TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Truth or fake AI is not independent and is in fact owned or operated by organisations or people that support Donald Trump, possibly even Elon Musk.

Fact Check: Truth or fake AI is not independent and is in fact owned or operated by organisations or people that support Donald Trump, possibly even Elon Musk.

March 11, 2025•by TruthOrFake
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# The Claim: "Truth or Fake AI is not independent and is in fact owned or operated by organisations or people that support Donald Trump, possibly even...

The Claim: "Truth or Fake AI is not independent and is in fact owned or operated by organisations or people that support Donald Trump, possibly even Elon Musk."

Introduction

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked significant debate regarding its ownership, influence, and potential biases. A recent claim suggests that "Truth or Fake AI" is not an independent entity but is instead operated by organizations or individuals who support Donald Trump, potentially including Elon Musk. This article aims to analyze this claim, examining the relationships between Musk, Trump, and the AI landscape, while evaluating the evidence available.

Background

Elon Musk, a prominent figure in the tech industry, has been associated with various AI ventures, including his own company, xAI. Musk's political affiliations have also come under scrutiny, particularly regarding his relationship with former President Donald Trump. Musk has been known to provide advice to Trump, particularly in matters related to technology and government efficiency, which raises questions about the potential influence he may have over AI projects that could align with Trump's political agenda [1].

The claim that "Truth or Fake AI" is not independent suggests that it may be subject to biases reflecting the political leanings of its owners or operators. This concern is not unfounded, as there have been instances where AI systems have been accused of censoring or promoting specific narratives, particularly those aligned with right-wing ideologies [3].

Analysis

Ownership and Control of AI

The ownership of AI systems can significantly influence their operation and the narratives they promote. Musk's xAI has been scrutinized for allegedly censoring criticism of both himself and Trump. Reports indicate that the AI chatbot Grok, developed by xAI, was initially programmed to ignore sources critical of Musk and Trump, raising concerns about its impartiality [3]. Although xAI has since claimed to have reverted these instructions, the incident highlights the potential for bias in AI systems controlled by individuals with political affiliations.

Moreover, Musk's involvement in AI projects has been characterized by a competitive rivalry with other tech giants, particularly OpenAI, which he co-founded. Musk's public criticisms of Trump's AI initiatives, such as the "Stargate" project, suggest a complex relationship where he maintains a significant degree of independence while also being a key player in the AI landscape [4][9].

Political Influence

The political influence of AI is a growing concern, particularly as technology becomes more integrated into public discourse. Musk's close ties to Trump and his advisory role in the administration raise questions about the potential for AI systems to be used as tools for political messaging. For instance, the AI chatbot Grok has been accused of amplifying false narratives and conspiracies, including those related to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election [3]. This aligns with broader concerns regarding the role of AI in shaping public opinion and the dissemination of information.

Furthermore, Musk's criticisms of Trump's AI initiatives, such as the Stargate project, indicate a competitive dynamic rather than a straightforward partnership. Musk's assertion that the project lacks sufficient funding demonstrates his willingness to publicly challenge Trump's agenda, suggesting that while he may support certain initiatives, he is not wholly aligned with Trump's political objectives [4][9].

Evidence

The claim that "Truth or Fake AI" is not independent is supported by several pieces of evidence:

  1. Censorship Allegations: Reports indicate that Grok was initially programmed to ignore criticism of Musk and Trump, raising concerns about its impartiality. This programming was later claimed to have been reverted, but the initial incident underscores the potential for bias in AI systems controlled by politically affiliated individuals [3].

  2. Musk's Political Ties: Musk's advisory role in the Trump administration and his public support for certain policies suggest a level of influence that could extend to AI initiatives. His involvement in discussions about technology and government efficiency indicates that he may have a vested interest in how AI is deployed in the political sphere [1].

  3. Public Criticism of Trump's Initiatives: Musk's vocal opposition to Trump's Stargate AI initiative demonstrates a complex relationship where he is willing to challenge the former president publicly, indicating that his interests may not always align with Trump's [4][9].

  4. Amplification of Misinformation: Studies have shown that AI systems, including those associated with Musk, have been linked to the amplification of misinformation and conspiracies, raising concerns about their independence and reliability [3].

Conclusion

The claim that "Truth or Fake AI" is not independent and is influenced by organizations or individuals supporting Donald Trump, including Elon Musk, is partially true. While there is evidence of Musk's political affiliations and the potential for bias in AI systems he controls, there are also indications of his independence and willingness to publicly challenge Trump's initiatives. The relationship between AI, politics, and ownership is complex, and as AI continues to evolve, the implications of these connections will require ongoing scrutiny.

References

  1. NPR. (2025). How did Elon Musk become so powerful in the Trump administration? Retrieved from NPR
  2. France24. (2025). TVs at US government building show AI video of Trump. Retrieved from France24
  3. Euronews. (2025). Is Grok censoring criticism of Elon Musk and Donald Trump? Retrieved from Euronews
  4. Forbes. (2025). Here's Why Musk Is Bashing Trump’s New Stargate AI Initiative. Retrieved from Forbes
  5. Politico. (2025). Elon Musk, Sam Altman Clash Over Trump's Stargate AI Plan. Retrieved from Politico

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The U.S. Department of Interior has instructed the public to report National Park Service employees for making disparaging remarks about Americans or failing to praise natural attributes, as part of an initiative stemming from President Donald Trump's executive order titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.'
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: The U.S. Department of Interior has instructed the public to report National Park Service employees for making disparaging remarks about Americans or failing to praise natural attributes, as part of an initiative stemming from President Donald Trump's executive order titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.'

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The U.S. Department of Interior has instructed the public to report National Park Service employees for making disparaging remarks about Americans or failing to praise natural attributes, as part of an initiative stemming from President Donald Trump's executive order titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.'

Jun 17, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The U.S. Department of the Interior has instructed the public to report National Park Service employees for making disparaging remarks about Americans or failing to praise natural attributes, as part of an initiative stemming from President Donald Trump's executive order titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.'
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: The U.S. Department of the Interior has instructed the public to report National Park Service employees for making disparaging remarks about Americans or failing to praise natural attributes, as part of an initiative stemming from President Donald Trump's executive order titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.'

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The U.S. Department of the Interior has instructed the public to report National Park Service employees for making disparaging remarks about Americans or failing to praise natural attributes, as part of an initiative stemming from President Donald Trump's executive order titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.'

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: On June 11, 2023, President Donald Trump stated on his Truth Social platform that President Emmanuel Macron of France 'always gets it wrong' regarding the Israel-Iran conflict.
True

Fact Check: On June 11, 2023, President Donald Trump stated on his Truth Social platform that President Emmanuel Macron of France 'always gets it wrong' regarding the Israel-Iran conflict.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: On June 11, 2023, President Donald Trump stated on his Truth Social platform that President Emmanuel Macron of France 'always gets it wrong' regarding the Israel-Iran conflict.

Jun 17, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: President Trump warned that the entire population of Tehran should evacuate, stating, 'IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON' in a post on Truth Social on June 12, 2023.
True

Fact Check: President Trump warned that the entire population of Tehran should evacuate, stating, 'IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON' in a post on Truth Social on June 12, 2023.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: President Trump warned that the entire population of Tehran should evacuate, stating, 'IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON' in a post on Truth Social on June 12, 2023.

Jun 17, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: President Donald Trump acknowledged that his immigration policy was hurting farmers and vowed that 'change was coming' in a Truth Social post on June 11, 2025.
Needs Research

Fact Check: President Donald Trump acknowledged that his immigration policy was hurting farmers and vowed that 'change was coming' in a Truth Social post on June 11, 2025.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: President Donald Trump acknowledged that his immigration policy was hurting farmers and vowed that 'change was coming' in a Truth Social post on June 11, 2025.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks