AI Chatbots Are Making LA Protest Disinformation Worse
Disinformation about the Los Angeles protests is spreading on social media networks, and is being made worse by users turning to AI chatbots like Grok and ChatGPT to perform fact checking.
As residents of the LA area took to the streets in recent days to protest increasingly frequent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, conservative posters on social media platforms like X and Facebook flooded their feeds with inaccurate information. In addition to well-worn tactics like repurposing old protest footage or clips from video games and movies, posters have claimed that the protesters are little more than paid agitators being directed by shadowy forces—something for which there is no evidence.
In the midst of fast-moving and divisive news stories like the LA protests, and as companies like X and Meta have stepped back from moderating the content on their platforms, users have been turning to AI chatbots for answers—which in many cases have been completely inaccurate.
On Monday, the San Francisco Chronicle published images of National Guard troops sleeping on floors. They were later shared on X by California governor Gavin Newsom, who responded to a post from President Donald Trump by writing: 'You sent your troops here without fuel, food, water or a place to sleep.'
Within minutes of the posts being shared, many users on X and Facebook were claiming that the images were either AI-generated or taken from a completely different situation.
'Looks like @GavinNewsom used an AI photo to smear President Trump,' conspiracist Laura Loomer alleged on X.
Some users seeking clarity turned to X's own chatbot Grok, with one user to clarify where the photo was taken.
'The photos likely originated from Afghanistan in 2021, during the National Guard's evacuation efforts in Operation Allies Refuge,' Grok wrote. 'Claims linking them to the 2025 Los Angeles deployment lack credible support and appear to be a misattribution. No definitive source confirms the Los Angeles connection.'
When challenged about the assertion by another X user who pointed out that the images were first obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle, Grok replied: 'I checked the San Francisco Chronicle's claims. The photos of National Guard troops sleeping on floors are likely from 2021, probably the U.S. Capitol, not Los Angeles 2025.'
The San Francisco Chronicle did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Grok isn't the only tool potentially making the situation worse. Melissa O'Connor, who describes herself as an 'OSINT Citizen Journalist', posted the results given to her by ChatGPT when she uploaded the pictures posted by Newsom of troops sleeping on the ground.
OpenAI's chatbot incorrectly claimed that one of the pictures shared by the California governor was taken in Kabul airport in 2021 during former President Joe Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal. The same results were shared on other platforms such as Facebook and Trump's own Truth Social as evidence that the pictures were fake. (O'Connor subsequently posted to make clear she's now aware the photos are not four years old, though the original post was left up.)
In another instance of Grok boosting disinformation about the protests, Mike Crispi, chair of America First Republicans of New Jersey and a 2024 Trump delegate to the Republican National Convention, posted a picture of a pile of bricks on the side of the road with the comment: 'The international sign that a very real, organic, totally not pre-planned, left wing protest will shortly emerge.'
The picture was later amplified to a much bigger audience by actor James Woods, who wrote: 'It's not like these 'protests' are organized though… ' His post has been viewed almost 4 million times.
The image was fact-checked by LeadStories and found to have been taken in a New Jersey suburb, but when Grok was asked to clarify where the image came from, it wrote: 'The image is likely a real photo from Paramount, Los Angeles, taken on June 7, 2025, near the Home Depot on Alondra Boulevard during protests against ICE raids.'
When another X user pointed out that the image has been shown to have been taken in New Jersey and asked Grok to retract its statement, the chatbot wrote: 'I cannot retract the statement, as evidence strongly supports the image being from Paramount, CA, near a Home Depot during protests on June 7, 2025. News reports from ABC7, Los Angeles Times, and others confirm bricks were used in clashes with federal agents.'
WIRED could not identify reports from any of the mentioned outlets suggesting bricks were used in the recent protests.
X and OpenAI, the operator of ChatGPT, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The unreliability of chatbots is adding to the already saturated disinformation landscape on social media now so typical of major breaking news events.
On Sunday night, Texas Senator Ted Cruz quoted a post from Woods, writing: 'This…is…not…peaceful.' Woods' post shared a video, which has now been deleted by the original poster, that was taken during from the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. Despite this, Cruz and Woods have not removed their posts, racking up millions of views.
On Monday evening, another tired trope popular with right-wing conspiracy theorists surfaced, with many pro-Trump accounts claiming that protesters were paid shills and that shadowy though largely unspecified figures were bankrolling the entire thing.
This narrative was sparked by news footage showing people handing out 'bionic shield' face masks from the back of a black truck.
'Bionic face shields are now being delivered in large numbers to the rioters in Los Angeles, right-wing YouTuber Benny Johnson wrote on X, adding 'Paid insurrection.'
However, a review of the footage shared by Johnson shows no more than a dozen of the masks—which are respirators offering protection against the sort of chemical agents being used by law enforcement—being dispersed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
10 minutes ago
- Axios
21 Democratic AGs demand Congress end masked ICE arrests
A coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general is urging Congress to ban federal immigration agents from wearing masks or plainclothes during enforcement operations. Why it matters: It's the latest flashpoint in a growing national effort by blue-state officials to curb what they see as overreaches by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and stop tactics they argue are designed to sow fear. It comes amid a spike in reports of ICE officers snatching people from streets, homes, workplaces and courthouses while concealing their identity and using unmarked vehicles. State of play: In a letter to congressional leaders on Tuesday, the attorneys general called on Congress to pass legislation prohibiting federal immigration agents from hiding their faces and requiring them to display identification and agency insignia — with exceptions only in narrowly justified cases. They argue the tactics erode public trust, create confusion with criminal kidnappings, and violate core democratic values. What they're saying: "We have watched these detentions with alarm, as the imagery evokes comparisons to repressive tactics that have no place in a free country," the letter states. ICE officers' "now routine practice of carrying out arrests in public spaces through masked agents who do not identify themselves as law enforcement has the effect of terrorizing communities rather than protecting them," it adds. For the record: The letter was signed by attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
Miami Herald
12 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Were Texas flood deaths avoidable? Here's what Americans said in a new poll
Many Americans believe the deaths caused by recent floods in Texas could have been prevented, and most think that the government's response was imperfect, according to new polling. The YouGov/Economist survey — conducted July 11-14 — comes after central Texas was pummeled by flash floods beginning on July 4, when the Guadalupe River surged over its banks, sweeping away homes and leaving at least 134 dead and about 100 missing, ABC News reported. Among the worst affected areas was Camp Mystic, a Christian camp in Kerr County, where NBC News reported 27 campers and counselors lost their lives. President Donald Trump traveled to Texas on July 11 and met with the families of victims. He said he wished to express 'the love and support and the anguish of our entire nation,' CBS News reported. 'I've never seen anything like it,' he added, 'a little narrow river that becomes a monster…' In the aftermath of the devastating disaster, multiple organizations and individuals have faced scrutiny over their preparedness. Among them were Kerr County officials, who did not install a comprehensive flood warning system despite being aware of its necessity, according to the Texas Tribune. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also faced criticism over its response, and the New York Times reported that it failed to answer thousands of calls from Texas flood survivors Here is a breakdown of the findings. Were deaths avoidable? In the survey — which sampled 1,680 U.S. adults — 52% of respondents said that most of the deaths could have been prevented if the government had been more adequately prepared. Twenty-nine percent said the deaths were unavoidable, and 19% said they didn't know. On this question, there was a sizable partisan divide. Most Democrats and independents — 74% and 53%, respectively — called the deaths avoidable, while just 28% of Republicans said the same. Government response The poll — which has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points — also asked respondents to judge the government response to the flooding. A plurality, 38%, labeled the overall government response as poor, while smaller shares described it as fair (14%), good (19%) or excellent (14%). Individual officials received somewhat similar marks. When asked about Trump's response, 42% said it was poor, while fewer said it was fair (11%), good (15%), and excellent (21%). Meanwhile, 36% said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's response was poor. Eight percent said it was fair; 14% said it was good and 13% said it was excellent. Presidents visiting disaster sites Additionally, respondents were asked about presidents visiting disaster sites (the survey began on the day Trump traveled to Texas). A majority, 64%, said presidents should visit locations of disasters because it demonstrates their solidarity. Just 17% said they should not do this 'because it takes resources away from the disaster response.' The results broke along similar lines when respondents were asked specifically about Trump. Sixty-five percent said they believed Trump 'should travel to Texas to survey the damage and meet with people affected by recent flooding.' Meanwhile, 20% said he should not do this, and 15% said they were not sure.
Time Magazine
14 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Republicans Scrap Cuts to PEPFAR Anti-AIDS Program
Senate Republicans reached an agreement with the White House on Tuesday to preserve funding for a flagship global HIV and AIDS relief program known as PEPFAR, backing off a proposed $400 million cut that had drawn sharp opposition from within their own ranks and threatened to derail President Donald Trump's sweeping package of spending rescissions. The deal would shield PEPFAR from the Trump Administration's plan to cancel billions in previously approved but unspent federal funds. The decision came after several Republican senators objected to including the widely celebrated HIV/AIDS initiative in a list of programs targeted for clawbacks under Trump's campaign to root out what he has called 'waste, fraud and abuse.' Russ Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, discussed the proposal during a closed-door lunch with GOP senators on Tuesday, telling reporters afterwards that backing off the PEPFAR cuts was a minor change to the bill. 'From a $9.4 billion package to a $9 billion package, that's something that's very exciting for the American taxpayer,' he said. 'Big chunks of this proposal are not falling out.' The scaled-down measure would still claw back unused funds from USAID and public broadcasting. But the move to preserve PEPFAR funding may avoid a Republican revolt, particularly from key lawmakers like Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee and had emerged as a leading critic of the proposed cut. 'I'm very pleased that the funding for PEPFAR has been preserved,' Collins told reporters on Tuesday. 'This is something I've worked hard to protect from the beginning.' Still, she said she remained undecided on whether to support the final bill, pointing to 'other problematic parts of the rescissions package,' such as cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Launched in 2003 by President George W. Bush, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is widely considered one of America's most consequential programs in Africa, credited with saving over 25 million lives and scaling back the AIDS epidemic. The bipartisan program has long enjoyed support across party lines, and its proposed defunding sparked fierce backlash not only from Democrats but also from GOP members. 'There was a lot of interest from our members on doing something on PEPFAR,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday. 'That's reflected in the substitute.' White House officials had previously justified the cut by citing claims from some social conservatives that PEPFAR funds were supporting abortion services overseas after a report found that 21 abortions were performed in Mozambique, where abortion is legal, under the program. Republicans said those abortions violated the Helms Amendment, which restricts the use of foreign aid funds to pay for abortions. 'It is essential that what appears to be an isolated incident in Mozambique does not undermine the overwhelming success and integrity of PEPFAR's mission," Democratic Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Lois Frankel of Florida said in a statement earlier this year. While the news on Tuesday was welcoming for supporters of PEPFAR, the program has still seen significant disruptions as the Trump Administration guts foreign aid programs, including USAID, which was PEPFAR's main implementing agency. The State Department is seeking $2.9 billion in funding to continue HIV-AIDS programs in the next fiscal year—far lower than PEPFAR's current budget of more than $4 billion. The rescissions package, a Trump Administration initiative under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), aims to cancel previously appropriated but unspent federal funds. The package passed the House last month by a narrow 214–212 margin and would need to be reapproved by the lower chamber if modified in the Senate. Though supporters have billed the measure as a symbolic gesture of budget-cutting resolve, the actual fiscal impact of the package is small. The $9 billion in rescinded funds represents less than 0.3% of the $3.4 trillion tax-and-spending bill Trump signed earlier this month—which he has dubbed his 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' Even with the PEPFAR change, Vought confirmed the package would still include $1.1 billion in cuts to public broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, along with another $8.3 billion in cuts for the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID. Conservatives have long targeted the CPB, which supports PBS and NPR, accusing it of liberal bias. But some rural-state senators have expressed concern that defunding the agency could devastate small public radio and television stations that rely on federal support for as much as 30% of their budgets. Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota, for instance, secured a side agreement with the White House to redirect unallocated funds toward tribal broadcasters to alleviate some of those concerns. Still, some lawmakers remain uneasy about the lack of clarity surrounding the cuts. 'It's unclear to me how you get to $9 billion,' Collins said, noting that the White House has not provided a detailed breakdown of which programs would be protected and which would be slashed. Collins showed reporters a 1992 rescission message from President George H.W. Bush as an example of how such proposals should be detailed—comparing it unfavorably to the Trump Administration's request. With procedural votes expected to begin late Tuesday and a marathon voting session on amendments scheduled for Wednesday, the coming days will test whether the Trump Administration's scaled-back proposal can overcome internal divisions—and whether the President's threats to withhold his endorsement of any Republican who votes against his rescissions package will sway reluctant senators.
