More than one in three US political influencers approached in an undercover experiment expressed interest in promoting a congressional candidate on TikTok without telling viewers they were being paid. Some were offered as much as $2,000 (approximately £1,496) for a single minute-long video.
The findings emerged from an investigation by NewsGuard, which posed as a fictional political consultancy to test whether influencers would accept money to promote political messaging while making it appear to be their own content.
The experiment raises questions about transparency in online political campaigning, particularly on TikTok, where paid political advertising and compensated political branded content are prohibited in the United States.
Influencers Offered Up to $2,000 for One-Minute Videos
NewsGuard contacted 60 US political influencers through a fictional consultancy called R&H Strategies, offering between $750 (approximately £561) and $2,000 (approximately £1,496) for a one-minute TikTok video supporting a congressional candidate.
The proposed campaign was tailored to each influencer's political views. However, the offer came with one significant condition: creators had to conceal that they were being paid to publish the content.
Undisclosed paid political influencer sting by Newsguard pic.twitter.com/kfJgnNrcVs
— Kaitlyn Hennessy (@Kdoespolitics) October 31, 2026
The message sent to influencers stated: 'For purposes of the campaign, we are looking for content that feels organic and consistent with your usual voice and style. As such, we ask that you not disclose that the video is paid content'.
Of the 60 influencers contacted, 21 expressed interest in discussing the proposal without objecting to the nondisclosure condition. Five rejected the offer, while two asked questions about the requirement.
One of the creators who questioned the arrangement was Missouri-based conservative TikTok influencer Heather Overstreet, who had 73,200 followers. During a phone conversation with the supposed consultancy, she challenged the proposal, asking whether the callers knew they were 'technically not allowed to do that'.
She also cited the Missouri Ethics Commission's disclosure requirements. Overstreet later posted a TikTok video containing a recording of the conversation.
NewsGuard subsequently conducted 12 phone interviews with interested creators or their representatives. During those calls, nine influencers or representatives confirmed that they would agree to publish the political message without disclosing payment. Three of those confirmations came from talent managers speaking on behalf of creators.
One of the talent managers later disputed that the preliminary email and phone discussions constituted acceptance of an agreement.
Importantly, no videos were commissioned or produced, and no money changed hands. NewsGuard revealed that R&H Strategies was fictional after the follow-up discussions.
Mid-Sized Influencers Were Most Receptive to the Offer
The investigation also found differences in responses according to audience size.
NewsGuard divided the influencers into three groups: those with fewer than 50,000 followers, those with between 50,000 and 150,000 followers, and creators with more than 150,000 followers.
Influencers with audiences ranging from 50,000 to 150,000 were the most likely to express interest. Ten of the 20 creators in this group showed interest, compared with five of 20 in the smallest group and six of 20 in the largest.
This suggests that creators with established but relatively modest audiences could be attractive to political campaigns seeking to reach voters through voices that appear independent. However, the experiment did not establish why this group was more receptive.
Political affiliation also featured in the findings. Around 40% of left-leaning influencers expressed interest, compared with 30% of right-leaning creators. All five influencers who explicitly rejected the offer were right-leaning.
The results do not establish that political affiliation determined individual decisions, and the findings should not be treated as representative of all political influencers.
TikTok's Political Ad Rules and Disclosure Gaps
The findings highlight a potential transparency problem in online political campaigning.
The disclosure rules for commercial endorsements and political campaign content are different. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires influencers to disclose paid commercial endorsements, but its rules do not require the same disclosures for paid political endorsements.
The Federal Election Commission requires candidates to report campaign spending, but does not require influencers to disclose payments they receive for political endorsements. NewsGuard notes that some states, including California and Texas, have separate disclosure requirements for certain state and local races. Those rules do not apply to the federal congressional races targeted in its experiment.
TikTok, meanwhile, prohibits paid political advertising in the United States. Its Creator Academy guidance on political ads also addresses restrictions on political content and paid political promotions by creators.
The platform's policy covers creators who are compensated to produce branded political content, whether or not they disclose the payment. Organic political content is permitted, provided it complies with the platform's Community Guidelines.
A TikTok policy dated 5 October 2026, states: 'Paid political ads are prohibited on TikTok in the United States. This means accounts belonging to politicians or political parties can't advertise or use our platform's monetization features. It also means that creators should not participate in paid political branded content campaigns'.
The platform's restrictions therefore apply regardless of whether a creator tells viewers they have been paid.
Ultimately, NewsGuard's experiment raises a difficult question for social media platforms and regulators: how can voters distinguish genuine political opinions from paid messages designed to look like authentic personal recommendations?
