Commander-in-Tweet: A Map Analysis of Joe Biden’s Social Media Activity

What do Joe Biden’s tweets say about his presidency, and his approach to foreign policy?
Donald Trump’s use of Twitter (also known as X) as a medium for political communication was unprecedented. The former US President’s tweets, numbering over 50,000 during his time in office, were a direct channel to the public, bypassing traditional media which he often labelled as ‘Fake News’. Through Twitter, Trump made significant policy announcements, managed personnel, and influenced both domestic and foreign policy, reflecting key events and priorities of his administration.
Trump’s term culminated in the 6 January Capitol riots spurred by his inflammatory tweets and refusal to concede the 2020 election to Joe Biden. Three years after Trump’s suspension from the social media platform (by now reinstated but not used by him anymore), the relevance of X has arguably declined with its new owner Elon Musk’s rather erratic takeover and handling of the platform.
Nevertheless, X is still a widely quoted tool of direct political communication. For many politicians still on X, the medium is used as an instrument of crafting a particular political narrative and image of the politician using it, which is just as true for US politics as it is in the UK.
While Trump has moved to his own Truth Social platform, his prospective rival in the 2024 US election, Joe Biden, is a frequent presence on X. The incumbent US President uses both the official presidential account (@POTUS) as well as his personal account (@JoeBiden), the latter of which is arguably more personal as well as more polemic and often targeted at a domestic audience. In both accounts he and his media team have put a strong focus on celebrating the successes of his ongoing presidency, and the overall language differs considerably from the communication that his predecessor was known for.
Focusing on the tweets (i.e. messages sent on X) made by Biden and his team through the official presidential POTUS account since taking office in January 2021, offers a fascinating glimpse into the President’s political messaging, especially ahead of the widely expected Biden v Trump re-run in November. On social media, Biden often focuses on a narrative of economic recovery, adopting an overall conciliatory tone while still trying to actively differentiate his politics from those of his Republican opponents.

Biden posted around 2,500 tweets containing more than 80,000 words from 2021 to the end of 2023, a fraction of his predecessor’s communication through the platform. An overview of the most frequently mentioned keywords confirms some of the priorities that Biden wanted to be seen, with keywords such as ‘jobs’, and ‘economy’ dominating his messages.
Trump actively made politics through Twitter, while Biden’s tweets can rather be seen as reflections of his politics. Here lies the value in analysing his activity on a platform that Trump used on a daily – and often unfiltered – basis while he was on office.
Biden’s tweets also show where his geopolitical priorities were during his first presidential years. While the President uses X heavily for domestic statements, he did make active references to countries from around the world when it was most important to his political messaging. More than 1,200 references were made to another country during his first three years in office. The countries that dominated his global agenda from January 2021 to December 2023 were Ukraine (mentioned in 228 tweets), Russia (204), Israel (78), Palestine (74), Japan and South Korea (49 each). The United Kingdom follows in eighth place (40 mentions) after Ireland (45).
This list of countries is primarily a clear reflection of the global political issues of the ‘western’ world, particularly the Ukraine war and in the conflict in Israel/Palestine. This is a clear deviation from his predecessor’s geopolitical priorities, from Trump’s domestic agenda of building a wall along the US-Mexico border, to trade wars with China and his engagement with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Biden’s global engagement appears much more responsive to escalating conflicts (where he sees an American interest) rather than more actively trying to reshape the world.
This could be seen as a re-alignment of presidential priorities to a more domestic policy agenda following the Covid years, but also an era of reactive rather than proactive re-setting of US foreign ambitions in a more pragmatic and at times more western-centric way. This reactive approach to foreign policy is also reflected in the temporal shift of references to countries over Biden’s three years in office.

In 2021, Afghanistan was the main priority following the Taliban’s return to power there, with references to other countries – mainly political allies such as the UK, Canada, or Germany – having played a minor additional role in Biden’s tweets. In 2022, as the Ukraine war came to dominate foreign policy, Biden tested Trump-style messaging, using the phrase ‘Putin’s Price Hike’ in repeated remarks about gas price hikes, clearly playing to a domestic audience. In 2023, Ukraine remained relevant but was later taken over by references to Israel and Palestine and the ongoing conflict there. In that year Biden also made unusually many references to Ireland around St Patrick’s Day and in the run-up to his state visit to Ireland in April.
Biden’s foreign policy, as interpreted from these tweets, suggests a strategy that is more aligned with traditional US diplomatic practices of coalition-building and responding to crises in line with American interests. This approach could imply a steadier but less transformative US influence on the global stage, with a focus on managing existing alliances and international norms rather than pursuing radical changes. The implications of this shift could mean a more predictable and multilateral US foreign policy if Biden stands and wins in November, but also raises questions about America’s ability to lead on new global challenges and shape future geopolitical landscapes. With a presidential election on the horizon, the direction of US foreign policy may become unpredictable yet again.