Trump’s use of AI images pushes new boundaries, further eroding public trust, experts say

The Trump administration’s use of AI-generated imagery on official government channels is raising significant concerns among misinformation experts, particularly after the White House shared a doctored image of civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong appearing to cry following her arrest.

The controversy began when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s account posted the original image of Levy Armstrong’s arrest. Shortly after, the official White House account shared an altered version showing her in tears. This manipulation comes amid a surge of AI-edited imagery circulating across political lines following the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by U.S. Border Patrol officers in Minneapolis.

Rather than addressing criticism over the edited image, White House officials doubled down on their approach. Deputy Communications Director Kaelan Dorr declared on social media platform X that the “memes will continue,” while Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson shared posts mocking those who expressed concern about the manipulation.

David Rand, an information science professor at Cornell University, suggests the White House’s characterization of the altered image as a “meme” appears designed to frame it as humor, potentially “shielding them from criticism for posting manipulated media.” He noted this instance differs from the administration’s previous sharing of more obviously cartoonish images.

Digital communication experts point out that memes have long conveyed layered messages that resonate differently with various audiences. Zach Henry, a Republican communications consultant who founded influencer marketing firm Total Virality, explained the strategy: “People who are terminally online will see it and instantly recognize it as a meme. Your grandparents may see it and not understand the meme, but because it looks real, it leads them to ask their kids or grandkids about it.”

The controversy highlights growing concerns about truth and trust in government communications. Michael A. Spikes, a Northwestern University professor and news media literacy researcher, warned that such alterations “crystallize an idea of what’s happening, instead of showing what is actually happening.”

“The government should be a place where you can trust the information, where you can say it’s accurate, because they have a responsibility to do so,” Spikes said. “By sharing this kind of content, and creating this kind of content… it is eroding the trust we should have in our federal government to give us accurate, verified information.”

The White House’s approach exists within a broader ecosystem of AI-generated misinformation related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions, protests, and citizen interactions. Following Renee Good’s shooting by an ICE officer, numerous fabricated videos began circulating on social media depicting confrontations with immigration authorities.

Jeremy Carrasco, a content creator specializing in media literacy and debunking AI videos, explained that many such videos come from accounts engaged in “engagement farming” – capitalizing on trending topics to generate clicks. He noted that viewers who oppose ICE and DHS might consume this content as “fan fiction,” representing wishful thinking about pushback against these agencies.

Carrasco expressed concern that many viewers struggle to distinguish between authentic and fabricated content, even when AI-generated material contains obvious errors like street signs with gibberish text. This problem extends beyond immigration issues, as evidenced by the explosion of manipulated images following the capture of deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro earlier this month.

Experts predict AI-generated political content will only become more prevalent. While technological solutions like watermarking systems developed by the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity could help verify media authenticity, Carrasco believes widespread implementation remains at least a year away.

UCLA Professor Ramesh Srinivasan warned that AI systems will “exacerbate, amplify and accelerate these problems of an absence of trust, an absence of even understanding what might be considered reality or truth or evidence.” He cautioned that social media platforms’ algorithms tend to favor extreme and conspiratorial content – precisely the type that AI tools can easily generate.

“It’s going to be an issue forever now,” Carrasco concluded. “I don’t think people understand how bad this is.”