There are attention-seekers, and then there’s Jackson Hinkle—a man who has built a career on peddling Kremlin talking points, Hamas propaganda, and whatever conspiracy theory happens to be trending on social media. Now, he’s taken his online extremism into the real world with a trip to Lebanon, where he attended the funeral of eliminated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, seizing the opportunity to rub shoulders with some of the Iranian regime’s most senior terror proxies.
This isn’t just another performative social media stunt. Hinkle, who has been banned twice from Meta platforms thanks to HonestReporting’s efforts to push for enforcement of their own community guidelines, isn’t just firing off tweets about his adoration for Hamas spokesman Abu Obeida—he’s an American citizen physically engaging with U.S.-designated terrorist organizations. Before paying his respects to Nasrallah, he traveled across the region, referring to Hezbollah and Hamas operatives as his “brothers.” And because no terror pilgrimage would be complete without souvenirs, Hinkle was spotted purchasing Hezbollah merchandise, proudly sporting the group’s signature yellow scarf.
Aside from highlighting the sheer depth of Hinkle’s ignorance (bear in mind, this is a man who had never mentioned Palestinians before October 7, 2023 and recently claimed Jordan shares a border with Gaza), his actions could also be illegal. Under U.S. federal law, providing material support to designated terrorist organizations isn’t protected under the First Amendment. If Hinkle’s little terror tourism adventure involved financial transactions, coordination, or any form of logistical aid, he might find himself in legal jeopardy.
And given his habit of monetizing propaganda for profit, it’s worth asking: Is he merely an opportunistic grifter, or is he actively crossing into criminal territory?
Material support specifically includes services and expert advice. Given Hinkle’s clear expertise at marketing and social media, is he providing Hezbollah with free publicity?
From Online Clown to Hezbollah Cheerleader
Hinkle’s latest stunt is just the latest evolution in his career of online grifting. Before October 7, he was best known for parroting Russian disinformation. His contradictory political outlook is perhaps best demonstrated in his self-description as an “American Conservative Marxist-Leninist”—a phrase that should have been the first clue that he’s less of a serious political commentator and more of a clueless provocateur.
Then, on the morning of Hamas’ October 7 massacre in Israel, something changed. Hinkle, sensing an opportunity, went all in on pro-Hamas propaganda. His reward? A staggering rise in followers, jumping from 417,000 to over 2.3 million in just a couple of months. His playbook became clear: amplify antisemitic conspiracy theories, post fake news at an industrial scale, and cash in on the ensuing extremist fandom.
Yet, despite his track record of falsehoods, social media platforms have been slow to act. Elon Musk promised demonetization for accounts spreading misinformation, and while some of Hinkle’s most blatant lies have been fact-checked via X’s Community Notes, the damage has already been done. Hinkle has turned hate and disinformation into a lucrative business, and now he’s taken that act offline.
Read More: 7 Social Media Influencers Making False Claims About the Pager Attack
Terror Tourism or Something More? The John Walker Lindh Parallels
Hinkle’s embrace of Hezbollah might seem like an isolated case of a grifter playing revolutionary, but history tells us where this dark path can lead. Consider the story of John Walker Lindh, the so-called “American Taliban” who was radicalized by extremist ideology abroad.
While in Yemen and Pakistan, Lindh exchanged emails with his family. At the time, he was a bit younger than Hinkle is now. In one message, his father informed him about the USS Cole bombing—a terrorist attack that killed 17 American sailors in 2000. Lindh responded by claiming that the presence of a U.S. naval destroyer in a Yemeni harbor was an “act of war” and that the attack was justified. His father later told Newsweek, “This raised my concerns, but my days of molding him were over.” Less than a year later, Lindh was captured among Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, shortly after the September 11 attacks.
It’s unlikely that Hinkle—who prefers to pair his keffiyeh with a suit rather than battlefield fatigues—will follow the same trajectory as Lindh. But in today’s world, one can fight on the battlefield without physically taking up arms or living with terrorists. Groups like Hezbollah don’t need Western fighters. They need Western validators to help spread their ideology and messaging. Hence Hezbollah’s efforts to accommodate a busload of Western “influencers” for the Nasrallah funeral.
And Jackson Hinkle, with his millions of online followers, fits the bill.
The case of Lindh does, however, serve as an example of how the U.S. government has previously used its laws to intervene. Lindh was ultimately sentenced to 20 years in prison for aiding the Taliban and was released in 2019 after serving 17 years.
But Israeli legal scholar Professor Avi Bell told HonestReporting that there would need to be strong evidence to show Hinkle had provided “material support” to proscribed terror organizations during his time in Lebanon. He explained that “if [Hinkle] coordinated with the terrorist organization on specific propaganda points, that might be material support,” but noted there had been no comparable case and that concrete evidence in this instance was unlikely.
A Case for Acting Before It’s Too Late
Hinkle’s so-called terrorist “brothers” are not just a threat to Israel; they have been responsible for attacks on American and European soil as well. From Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks to ISIS-inspired vehicle rammings like the New Orleans truck attack, extremist violence has spanned continents.
As tensions in the Middle East escalate, it is crucial to assess whether current legal frameworks are sufficient to address individuals who amplify and legitimize Islamic extremism under the guise of “anti-imperialist” activism. Lindh once claimed he went to Afghanistan to fight against oppression. Had his father and law enforcement acted earlier, the Taliban might never have had an American fighter aiding their cause.
Lindh’s case set a precedent for how U.S. law applies when American citizens engage with foreign terror groups. The question now is whether authorities will recognize the risks posed by individuals like Hinkle before their influence leads to greater consequences.
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region.
