing as well. In 2024 Oracle paid $115 million to settle Katz-Lacabe v. Oracle, a class action alleging it built unauthorized “digital dossiers” on hundreds of millions of people (where they browsed, where they banked, where they bought gas and ate dinner) and sold access through its ad products. Oracle denied wrongdoing, settled anyway, and shut down its entire ad business the same year. Its chairman and co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the richest people alive and one of the largest Republican donors in the country, got up at a company analyst meeting in September 2024 and described a future where AI continuously processes camera footage from doorbells, dashboards, drones, and police, predicting that “citizens will be on their best behavior” because everything is recorded and reported. Are you SERIOUS that’s fucking terrifying. Fortune later pointed out those comments hit different once his company landed at the center of the TikTok deal.
Now the honest caveats, because TikTok has not turned into a propaganda feed since the deal closed. The feared overnight transformation didn’t happen, digital rights groups are raising structural concerns rather than pointing at a smoking gun, and speculation is not evidence. I’m not going to be alarmist and tell you your FYP is compromised, because that’s not the daily reality and we’re here to discuss literacy not freak out and move onto a new horror next week.
What I’ll explain is the structure, because the structure is documented and verified: algorithm control is editorial power with no visibility. When a newspaper buries a story there’s a masthead and a corrections policy. When a recommendation algorithm turns the volume down on a topic, there is nothing to point at, and you cannot see what you were never shown. That power now sits with a company whose chairman has explicit politics and an on-the-record enthusiasm for mass surveillance. Whether he ever uses it is a separate question from whether he holds it. He holds it. Meanwhile his son David bought Paramount last year, putting CBS News in the family portfolio, and Meta spent the same stretch ending its third-party fact-checking program. None of these facts individually is a scandal… which is the sneaky part and why you need to see beyond what you’re watching.
“I don’t care if they have my data” (I said it too)
For years my answer to privacy warnings was a shrug. So they have my data. What’s actually going to happen to me? Honestly, for a long time nothing has. The harms we got warned about (identity theft, drained accounts) mostly didn’t happen to most people, so the warnings felt like cautionary noise.
The mistake was thinking data theft was the threat. Cambridge Analytica spelled out the actual product back in 2018, when data from tens of millions of Facebook profiles got used to build psychological profiles for political targeting. Your data doesn’t get used to rob you, it gets used to know you. What makes you anxious, what makes you feel behind, what aesthetic soothes you, what a message has to look like before you’ll accept it without checking. Somebody’s data said a generation of young women is exhausted, priced out, and nostalgic for a life that feels achievable, and content arrived dressed exactly right for that reading.
So this is the machine assembled; data that knows who’s persuadable and how. An algorithm, owned by people with extreme politics, deciding what we see. Trusted faces, some quietly paid, delivering it. Everything about it is legal. Every piece deniable. It runs in both political directions at once, which is why the output isn’t one ideology winning, it’s all of us sorted into camps that get angrier at each other per scroll. Division is engagement and engagement is the business model.
What Do We Do With This
Not paranoia, not deleting all socials (well, maybe, if you can). Habits and internet literacy:
The luxury of not caring is over :) not because your data will be stolen but because it’s already being used, politely and legally, to decide what version of the world shows up on your screen and seeps into your brain.
Sources: Heritage Foundation | Reckon | PBS NewsHour | The Conversation | CalMatters | NPR | Harvard Carr-Ryan Center | The Register | CPO Magazine
What I found is actually scarier than the conspiracy (as most things are these days).
They’re Not Hiding It
I actually couldn’t find any evidence of a suspected covert Heritage operation. What I found instead was sitting in plain sight on heritage.org; the think tank’s own website publishes commentary by a research assistant who describes herself, in her own words, as a tradwife influencer. She writes that her videos exist to persuade Gen Z audiences of the value of marriage and family. That’s her stated goal, under the Heritage logo, next to her job title. Another Heritage policy analyst wrote a book on womanhood that gets marketed through the same tradwife-adjacent Instagram ecosystem, pitched at women who don’t feel at home in either the girl-boss or tradwife label.
So no, Heritage didn’t infiltrate tradwife TikTok. They flat out hired it very blatantly and publicly. In some cases the influencer and the think tank are literally the same person, on the org chart, publishing under the letterhead. A policy shop figured out that a twenty-something making warm content about bread moves culture in a way a white paper never will, and they didn’t need to sneak around because nobody reads the byline on a reel.
The money around the aesthetic runs the same direction. Evie Magazine (the glossy women’s lifestyle site that looks like a tradwife mood board, if you’ve somehow avoided it) is funded by Peter Thiel, per reporting from Marie Claire. Thiel is one of the biggest Republican financial backers in tech and one of the most powerful evangelical Christians in the world.
To be fair to the women in the videos, many tradwife creators are just people filming their lives, and nobody should be accusing every wholesome farm account of being on a payroll. That’s actually why the sloppy “infiltration” version of this story bugs me... it gets debunked, everyone relaxes, and the true/just as scary documented version goes unexamined. The documented version is that the aesthetic became a delivery system (can be applied to anything and used against any one/group), and the organizations using it as one will tell you so on their own websites because if they’re not hiding it, it’s not wrong - right?
The Paper Trail
The undisclosed version of this machine exists too, it’s just not a Heritage story.
In 2024 federal prosecutors indicted two employees of RT, Russia’s state media network, for secretly funneling nearly $10 million through a Tennessee media company that was paying right-wing influencers including Tim Pool and Dave Rubin. Per prosecutors, the creators themselves didn’t know where the money came from. Their combined millions of followers definitely didn’t.
This year WIRED reported that one of the biggest liberal dark money groups funded a program paying more than 90 influencers, some up to $8,000 a month, to push Democratic-leaning messaging, with contracts that reportedly barred them from disclosing the arrangement (some participants dispute that characterization). In California right now, campaign finance filings show Tom Steyer’s campaign for governor has paid over $123,000 to influencers, and state regulators opened an investigation after some of those posts went up with no disclosure at all.
Different politics, same purchase. What’s being bought in all of these cases isn’t content, it’s the trust between a creator and an audience that thinks of them as a friend. Years of parasocial relationship, sold as ad inventory nobody can see.
After digging into the legal side of all of this, here is what really shocked me: most of this is totally fine. “Legal” or close enough. The FTC’s endorsement rules were written for protein powder, not politics. The FEC has never clearly said influencer political content needs the disclaimers a TV ad does! Isn’t that nuts?? California passed one of the first state disclosure laws in the country and experts who watched it get written noted it has essentially no penalties.
The Evil Runs Deeper… Wider… Higher?
As of this January, TikTok’s US operations belong to a new joint venture that’s about 80 percent American-owned and serves over 200 million US users. Oracle holds a stake, alongside the investment firm Silver Lake and MGX, a state-owned Abu Dhabi fund, with ByteDance keeping 19.9 percent. Oracle also got the technical keys meaning it will retrain, test, and update TikTok’s recommendation algorithm on US user data, and moderation rules (what’s allowed, what’s suppressed, what you and I can post) get set by the investor-controlled entity.
“What’s Oracle and why does that sound familiar in a bad way?”
Oracle is one of the oldest giants in tech, roughly fifty years old, and it doesn’t sell anything to you. It sells the invisible plumbing such as databases and cloud infrastructure that corporations and governments run on. Your health insurer, your bank, the streaming service you fell asleep to last night... decent odds Oracle’s systems are somewhere underneath. Its very first customer in the late 1970s was the CIA (the name “Oracle” is the code name of that project), and it has held contracts with the NSA, the Department of Defense, and Homeland Security in the decades since. Fifty years of getting paid to store and analyze other people’s information, frequently for the state.
Its track record with your information specifically is worth knowing as well. In 2024 Oracle paid $115 million to settle Katz-Lacabe v. Oracle, a class action alleging it built unauthorized “digital dossiers” on hundreds of millions of people (where they browsed, where they banked, where they bought gas and ate dinner) and sold access through its ad products. Oracle denied wrongdoing, settled anyway, and shut down its entire ad business the same year. Its chairman and co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the richest people alive and one of the largest Republican donors in the country, got up at a company analyst meeting in September 2024 and described a future where AI continuously processes camera footage from doorbells, dashboards, drones, and police, predicting that “citizens will be on their best behavior” because everything is recorded and reported. Are you SERIOUS that’s fucking terrifying. Fortune later pointed out those comments hit different once his company landed at the center of the TikTok deal.
Now the honest caveats, because TikTok has not turned into a propaganda feed since the deal closed. The feared overnight transformation didn’t happen, digital rights groups are raising structural concerns rather than pointing at a smoking gun, and speculation is not evidence. I’m not going to be alarmist and tell you your FYP is compromised, because that’s not the daily reality and we’re here to discuss literacy not freak out and move onto a new horror next week.
What I’ll explain is the structure, because the structure is documented and verified: algorithm control is editorial power with no visibility. When a newspaper buries a story there’s a masthead and a corrections policy. When a recommendation algorithm turns the volume down on a topic, there is nothing to point at, and you cannot see what you were never shown. That power now sits with a company whose chairman has explicit politics and an on-the-record enthusiasm for mass surveillance. Whether he ever uses it is a separate question from whether he holds it. He holds it. Meanwhile his son David bought Paramount last year, putting CBS News in the family portfolio, and Meta spent the same stretch ending its third-party fact-checking program. None of these facts individually is a scandal… which is the sneaky part and why you need to see beyond what you’re watching.
“I don’t care if they have my data” (I said it too)
For years my answer to privacy warnings was a shrug. So they have my data. What’s actually going to happen to me? Honestly, for a long time nothing has. The harms we got warned about (identity theft, drained accounts) mostly didn’t happen to most people, so the warnings felt like cautionary noise.
The mistake was thinking data theft was the threat. Cambridge Analytica spelled out the actual product back in 2018, when data from tens of millions of Facebook profiles got used to build psychological profiles for political targeting. Your data doesn’t get used to rob you, it gets used to know you. What makes you anxious, what makes you feel behind, what aesthetic soothes you, what a message has to look like before you’ll accept it without checking. Somebody’s data said a generation of young women is exhausted, priced out, and nostalgic for a life that feels achievable, and content arrived dressed exactly right for that reading.
So this is the machine assembled; data that knows who’s persuadable and how. An algorithm, owned by people with extreme politics, deciding what we see. Trusted faces, some quietly paid, delivering it. Everything about it is legal. Every piece deniable. It runs in both political directions at once, which is why the output isn’t one ideology winning, it’s all of us sorted into camps that get angrier at each other per scroll. Division is engagement and engagement is the business model.
What Do We Do With This
Not paranoia, not deleting all socials (well, maybe, if you can). Habits and internet literacy:
- Notice the pivot. Pipeline content almost never opens with or even mentions politics. It opens with sourdough bread, or budgeting, or decluttering, and it earns months of trust before the worldview shows up as a natural-sounding aside. The pivot is the moment the video stops being about what it claims to be about. Once you start watching for it, you can’t unsee it. You’re allowed to love the sourdough and get off ride right there.
- Treat your own outrage as data. The algorithm doesn’t optimize for informing you, it optimizes for keeping you, and nothing keeps people scrolling like anger and vindication. The strength of your reaction is not evidence something is true, it’s evidence it’s working. Furious and certain within the same ten seconds? That feeling is the hook. Same reflex as a too-good-to-be-true email: slow down, verify, then decide.
- Read laterally. No one wants to employ professional fact-checking tactics when you’re just “relaxing your brain and scrolling.” BUT if you’re experiencing the feeling mentioned above, open a new tab, search the claim, search the creator’s name plus “funded by.” An account can look very credible from the inside and be a known operation from the outside, and the only way to see that is from some research and digging.
- Check the account, not just the content. When was it created? What did it post before this election cycle? Does the “regular mom” have suspiciously professional production, a posting schedule like a job, and nothing personal older than a year? None of these alone proves anything but it’s a good habit of pattern-spotting and paid networks leave patterns.
- Hunt for the disclosure, and clock where it’s hiding. Just like we mentioned in the special feature about Mel Robbins AI grift, always check the caption for #ad, #partner, “paid partnership.” If it exists it’s buried, because disclosure that works defeats the point of buying a trusted voice. When there’s no tag at all on content that feels like a campaign... remember what I said earlier about the legality and lack of regulation on all of this. No label does not mean no sponsor.
- Curate on purpose. Your feed is not a window into the world, it’s a profile of your past self fed back to you and you can edit it like one. Seek out and follow people you disagree with who argue in good faith, because the algorithm will never volunteer them. Follow primary sources so news reaches you before commentary does, and every so often search a topic directly instead of waiting to be fed it.
The luxury of not caring is over :) not because your data will be stolen but because it’s already being used, politely and legally, to decide what version of the world shows up on your screen and seeps into your brain.
Sources: Heritage Foundation | Reckon | PBS NewsHour | The Conversation | CalMatters | NPR | Harvard Carr-Ryan Center | The Register | CPO Magazine