Alleged Deepfake Scam Reportedly Promoted Trump Golden Eagles Project as Investment Opportunity

Reports surfaced of a purportedly AI-generated scam falsely promoting the Trump Golden Eagles Project. The purported deepfake videos of Donald Trump, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, and Elon Musk are alleged to have claimed that buyers could trade collectible coins for cash or Tesla stock. A Bay Area veteran reportedly lost $2,500 believing he would earn millions. The scam reportedly circulated via Telegram, and Bank of America denied any involvement.

Risk classification

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

The incident involved the use of AI-generated deepfakes to execute a financial scam targeting an individual for the perpetrators' personal gain.

Causal factors

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

The incident was caused by human scammers who intentionally created and deployed AI deepfakes to defraud victims.

EU AI Act risk tier

• Risk tier: 3 Limited Risk

Risk Level 3: Limited Risk. The report describes the use of AI-generated content such as deepfakes, which are subject to transparency obligations under the Act.

AI system and alleged parties

• AI system: None named
• AI purpose: Deepfake Video Generation; Voice Generation
• Behaviour type: Tool
• Alleged developer: Unknown deepfake technology developers, Unknown AI voice cloning developers
• Alleged deployer: Unknown scammers behind the Trump Golden Eagles scam, Unknown scammers, Telegram-based financial scam network, Fraudulent investment scheme operators
• Alleged harmed parties: Wesley Skelton, Truth, Tesla, SpaceX, Public trust in financial institutions, General public of the United States, General public, Epistemic integrity, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Brian Moynihan, Bay Area residents targeted by Trump Golden Eagles scam, Bank of America

Harm severity

Severity ratings are based on this scale.

Highest direct severity in any category: Negligible. 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 Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Differential treatment: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Civil rights: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Democracy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Privacy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Psychological: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Epistemic: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Child sexual exploitation and abuse: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible

People affected

• Occurrences reported: 1
• People reportedly harmed: 1
• People reportedly exposed: 5

Potential causes

Management

• Platform Safety Prioritization: Platforms prioritized user growth over robust safety and verification.

Technology

• AI Deepfake Video Generation: Scammers generated realistic fake videos of Trump and Musk to deceive victims.
• Voice Cloning Technology: Realistic synthetic voices were used to mimic trusted public figures.

Data Inputs

• Use of Public Figure Likeness: Publicly available media of Trump and Musk was used to train models.

Human Factors

• Victim Credulity: The victim ignored warnings from colleagues due to get-rich-quick promises.
• Trust in Public Figures: The victim trusted the scam because it featured familiar leaders and branding.

Process and Methods

• Telegram Distribution Channels: Scammers used Telegram to distribute deepfakes directly to target audiences.
• Lack of Platform Content Review: Telegram lacked proactive moderation to detect and remove AI-generated scams.

Regulatory Environment

• Weak Deepfake Regulations: Lack of strict legal frameworks governing the creation of deepfakes.

Information quality

• Classification confidence: High
• Reason for confidence: The report provides clear, detailed, and consistent information about the scam, the victim's losses, and the specific role of the AI-generated deepfakes.
• Ambiguities identified: The specific AI models or platforms used to generate the deepfakes are not identified in the report.
• Alternative interpretations: None.

A Marine Corps veteran was defrauded of 2,500 dollars through a financial scam utilizing AI-generated deepfakes of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the Bank of America CEO. While highlighting the growing capability of malicious actors to deploy realistic synthetic media for fraud, the national security impact remains minor, as the incident constitutes a localized criminal scam rather than a coordinated threat to critical infrastructure, government functions, or national security.

• Overall national security impact: Minor
• Scope: Single nation
• Primary target: United States
• Alleged perpetrator: Unknown

Threat characteristics

• Imminence: Long-term. Represents an ongoing strategic concern regarding the commercial misuse of deepfakes rather than an active crisis requiring immediate national response.
• Autonomy: Human-controlled. The AI systems for video and voice generation were used as tools directly by human scammers to generate specific content.
• Novelty: Established threat. Financial scams using deepfakes of celebrities and political figures are an established and ongoing threat vector.

Impact by dimension

• Physical security: Negligible. The incident is a financial fraud scam targeting an individual with no impact on physical systems, infrastructure, or human safety.
• Information security: Minor. Deceptive deepfakes of public figures were used to mislead, but the operation was a localized financial scam rather than a coordinated state-sponsored information warfare campaign.
• Sovereignty: Negligible. No core government operations, electoral processes, or sovereign functions were disrupted or targeted.
• Economic security: Negligible. Financial loss was limited to an individual victim with no systemic threat to financial institutions or national economic security.
• Societal stability: Negligible. The incident represents a targeted consumer fraud case rather than a large-scale threat to societal stability, civil liberties, or human rights.