Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the origin and publication history of the photo showing Trump on his knees and Bill Clinton seated?
Executive summary
A widely circulated still-photo and a short viral video showing Donald Trump kneeling near — and in some versions appearing to touch — Bill Clinton originate from a real photograph taken at the U.S. Open in 2000; that still was later released by the Clinton Presidential Library and used as the basis for an AI-generated video that altered motion and context [1] [2]. Independent photographers, analysts and multiple fact‑checks conclude the moving clip is AI‑generated and that the original photo is a mid‑motion outtake, not evidence of the sexual behavior claimed in viral posts [3] [4] [5].
1. The original photograph: where and when it was taken
The image that anchors this story is an authentic photograph from the U.S. Open in 2000 showing then‑businessman Donald Trump and then‑President Bill Clinton smiling and in close proximity; the Clinton Presidential Library later released photos from that event and the library’s holdings include a "Donald Trump Photographs" collection with related contact sheets [1] [6]. Reporting and archives show the picture was a heavily photographed, public interaction — a single frame captured in mid‑motion among many others taken that day [2] [3].
2. How the still photo was repurposed by social media and creators
After the image resurfaced online, creators used that authentic still as the starting frame for a short clip that animates motion implying Trump grabbed or kissed Clinton; forensic analysts and the photographer who took the original picture say the animation is not authentic video footage but a synthetic movement created from the still [3] [4]. University and independent AI analysts who examined the clip concluded it was generated with artificial‑intelligence tools that “brought the photo to life,” producing frames that do not match authenticated photos of the scene [7] [5].
3. What fact‑checkers and the photographer say about context and intent
Fact‑checking organizations (PolitiFact, Snopes and Poynter/PolitiFact collaboration) report the viral video is AI‑generated and emphasize the photographer’s description that the still is an outtake — a moment between handshakes and gestures — not a depiction of sexual contact [4] [2] [3]. Those outlets cite both technical signs of manipulation in the moving clip and contemporaneous photos from the same event that show normal, friendly interaction among those present [2] [3].
4. Visual‑forensics evidence used to reach those conclusions
Analysts point to inconsistencies between background details across frames, motion artifacts, and lack of corroborating authentic video from the event to conclude the moving clip is synthetic; a University of St. Thomas AI specialist described the clip as “AI generated based on the real photograph,” and multiple independent fact‑checks reached the same finding [7] [4] [3]. The original photographer and independent analysts specifically say the animated motion was created artificially rather than captured by a camera that day [3] [5].
5. Competing narratives and why they spread
The combination of an authentic, attention‑grabbing still and easily available AI tools created fertile ground for provocative clips to be made and shared; some online posts weaponized the image to imply salacious conduct, while fact‑checkers countered that inference by showing the video is fabricated and the still is an outtake [5] [1]. The story also resurfaced in a politically charged environment — including references to other controversies and leaked emails — which amplified engagement regardless of the clip’s authenticity [1] [4].
6. Limitations in available public reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources do not mention any independently recorded, authentic video from the 2000 U.S. Open that captures the alleged act; fact‑checkers rely on the still, contact sheets, expert analysis and the photographer’s statements to reach conclusions [2] [3] [4]. If new primary footage or contemporaneous video emerges, that would need to be examined; current reporting uniformly treats the animated clip as AI‑fabricated based on the real photo [3] [4].
7. Practical takeaway for readers and platforms
The incident illustrates a pattern: authentic archival images can be repurposed with synthetic media to create misleading motion and false narratives; examine whether clips have corroborating video sources and heed forensic and photographer statements — here, multiple checks conclude the moving image is AI‑generated while the underlying photograph is genuine and taken in a public, photographed setting [2] [3] [4].