Deepfake Generated by the Lincoln Project of Trump's Father Used in Political Attack Ad

The Lincoln Project used AI to create a deepfake video of Donald Trump's deceased father criticizing him. Although they made it clear that the video was a deepfake, the deeply personal nature of the attack represents a corrosive use of artificial intelligence in undermining democratic norms during an election cycle.

Risk classification

• Primary risk domain: 4 Malicious actors
• Primary risk subdomain: 4.3 Fraud, scams, and targeted manipulation

The incident involves the creation of a deepfake video of a deceased individual to target, humiliate, and manipulate the reputation of a specific victim (Donald Trump) for political advantage.

Additional risk subdomains

• 4.1 Disinformation, surveillance, and influence at scale: The deepfake was deployed as a political attack ad to influence public opinion and political processes at scale.
• 1.2 Exposure to toxic content: The AI-generated video contains highly abusive, insulting, and toxic language directed at the target.

Causal factors

• Entity: Human
• Intent: Intentional
• Timing: Post-deployment

The incident was caused by humans (the [PERSON_002] Project) intentionally using deployed AI generation tools to create a political attack ad.

EU AI Act risk tier

• Risk tier: 3 Limited Risk

Limited Risk: The system is used to generate AI-generated content such as deepfakes, which under the Act requires specific transparency obligations to ensure users are informed that the content is synthetic.

AI system and alleged parties

• AI system: unspecified
• AI purpose: Deepfake Video Generation; Voice Generation
• Behaviour type: Tool
• Alleged developer: Lincoln Project
• Alleged deployer: Lincoln Project
• Alleged harmed parties: Public discourse integrity, Political integrity, General public, Donald Trump

Harm severity

Severity ratings are based on this scale.

Highest direct severity in any category: Minor. Severity is scored from Negligible to Catastrophic in each harm category, for harm the reports describe as caused directly or indirectly by the AI system.

• Physical: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Infrastructure: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Property: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Financial: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Environmental: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Malicious content: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Differential treatment: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Civil rights: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Democracy: direct Minor, indirect Minor
• Privacy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Psychological: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Epistemic: direct Minor, indirect Minor
• Child sexual exploitation and abuse: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible

Malicious content

Reported: Yes, the report explicitly describes the creation of a vicious attack ad containing highly insulting and vulgar synthetic speech.

Directly caused: The AI-generated video of Fred Trump contains highly toxic and abusive language targeting Donald Trump, calling him 'trash', 'weak down there', and 'dumb'.

Inferred additional harm: The release of such highly toxic synthetic content likely encourages further uncivil and abusive discourse among the public and political campaigns.

Democracy

Reported: Yes, the report explicitly notes that deepfakes seem certain to have a 'corrosive effect on the discourse' and do not feel 'close to constructive political dialogue'.

Directly caused: The use of synthetic media to impersonate deceased relatives for political attacks degrades the quality of democratic debate and political campaigns.

Indirectly caused: The existence of deepfakes allows politicians to falsely claim that genuine embarrassing footage of them is AI-generated, undermining accountability.

Inferred additional harm: Widespread adoption of these tactics could lead to a broader erosion of public trust in political campaigns, media, and democratic institutions.

Epistemic

Reported: Yes, the report describes how the existence of AI-generated imagery and audio allows politicians to falsely claim genuine footage is fake, and mentions other deceptive deepfakes like the Joe Biden robocall.

Directly caused: The ad itself was disclosed as AI, but it contributes to an environment where the line between real and fake is blurred.

Indirectly caused: Politicians like Donald Trump have already falsely claimed multiple times that genuine video and photos of him were the product of AI, exploiting the 'liar's dividend'.

Inferred additional harm: This contributes to a broader erosion of shared reality and public trust, making it harder for citizens to distinguish truth from falsehood in political contexts.

People affected

• Occurrences reported: 1
• People reportedly harmed: 1
• People reportedly exposed: 1

Potential causes

Management

• Prioritizing Viral Engagement: Campaigns prioritize viral reach over ethical standards in political ads.
• Lack of Ethics Guidelines: No internal organizational policies governing the resurrection of the dead.

Technology

• Advanced Voice Synthesis: Allows cloning of voices, like Joe Biden or Fred Trump, with high accuracy.
• Deepfake Generation Tools: Enables creation of realistic video and audio of deceased individuals.

Data Inputs

• Archival Audio and Video: Abundant historical data allows training of voice clones for deceased targets.
• Lack of Media Provenance: No cryptographic signatures to distinguish real media from AI-generated media.

Human Factors

• The Liars Dividend: Politicians falsely claim genuine footage is AI to avoid accountability.
• Voter Susceptibility: Public struggles to differentiate between real and AI-generated political ads.

Process and Methods

• Deceptive Campaigning: Using AI to generate fake endorsements or attacks without clear disclosure.
• Unverified Content Release: Releasing deepfakes, like the NYC assemblymember audio, without verification.

Regulatory Environment

• Absence of Deepfake Laws: Lack of federal regulations banning deceptive AI-generated political content.
• Inadequate Robocall Policing: Slow regulatory response to malicious AI-generated robocalls targeting voters.

Information quality

• Classification confidence: High
• Reason for confidence: The report clearly describes the creator, the target, the content of the deepfake, and the political context. The PAC's disclosure of AI use is explicitly stated, and the broader implications on political discourse are well-articulated.
• Ambiguities identified: The specific AI software or model used to generate the deepfake is not named.

An anti-Trump political action committee released an AI-generated deepfake of Donald Trump's deceased father criticizing him. Although disclosed as synthetic, the incident highlights the evolving use of deepfakes in political campaigns and the potential long-term erosion of epistemic security and public trust in democratic discourse.

• Overall national security impact: Minor
• Scope: Single nation
• Primary target: United States
• Alleged perpetrator: The [PERSON_002] Project

Threat characteristics

• Imminence: Long-term. Represents an ongoing strategic concern regarding the role of synthetic media in democratic elections, rather than an active, immediate crisis.
• Autonomy: Human-controlled. The AI system functioned strictly as a content-generation tool under direct human design and execution.
• Novelty: Evolved capability. Represents an evolved tactic of using synthetic likenesses of deceased family members for political attack ads, building on established deepfake technology.

Impact by dimension

• Physical security: Negligible. No physical systems, critical infrastructure, or kinetic targeting were affected or involved in this incident.
• Information security: Minor. Involves synthetic media used in a domestic campaign. While it represents a public information operation, the creators disclosed the AI use, limiting its classification as covert warfare.
• Sovereignty: Minor. The incident targets a political candidate and touches on electoral discourse, but does not compromise active government decision-making, border control, or constitutional processes.
• Economic security: Negligible. No threats to financial systems, strategic technologies, or economic stability were reported.
• Societal stability: Minor. Contributes to the erosion of epistemic security and public trust in political media, but the specific incident is a disclosed political ad with localized impact.