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.
Fact check: How can AI-generated videos be used to spread misinformation about public figures?
Executive Summary
AI-generated videos—commonly called deepfakes—have been shown to be usable as tools for targeted political persuasion, reputation damage, and public confusion by making fabricated audio-visual events appear real, as documented in academic and news reporting from 2025. Evidence from case studies and reviews shows practical misuse against both politicians and celebrities, while technical and policy responses remain inconsistent and often underpowered to prevent rapid dissemination [1] [2] [3]. Detection tools are improving but face significant limits, meaning misinformation campaigns can exploit these gaps unless stronger transparency, labeling, and public literacy measures are enforced [4] [5].
1. Why attackers favor AI videos: believable falsity that spreads fast
Deepfake videos offer attackers a uniquely potent combination of visual plausibility and viral appeal, enabling false narratives that text or static images struggle to achieve, especially in political or celebrity contexts. Academic analysis highlights the particular attraction of deepfakes for political advertising because they can manipulate facial expressions, voice, and context to create scenes that never occurred, thereby undermining trust in public figures and electoral processes [1]. News reporting illustrates this threat with high-profile examples that attract mass attention, demonstrating how emotional reactions to video accelerate spread and complicate corrective messaging [2] [3].
2. Real-world examples that show the playbook
Recent media coverage documented two distinct playbooks: politically motivated fabrications and celebrity-targeted manipulations. The political playbook uses AI-generated clips to depict politicians saying or doing inflammatory things to shift public opinion or discredit opponents, as explored in scholarly work and targeted reporting on incidents like the AOC deepfake story [1] [2]. The celebrity playbook—seen in the Taylor Swift deepfakes that provoked public outrage—shows how image-based manipulation can generate moral panic and distract from substantive discourse, forcing platforms and lawmakers to respond [3] [6].
3. Detection technology: progress and blind spots
Technical surveys show a shift from specialized detectors to more general-purpose, multimodal large-language-and-vision models, improving detection speed and flexibility across media types. Yet practitioners caution these tools are not infallible: false positives and adversarially robust deepfakes remain problems, and many online detection services produce results that require expert interpretation to avoid mislabeling content [4] [5]. The gap between academic detection advances and their reliable real-world deployment on platforms creates windows of opportunity for misinformation actors to exploit uncertain or delayed responses.
4. Policy responses: labels, transparency, and the “Ship of Theseus” paradox
Scholars argue the regulatory focus should include mandatory provenance, labeling, and transparency rules for AI-generated political advertising, but they also warn about philosophical and practical complications—likening iterative edited content to the “Ship of Theseus” paradox, where incremental changes erode provenance and accountability [1]. News analyses emphasize that without coherent labeling standards and enforceable obligations for platforms and advertisers, deepfakes will continue to be weaponized in ways that outpace voluntary platform policies and fragmented lawmaking [6].
5. Media literacy and civic resilience: a non-technical defense
Analysts stress the central role of public education and critical thinking as complements to tech fixes and laws. Media literacy campaigns targeted at recognizing manipulation cues, combined with journalistic verification practices, can blunt the immediate persuasive power of deepfakes by encouraging skepticism and verification-seeking behavior before sharing. Reports on political and celebrity deepfakes underscore how rapid public reaction often precedes fact-checking, making preemptive literacy and trusted verification channels critical components of societal resilience [2] [3].
6. Conflicting incentives and potential agendas among stakeholders
Responses to AI-generated video threats reveal competing incentives: platform operators prioritize engagement and moderation costs, detection vendors seek commercial demand, political actors may exploit plausible deniability, and academics push for robust safeguards. These tensions shape what measures get adopted: voluntary labeling can appear adequate to platforms but insufficient to scholars advocating legal mandates, while sensational media coverage can pressure quick fixes that lack long-term efficacy [5] [1] [6]. Recognizing these agendas is essential to evaluate proposed solutions.
7. Bottom line: layered defenses are the only realistic path forward
The evidence shows AI-generated videos are already a usable vector for misinformation against public figures and that no single fix will suffice. A layered approach combining improved detection technology, enforceable provenance and labeling rules, active media literacy programs, and platform accountability is required to reduce harm. Current research and reporting indicate movement in all these areas but also reveal persistent gaps—especially in deployment and legal harmonization—that leave room for continued exploitation unless coordinated action accelerates [4] [5] [1].