Trump shares AI video showing Obama arrest amid renewed attacks on Obama-era officials
President Donald Trump on Sunday shared an AI-generated video falsely portraying former President Barack Obama being arrested and imprisoned, as part of a broader push to revive claims of misconduct by the Obama administration.
The video, originally created by a pro-MAGA TikTok user, was posted to Trump's Truth Social account. It features manipulated footage of Obama being taken into custody by the FBI during a 2016 meeting with Trump in the Oval Office, followed by scenes showing him in a prison jumpsuit. The footage is set to the Village People's 'YMCA,' a song frequently used at Trump rallies.
The video post came amid a broader campaign by Trump and his allies to reignite allegations against Obama-era officials. Over the weekend, Trump posted repeatedly about claims made by his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. On Friday, Gabbard announced she had referred several Obama-era officials to the Justice Department for prosecution, alleging they manipulated intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
She claimed newly declassified documents showed that the Obama administration 'politicized intelligence' to lay the groundwork for what she described as a 'years-long coup' against Trump.
Many Democrats have strongly rejected those allegations. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, called the accusations unfounded and said it was 'an effort to cook the books.'
🚨 JUST IN: President Trump posted an AI video of Barack Obama being ARRESTED by FBI and rotting in a prison cell
MAKE THIS A REALITY, @AGPamBondi! 🔥 pic.twitter.com/E72YOBpcrO — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) July 20, 2025
Some critics, including within Trump's base, have questioned the timing of the announcement, suggesting it was an attempt to divert attention from renewed scrutiny over the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Despite that, Trump doubled down on his attacks, also posting edited images of former Obama officials in orange jumpsuits and suggesting Democratic Senator Adam Schiff should be imprisoned.
Trump, who was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, is currently appealing the verdict. Nevertheless, he continues to use his platform to push narratives against his political opponents—now increasingly with AI-generated media.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
14 waste management officers sacked
A three-wheeled vehicle used for waste disposal is seen parked near the perimeter wall of the Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital in Bhagalpur district in the eastern state of Bihar, India, November 12, 2021. Picture taken November 12, 2021. REUTERS Deputy Commissioner Captain (retd) Nadeem Nasir has dismissed 14 monitoring officers, including the Assistant Manager Operations (Sadar), over poor sanitation performance and submission of fabricated reports. The action was taken during a review meeting of the "Suthra Punjab" programme held at the DC Office committee room. The meeting was attended by CEO of the Waste Management Company Rauf Ahmed, Assistant Commissioners (City and Sadar), and other relevant officials. The deputy commissioner expressed strong dissatisfaction over the performance of the Faisalabad Waste Management Company, stating that ensuring high-quality sanitation was a core priority under the vision of Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz. "No room will be given to negligent employees," he said, emphasizing that misleading paperwork cannot substitute actual ground-level cleanliness. He directed that cleanliness efforts must be visible and authentic, not just reported.
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
How the attack on Iran has damaged NPT
The writer is an academic and researcher. He is also the author of Development, Poverty, and Power in Pakistan, available from Routledge Listen to article Rather than helping to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, the Israel-initiated 12-day war with Iran, which the US also joined, has seriously damaged the longstanding Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT has thus far helped prevent 191 countries from joining the dangerous race to build nuclear arsenals, but the underlying rationale of this treaty has now been undermined. The UN formulated the NPT in the late 1960s to help avert the spread of nuclear weapons and simultaneously allow countries to harness the power of nuclear fissions. Iran signed the NPT in 1968, becoming one of its original members. While Iran has other sources of energy, it wants to reduce reliance on fast-depleting oil and gas reserves. Being able to harness the potential of nuclear energy has also become a matter of national pride for the ostracised state. Western, and other Middle Eastern powers, however, have been very suspicious of Iran's desire to harness nuclear power, fearing that its illiberal regime will use this knowhow to build a covert nuclear weapons program. Iran has submitted to IAEA inspections, despite being heavily sanctioned. The IAEA has suspected Iran to be in non-compliance a few times. However, Iran's trouble with the IAEA has arisen amidst a persistent Israeli shadow campaign to disrupt Iran's nuclear programme. The April 2021 attack on the Natanz enrichment facility, widely attributed to Israel, damaged underground centrifuge halls and disrupted Iran's enrichment timeline. Earlier incidents included the 2010 Stuxnet cyberattack and the targeted assassinations of key Iranian nuclear scientists. After years of negotiations, Iran did agree to a nuclear deal with the US in 2015, which aimed to drastically limit Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in 2018, the first Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from this deal, and reimposed harsh sanctions. After the Israel-US attacks on Iran this past month, Tehran has now suspended cooperation with IAEA. If Iran withdraws from NPT, it would not be legally prohibited from acquiring nuclear weapons, nor would it be compelled to accept international monitoring. Iran has not been an ideal NPT member state. Its intentional opacity, its ambitious ballistic missile programme and its use of regional proxies have been legitimate causes of international concern. However, Iran is justified in claiming that the rules-based international order is selectively applied. Despite possessing dozens of nuclear warheads, Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity whereby it refuses to confirm or deny its arsenal. Yet, Israel enjoys immense support and aid from the US and European powers, despite its hostilities within the occupied territories, and in the broader neighborhood. This stands in stark contrast to the transparency demanded of Iran. The Israel-US attacks on Iran have damaged the NPT's credibility, which will have implications that reverberate far beyond Iran. The NPT is now widely perceived as failing to protect its signatories, which is increasing the risk of it losing legitimacy altogether. Other states might question whether their own restraint is worthwhile, especially if regional rivals are armed or shielded by powerful allies. For such states, owning nuclear weapons may seem a much more attractive option to help them avert external threats. Even the repressive and otherwise ostracised regime in North Korea has become immune to external aggression due to its nuclear capabilities. Conversely, Ukraine dismantled its Soviet-era arsenal in 1994 in exchange for security guarantees from the UNSC and the results of that are evident in the current aggression by Russia. Lasting proliferation compliance cannot be coerced. It must be fostered through credible diplomacy backed by robust verification mechanisms. Iran needs to be brought back to the negotiating table, and Israel must be restrained from further misadventures against Iran in the name of making the world a safer place, when in effect its actions produce the opposite impact.
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
ICJ's climate ruling
Listen to article The International Court of Justice's landmark advisory opinion that states are obligated under international law to tackle climate change is a seismic shift in the global fight against climate catastrophe. By unequivocally declaring that states failing to curb fossil fuels and protect the climate system commit an "internationally wrongful act", the world's highest court has transformed moral rhetoric into legal obligation. For vulnerable nations, the ruling is a vindication of their long-running complaint that developed countries owe the rest of the world for causing the climate crisis. The ICJ opens the door for affected states to seek restitution, compensation, and restoration of their ecosystems. While proving direct causality remains complex, the court insists it is not impossible. The opinion also explicitly names fossil fuel subsidies, exploration licences and corporate deregulation as potential violations, making the transition to renewable energy a requirement, rather than an optional policy. The court also notes that "a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights", which means that, at least in theory, countries that fail to address climate change are human rights violators. Unfortunately, any law is only as strong as its enforcement mechanism, even more so for international law, where violators such as the US and Israel routinely walk out of treaties, rather than accept adverse decisions. Even before the US withdrew from most climate-related agreements under President Trump, it had long disregarded international laws that conflicted with "American interests", whether related to climate, conflict, or commerce. Still, at the bare minimum, the non-binding opinion should push the EU and countries that claim to hold human rights in high esteem into increasing their investment in climate change mitigation, while strengthening the case for some form of reparations, whether direct cash transfers or some form of preferential treatment for the worst-hit countries.
