What Happened When Five AI Models Fact-Checked Trump
What Happened When Five AI Models Fact-Checked Trump

What Happened When Five AI Models Fact-Checked Trump

President Donald Trump has presented himself as a strong champion and consistent supporter of artificial intelligence. Upon returning to the White House, one of his first acts was to issue an executive order to “sustain and enhance America’s dominance in AI.” On his second day in office, he announced the Stargate Project, calling it “the largest AI infrastructure project, by far, in history.”
The president has courted AI luminaries, most notably Sam Altman, Larry Ellison, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. His “big, beautiful budget bill” contains a provision prohibiting states from regulating AI over the next decade, in the hopes that this will help secure U.S. supremacy in the global AI race.
However, though Trump appears to support AI, that does not mean AI supports him, as our recent AI analysis of some of the president’s many questionable public statements shows.
To counter any inadvertent bias or systemic failures, we asked each of five leading AI models—OpenAI’s ChatGPT; Anthropic’s Claude; X/xAI’s Grok (owned by Elon Musk); Google’s Gemini; and Perplexity—to verify the president’s most oft-repeated claims or assertions. The systems are completely independent, with no known ideological filters and no revealed perspective biases among the model trainers. Statisticians would call this methodological verification a check for inter-rater reliability.
Artificial intelligence discredited all the Trump claims we presented, fact-checking the president with startling accuracy and objective rigor.
Across all questions, AI model responses disproving Trump’s claims or rejecting his assertions were always in the majority (i.e., 3 out of 5 responses or greater). All five models generated consistent responses firmly denying the claims in 16 of the 20 questions. In 15 of those consistently firm responses, all five AI models debunk the claims. (Note: Question 19 in the comprehensive analysis addresses the models’ lack of inherent bias against Trump and is one of those 16 responses, bringing the technical total down to 15 instead of 16.) But even those responses that we categorized as “less firm” partially refute Trump’s claims.
Consider the following sample of responses. Most questions with “less firm” responses have been included and are denoted by an asterisk.