Has NCMEC publicly confirmed receiving reports from xAI or X specifically about AI-generated CSAM?

1. What NCMEC has said on AI-made images and platform reports

NCMEC’s public stance is clear that sexual images of children created using AI are considered CSAM, and a spokesperson reiterated this definition to reporters, noting that NCMEC processes reports of CSAM that appear on X in the United States ^[1]. NCMEC’s own materials and allied NGO commentary document a sharp increase in AI‑generated CSAM reports to its CyberTipline — numbers cited in reporting show hundreds of thousands of AI‑related tips to NCMEC in the first half of 2025 compared with a much smaller tally the prior year ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

2. What reporting shows about X and platform-originated tips to NCMEC

X (formerly Twitter) and its systems have historically submitted CyberTipline reports to NCMEC: reporting noted that X sent more than 370,000 child exploitation reports to NCMEC in the first half of 2024 and that the platform has, at times, suspended millions of accounts for CSAM-related behavior ^[2]. Journalists cite NCMEC as processing platform-originated reports on X, and California authorities’ investigations of xAI reference material that allegedly circulated on X, underscoring that content generated or shared via Grok/Grok Imagine becomes part of the ecosystem NCMEC monitors ^{[7] [1] [2]}.

3. Where the record is thin: direct confirmations from NCMEC about xAI itself

Despite NCMEC’s public comments on AI‑generated CSAM generally and its acknowledgment that it processes reports tied to X, the sources provided do not show a direct NCMEC statement saying “we have received reports from xAI (the company)” or “xAI submitted CyberTipline reports regarding Grok outputs.” Coverage about Grok and xAI documents industry, regulator, and platform activity — including large aggregate counts to NCMEC and public NCMEC guidance — but not a named, public confirmation that the non‑profit received reports explicitly originating from xAI as an entity ^{[8] [1] [5]}.

4. How third‑party tallies and advocacy groups frame NCMEC’s totals

Independent outlets and child‑safety NGOs have published striking figures attributed to NCMEC’s CyberTipline — for example, claims that reports of AI‑generated CSAM rose from the low thousands in 2024 to hundreds of thousands by mid‑2025 — and Thorn and other groups have cited NCMEC data in advocacy for new laws and platform accountability ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Those summaries demonstrate NCMEC’s central role in aggregating tips, but they are aggregate data points and do not substitute for a named confirmation linking individual corporate actors (like xAI) to specific CyberTipline submissions ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Alternative readings and implicit agendas in the reporting

Some coverage emphasizes that platforms and AI labs (OpenAI, Anthropic) have publicly reported making CSAM reports to NCMEC ^{[9] [5]}, while reporting on xAI focuses more on regulatory probes, platform complaints and Grok’s emergent failures ^{[8] [7]}. That difference in emphasis can create an implicit narrative that xAI is avoiding transparency; the documented reality in these sources is instead that NCMEC has confirmed receipt of platform-originated tips and treated AI images as CSAM, but a direct, public NCMEC confirmation naming xAI as a reporter or the origin of specific CyberTipline entries is not present in the material reviewed ^{[1] [2] [7]}.

6. Bottom line

NCMEC has publicly stated that AI‑generated sexual images of children are CSAM and it processes reports tied to X, and other public reporting and NGO statements show a dramatic rise in AI‑related CyberTipline reports to NCMEC — but the sources supplied do not include a direct NCMEC public confirmation that it has received reports specifically from xAI (the company) or that xAI itself submitted CyberTipline reports about Grok’s outputs ^{[1] [2] [4] [5]}.