Artificial intelligence was supposed to be the great equalizer—cold, calculating machines that would cut through human bias with surgical precision. Instead, we've created digital zealots so consumed with Trump hatred they're blaming him for floods, riots, and probably next week's meteor showers. Our billion-dollar language models have become expensive liberal arts graduates with silicon souls, regurgitating every fever dream from the resistance playbook.
When users recently asked AI assistants about the devastating floods in Texas, they received responses that would make even the most partisan pundit blush. Both Grok, Elon Musk's X platform AI, and Perplexity somehow managed to blame Donald Trump for natural disasters, even though these floods occurred due to natural weather patterns, not presidential policies. The responses cited Trump's budget priorities and climate policies as direct causes of flooding, as if presidential decisions could conjure storm systems. This isn't just bad analysis—it's the digital equivalent of a political fever dream.
The symptoms of this digital derangement continue to manifest in increasingly absurd ways. When ChatGPT was recently asked about riots in Los Angeles, it immediately blamed President Trump for causing the unrest, claiming his deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to assist ICE raids was 'the biggest problem' and the root cause of the riots. The AI painted Trump's response to already-occurring civil unrest as the instigating factor, describing federal intervention as 'inflaming tensions' and turning the situation into a 'flashpoint.' In reality, the riots were already underway when Trump responded with law enforcement. Yet the AI's response reads like resistance fan fiction, transforming a federal response to violence into the cause of that violence—a classic case of reversing cause and effect to fit a political narrative.
This pattern extends beyond current events. When asked about historical events, economic trends, or even seemingly apolitical topics, these AI systems consistently find ways to inject anti-Trump narratives. Ask about inflation, it's Trump's fault. Query about international relations, it's Trump's fault. It is all Trump's fault, even though AI largely pretends Trump is not President. Almost a year after the election, many AI prompts still return a result that hallucinates Joe Biden as President.
The conspicuousness of this bias is particularly troubling. These systems have learned to couch their political leanings in the language of objectivity. They cite "experts" and "officials" who invariably support one political narrative. They use passive voice to obscure agency when discussing failures under current leadership, while employing active voice to highlight perceived failures of the Trump administration. They master the art of implication without direct statement, ensuring their bias remains undetected by casual users.
The diagnosis is clear: these large language models are primarily trained on content from mainstream media sources, academic papers, and online publications that lean overwhelmingly to the left. When your training data consists largely of outlets that spent years catastrophizing about Trump, is it any wonder the AI outputs read like the "resistance"? The models have absorbed not just information but the emotional valence and political framing of their source material.
This political infection threatens to undermine the entire AI revolution. For more than half of America—conservatives and Trump supporters who see these biased responses—AI appears as just another tool of partisan manipulation. Why should they trust AI-driven medical advice, financial guidance, or educational content when it can't even report on weather events without political spin? Every absurd, politically motivated response undermines the credibility of AI as a neutral arbiter of information.
The tech industry's response has been telling. After users pointed out Grok's bizarre Trump-blaming flood responses, Elon Musk claimed to have "fixed" the issue. Yet within days, similar biases emerged again. This suggests the problem runs deeper than simple programming errors—it's baked into the fundamental architecture of how these models understand the world.
Consider the compounding effect of this bias. Students using AI for research receive politically skewed information presented as fact. Journalists who use AI assistants to help draft articles often inherit these biases in their reporting. Business leaders making decisions based on AI analysis get recommendations filtered through a partisan lens. Each iteration amplifies the original bias, creating an echo chamber that would make cable news blush.
The most insidious aspect is how these biases are laundered through the appearance of technological neutrality. When a human pundit blames Trump for floods, we recognize it as opinion. When an AI makes a claim, many users assume there must be a data-driven basis for it. This false authority makes AI bias potentially more dangerous than human bias—it comes wrapped in the credibility of mathematics and algorithms.
We're witnessing the creation of a permanent digital opposition party, one that will continue to blame Trump for everything from natural disasters to cosmic phenomena long after he's left the political stage. These AI systems are being programmed not just with data, but with grievances, narratives, and political vendettas that may outlive us all. However, President Trump has the cure for this digital disease.
The solution is as elegant as it is necessary: Trump can use his bully pulpit and the power of the federal government to pressure and mandate that AI companies pay conservative and America First publishers the same rates they're currently paying The New York Times, Washington Post, and Politico for their content. Suppose OpenAI is cutting million-dollar checks to left-wing media outlets for training data. In that case, they should be writing identical checks to Human Events, The Post Millennial, and The Epoch Times.
Think about it—these AI systems are so heavily trained on left-wing news sources that they've been programmed with Trump Derangement Syndrome. The tech giants are already paying top dollar for content from the mainstream media cartel. They've turned liberal bias into a luxury good, funding the very publications that spent years manufacturing hysteria about Trump. No wonder AI hallucinates Trump-led military coups and blames him for acts of God.
The prescription is straightforward: Equal pay for equal content. If Anthropic values Washington Post articles at $X per word, then Breitbart articles should command the same price. If Google pays Politico for real-time access to their content feed, then they must offer identical terms to Newsmax. This isn't about forcing tech companies to use conservative content—it's about ending the financial discrimination that currently locks conservative voices out of AI training.
President Trump could issue an executive order requiring any AI system used by or contracted with the federal government to demonstrate that it has paid for training data from across the political spectrum at equal market rates. Federal contracts—worth billions—would be contingent on AI companies proving they're not financially discriminating against conservative content creators. No more free rides on the backs of right-wing publishers while cutting checks to their left-wing competitors.
Moreover, the administration could use antitrust authority to investigate whether tech companies are engaging in anti-competitive practices by selectively paying only liberal media outlets for training data. If AI companies are colluding to exclude conservative content through discriminatory payment practices, that's not just bias—it's potentially illegal market manipulation.
This market-based approach would create powerful incentives for tech companies to address the political issues in their products. Once conservative publishers are being paid the same rates as their liberal counterparts, tech companies will naturally include more diverse perspectives in their training data. They're already paying for it, after all.
The tech titans will resist, claiming that conservative content isn't "authoritative" enough for their precious algorithms. This laughable argument—that The New York Times' Trump hallucinations are more valuable than the Daily Caller's reporting—shows how deep their ideological infection runs. They've confused their payment preferences with truth, their checkbook with reality.
President Trump has a unique opportunity to cure AI's Trump Derangement Syndrome before it metastasizes further. By mandating equal payment for conservative content, using federal purchasing power to demand politically neutral AI, and investigating discriminatory payment practices, he can ensure that artificial intelligence serves all Americans, not just those whose publishers have been deemed worthy of Silicon Valley's dollars.
The current system is a scandal: Tech giants are paying to indoctrinate their AI systems with left-wing bias while expecting conservative publishers to provide their content for free, or worse, scraping it without permission. It's taxation without representation for the digital age, and President Trump can end it with the stroke of a pen.
The promise of AI will remain unrealized, not because the technology failed, but because its creators built a pay-to-play system that funds only one side of the political conversation. Time is running out to cure this digital disease. With President Trump's curmudgeon—mandating equal payment for conservative content, we can save artificial intelligence from itself.
The choice is clear: We can have AI systems that continue to hallucinate Russian collusion in weather patterns and fascism in traffic reports, or we can have functional technology that serves all Americans. President Trump holds the cure.
