A report of an explosion at the Pentagon circulated online even though no such event had happened. The image accompanying the claim appeared to be AI-generated, and within about half an hour it had been posted by a verified Twitter account called “Bloomberg Feed.” The episode showed how a familiar verification symbol can lend credibility to a false story.
A convincing account helped the claim travel
The “Bloomberg Feed” account could easily be mistaken for one affiliated with Bloomberg, particularly because it displayed a blue check. The account was later suspended. The Russian state-controlled news network RT also shared the image, according to screenshots taken before its tweet was deleted.
Other accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers, including DeItaone, OSINTdefender and Whale Chart, shared it. An Indian television network also reported the fake explosion. The image and story’s original source was not immediately clear.
These details show how a false report can move beyond its point of origin. Each repost or report can give the claim a new audience, while an account’s appearance may shape how readers judge it before checking whether the event occurred.
Why a blue check can mislead readers
Twitter’s verification system had changed so that people could pay for a blue check, after owner Elon Musk planned to remove existing checks. That shift created a gap between the symbol’s familiar appearance and what it communicated: a blue check no longer necessarily showed that an account was legitimate.
Yet readers had seen the symbol used as a marker of credibility for almost 15 years. A long-standing visual cue can influence a first impression even after its meaning changes. In this case, the name “Bloomberg Feed,” combined with the check, could make a false post look like a report from a trusted news source.
The problem is not limited to this one account. When verification no longer signals identity or legitimacy, readers have to assess the account and the claim separately. That can be difficult when a post looks like breaking news and spreads quickly across platforms.
AI images raise the stakes for false reports
Fake images have fooled people before, but a fabricated image of an explosion at a U.S. government building carries different stakes from a humorous fake image, such as the Pope wearing a Balenciaga coat. A dramatic image can make an unverified claim feel immediate and real.
Some reports linked the hoax to a 25 basis point movement of the S&P 500. The dip did not last long, and there is no way to prove that the hoax was entirely responsible. The episode nevertheless raised a question about whether generative AI could be used to influence markets in the future.
The source article also points to Reddit as an example of a platform that has affected markets. It does not establish that the Pentagon hoax caused the reported movement. That uncertainty matters: the incident is a reason to consider how false reports might affect financial decisions, not proof that this one did.
What the incident reveals about online trust
Misinformation is not new, but the growth of generative AI alongside changes to Twitter verification creates conditions in which false material may be harder to recognize. A believable image, a plausible account name and a familiar badge can combine to make a story appear credible before it is confirmed.
Readers therefore need to look beyond the checkmark when assessing breaking claims. The episode also illustrates the challenge for platforms and news organizations: a fast-moving post can be repeated by prominent accounts and reported by media outlets, even when the event behind it is false.
The image’s origin remained unclear, and the reported market connection could not be established. What the incident did make visible was the risk of treating account appearance as evidence. As AI-generated images become harder to distinguish from real ones, the signals people rely on to judge online news matter more.