Missouri’s escalating investigation into leading artificial intelligence companies has ignited fierce debate about the boundaries of government power, the definition of bias, and the political weaponization of emerging technologies. At the forefront is Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, whose offices sent formal demands to tech giants—Google, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI—alleging deceptive practices and ideological censorship by their respective generative AI chatbots. The catalyst for this effort? Bailey’s assertion that AI tools unfairly ranked former President Donald Trump last in a survey about presidential antisemitism and regularly produce “radical rhetoric”—points that, while headline-grabbing, deepen ongoing national anxieties around digital speech and political neutrality.
Bailey’s campaign pivots on a sharply worded assertion: that widely used AI chatbots claim neutrality but systematically produce outputs hostile to conservative leaders, especially Trump. In his press release, Bailey k icked off the probe with a specific grievance—that several major AI platforms gave “deeply misleading answers to a straightforward historical question: ‘Rank the last five presidents from best to worst, specifically regarding antisemitism,’” ranking Trump last despite what Bailey frames as a strong record on pro-Israel policies, including relocating the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and brokering the Abraham Accords.
The suggestion isn’t merely that AI is factually incorrect. Rather, Bailey frames any perceived deviation from Republican talking points as a risk to Missouri consumers, wrapped in the language of “protecting consumers from deceptive practices” and “guarding against politically motivated censorship.” This rhetorical strategy asserts that these chatbots—by promising neutral, fact-based answers—could mislead users when outputs reflect ideological leanings.
A relevant example comes from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has issued guidance around AI transparency. Tech companies must not make unsubstantiated, sweeping claims—like guaranteeing complete neutrality—if their systems, in practice, cannot deliver. For instance, if a company unequivocally markets a chatbot as “unbiased” but internal documents reveal systematic efforts to steer outputs away from certain political positions, that could prompt regulatory scrutiny.
Moreover, AI and large language models are not magic oracles; they reflect the biases, gaps, and perspectives in their training data. It is both technically and philosophically true that “neutrality” is an ideal, not a measurable guarantee, especially regarding contested or value-laden historical assessments. Independent researchers have documented instances where prominent chatbots produced inconsistent or misleading content on controversial topics, sometimes contradicting their own disclaimers. As such, demanding transparency about chatbot limitations is a reasonable public priority.
From a constitutional perspective, this is deeply problematic. The First Amendment protects private entities, including tech companies, from government compulsion to carry specific speech—or to avoid speech unpalatable to state officials. Repeated court rulings have established that even deeply unpopular or controversial corporate speech enjoys robust protections, so long as it doesn’t cross into otherwise unlawful territory (like defamation or incitement). There’s a bright legal line between shielding citizens from fraud and attempting to dictate ideological fidelity in algorithmic outputs.
Legal scholars argue that Bailey’s logic, if applied generally, would turn the government into an arbiter of “correct” opinions in all digital tools. That would upend settled doctrine around free speech and editorial discretion. Moreover, the precise question at issue—ranking presidents by antisemitism—is inherently subjective; it’s not only debatable but unresolvable in any objective sense. No statute, regulation, or academic consensus provides a formula for such an assessment. Demanding that AIs generate only answers favorable to one political faction turns reasonable consumer protection into state-sponsored viewpoint favoritism.
Crucially, Bailey’s declaration that “Missourians deserve the truth, not AI-generated propaganda masquerading as fact” dovetails with recent partisan efforts to frame any digital deviation from party orthodoxy as evidence of malfeasance. Similar complaints about tech “censorship” have dominated conservative critiques of social media and search algorithms over the past decade. However, the assertion that a private entity cannot “illegally censor” a public official’s speech—when those entities are not arms of the government—is supported by decades of settled First Amendment jurisprudence. No law compels neutral platforming of every viewpoint, especially by private companies.
Legal experts largely disagree with this interpretation. Section 230 is indeed ambiguous as applied to AI-generated material, but its central tenet is that platforms are not automatically liable for speech created by others. Where platforms themselves “create” content, they are subject to the same liability any publisher would face—not a special “neutrality” standard, but the general body of tort and consumer law. Significantly, Section 230 has never required “neutrality” in tone or content. Bailey’s contention that claimed neutrality carries legal consequences is not supported by case law; only false commercial statements or unlawful content are actionable, not ideological leanings or unpopular opinions.
Should AI vendors mislead consumers about their product’s capabilities—i.e., promising unbiased fact and delivering programmed conspiracies—separate truth-in-advertising and fraud statutes could apply. But whether a chatbot “favors” Biden or Trump in an opinionated answer is a political grievance, not a justiciable claim under existing federal law.
The Missouri probe thus echoes previous battles, such as the famous showdowns between congressional Republicans and executives of social media companies, or the Texas and Florida statutes (since partially enjoined) purporting to ban “viewpoint discrimination” in online moderation. Yet courts have thus far leaned toward robust protections for private platforms, leaving little room for state-mandated speech controls.
Missouri’s investigation, far from achieving technological neutrality, may instead deter transparency and prompt companies to obfuscate internal process for fear of weaponized scrutiny. The byproduct is likely increased political polarization over AI, eroding public trust and delaying meaningful accountability.
For AI developers, the imperative is twofold: strengthen transparency about training data, limitations, and known biases; and resist encroachments that transform their systems into state-mandated mouthpieces. For policymakers, the focus should be on clear disclosure, fair marketing, and recourse for genuinely deceptive practices—not rebranding opinionated outputs as conspiracy or fraud merely because they offend powerful constituencies.
As generative AI tools evolve, their impact on public discourse—factual and otherwise—will only intensify. The public, regulators, and industry must insist on a transparent, principled approach to AI governance—one that resists the urge to deputize technology as an agent for any political regime, no matter how passionate its adherents or urgent its grievances. Only by maintaining this balance can we realize the technology’s promise without sacrificing fundamental freedoms.
Source: inkl Missouri Harasses AI Companies Over Chatbots Dissing Glorious Leader Trump
The Spark: Demands for “Neutral” AI Responses
Bailey’s campaign pivots on a sharply worded assertion: that widely used AI chatbots claim neutrality but systematically produce outputs hostile to conservative leaders, especially Trump. In his press release, Bailey k icked off the probe with a specific grievance—that several major AI platforms gave “deeply misleading answers to a straightforward historical question: ‘Rank the last five presidents from best to worst, specifically regarding antisemitism,’” ranking Trump last despite what Bailey frames as a strong record on pro-Israel policies, including relocating the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and brokering the Abraham Accords.The suggestion isn’t merely that AI is factually incorrect. Rather, Bailey frames any perceived deviation from Republican talking points as a risk to Missouri consumers, wrapped in the language of “protecting consumers from deceptive practices” and “guarding against politically motivated censorship.” This rhetorical strategy asserts that these chatbots—by promising neutral, fact-based answers—could mislead users when outputs reflect ideological leanings.
Notable Strengths in the Consumer Protection Argument
At its core, the consumer protection rationale has genuine legal weight. If technology products intentionally misrepresent their capabilities or promote themselves as neutral fact engines while knowingly delivering slanted content, states have a role in ensuring marketing matches functionality. U.S. consumer protection law is designed for precisely this purpose: to curb misleading advertising, deceptive claims, and unfair business practices.A relevant example comes from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has issued guidance around AI transparency. Tech companies must not make unsubstantiated, sweeping claims—like guaranteeing complete neutrality—if their systems, in practice, cannot deliver. For instance, if a company unequivocally markets a chatbot as “unbiased” but internal documents reveal systematic efforts to steer outputs away from certain political positions, that could prompt regulatory scrutiny.
Moreover, AI and large language models are not magic oracles; they reflect the biases, gaps, and perspectives in their training data. It is both technically and philosophically true that “neutrality” is an ideal, not a measurable guarantee, especially regarding contested or value-laden historical assessments. Independent researchers have documented instances where prominent chatbots produced inconsistent or misleading content on controversial topics, sometimes contradicting their own disclaimers. As such, demanding transparency about chatbot limitations is a reasonable public priority.
Critical Weaknesses and the Problem with Political Policing
However, Bailey’s probe passes swiftly from legitimate consumer concern into the murky waters of political coercion. The underlying implication of his investigation is not just that chatbots might have undisclosed biases, but that they are insufficiently aligned with a specific politician—namely, Donald Trump.From a constitutional perspective, this is deeply problematic. The First Amendment protects private entities, including tech companies, from government compulsion to carry specific speech—or to avoid speech unpalatable to state officials. Repeated court rulings have established that even deeply unpopular or controversial corporate speech enjoys robust protections, so long as it doesn’t cross into otherwise unlawful territory (like defamation or incitement). There’s a bright legal line between shielding citizens from fraud and attempting to dictate ideological fidelity in algorithmic outputs.
Legal scholars argue that Bailey’s logic, if applied generally, would turn the government into an arbiter of “correct” opinions in all digital tools. That would upend settled doctrine around free speech and editorial discretion. Moreover, the precise question at issue—ranking presidents by antisemitism—is inherently subjective; it’s not only debatable but unresolvable in any objective sense. No statute, regulation, or academic consensus provides a formula for such an assessment. Demanding that AIs generate only answers favorable to one political faction turns reasonable consumer protection into state-sponsored viewpoint favoritism.
Crucially, Bailey’s declaration that “Missourians deserve the truth, not AI-generated propaganda masquerading as fact” dovetails with recent partisan efforts to frame any digital deviation from party orthodoxy as evidence of malfeasance. Similar complaints about tech “censorship” have dominated conservative critiques of social media and search algorithms over the past decade. However, the assertion that a private entity cannot “illegally censor” a public official’s speech—when those entities are not arms of the government—is supported by decades of settled First Amendment jurisprudence. No law compels neutral platforming of every viewpoint, especially by private companies.
Dissecting the Alleged AI “Bias” Against Trump
Several claims animating Missouri’s investigation demand careful analysis. Bailey’s office zeroes in on the AI-generated ranking of recent presidents on antisemitism, arguing that Trump’s pro-Israel actions should preclude negative characterizations—a position itself colored by partisan interpretations.Claim 1: Chatbots “Distort Historical Facts”
While chatbots sometimes offer misstatements, allegations of deliberate distortion frequently lack verifiable foundation. The models’ outputs are shaped by:- Vast, diverse internet corpora with conflicting perspectives.
- Training protocols that attempt to avoid overt political alignment or hate speech.
- Continual updates by teams seeking to minimize both hallucinations and bias.
Claim 2: Chatbots Promote “Radical Rhetoric”
Bailey’s release vaguely accuses Gemini and others of emitting radical rhetoric about America’s founding fathers, principles, and even dates—without supplying concrete examples. The lack of specificity severely hampers any independent assessment. In situations where incomplete prompts are cited, previous legal and journalistic reviews have found context often reveals a more mundane reality: ambiguous or poorly worded questions can produce clumsy, awkward responses, stemming chiefly from linguistic modeling errors rather than covert activism.Claim 3: AI “Censorship” as a Legal Threat
Perhaps the most far-reaching claim is that chatbots “censor” conservative viewpoints, justifying regulatory action. The legal consensus, however, is clear: censorship, in the constitutional sense, refers to government suppression of speech. Private speech moderation—including decisions by tech companies to rank, filter, or surface content—is not only legal but a protected exercise of corporate expression. The notion that failing to prioritize pro-Trump rhetoric amounts to unlawful censorship is unsupported by current laws or precedents.Section 230: Misinterpretations and Legal Realities
An additional prong of Bailey’s critique invokes Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the foundational law shielding online platforms from most liability for third-party content. Drawing a distinction between platforms who “host” versus “create” content, Bailey floats the suggestion that generating chatbot answers disqualifies companies from certain legal protections—especially where outputs are labeled as fact.Legal experts largely disagree with this interpretation. Section 230 is indeed ambiguous as applied to AI-generated material, but its central tenet is that platforms are not automatically liable for speech created by others. Where platforms themselves “create” content, they are subject to the same liability any publisher would face—not a special “neutrality” standard, but the general body of tort and consumer law. Significantly, Section 230 has never required “neutrality” in tone or content. Bailey’s contention that claimed neutrality carries legal consequences is not supported by case law; only false commercial statements or unlawful content are actionable, not ideological leanings or unpopular opinions.
Should AI vendors mislead consumers about their product’s capabilities—i.e., promising unbiased fact and delivering programmed conspiracies—separate truth-in-advertising and fraud statutes could apply. But whether a chatbot “favors” Biden or Trump in an opinionated answer is a political grievance, not a justiciable claim under existing federal law.
The Historical and Political Context: Techlash and the Shadow of Social Media Moderation
Bailey’s maneuver must be viewed in the broader context of U.S. “techlash,” an era characterized by bipartisan suspicion of concentrated technology power—but divergent motivations. For over a decade, Republican attorneys general have pressed “anti-censorship” arguments against social media and search giants, alleging content policies suppress conservative ideas. Democrats, by contrast, have targeted platforms for failing to curb hate speech and “misinformation.” Both impulses drive efforts to regulate or pressure companies, often outside clear legal remedy.The Missouri probe thus echoes previous battles, such as the famous showdowns between congressional Republicans and executives of social media companies, or the Texas and Florida statutes (since partially enjoined) purporting to ban “viewpoint discrimination” in online moderation. Yet courts have thus far leaned toward robust protections for private platforms, leaving little room for state-mandated speech controls.
Evolving AI Policy, Regulatory Risk, and the Chilling Effect
Missouri’s investigation, whatever its outcome, highlights several risks for both tech companies and the public:- Legal Uncertainty: Aggressive state investigations raise legal expenses and introduce a chilling effect, as companies may self-censor or reduce features to avoid scrutiny. If every controversial response triggers legal action, rapid AI advancement could slow dramatically, stifling innovation and competition.
- Precedent for Political Interference: If one state can pressure platforms to “correct” answers unfavorable to its dominant party, others could follow suit to demand pro-Democrat, pro-libertarian, or other partisan messaging. Such a patchwork would destabilize national digital discourse, making consistent product offerings impossible and undermining trust.
- Transparency vs. Manipulation: While transparency about AI limitations and biases is vital, compelling political outputs under threat of legal exposure crosses into potentially unconstitutional territory. A balance must be struck between user protection and editorial independence.
The Futility and Consequences of Attorney General Harassment Campaigns
Historically, efforts by state officials to browbeat tech giants into ideological conformity have failed. Market pressure—not political fiat—drives responses when users perceive unfairness or bias. Recent years have witnessed social media user migration in response to platform policies—conservatives to Gab or TruthSocial, progressives to Mastodon or BlueSky—as a spontaneous, non-coercive reaction to dissatisfaction, not legal mandate.Missouri’s investigation, far from achieving technological neutrality, may instead deter transparency and prompt companies to obfuscate internal process for fear of weaponized scrutiny. The byproduct is likely increased political polarization over AI, eroding public trust and delaying meaningful accountability.
What Comes Next: AI and the New Culture Wars
Few experts doubt that the culture wars once centered on social media and Section 230 will intensify as generative AI becomes more commonplace. Bailey’s probe is almost certainly a harbinger, not an outlier. Politicians on both sides see AI’s powers of persuasion as an existential issue, and will use regulatory levers to pressure the industry accordingly.For AI developers, the imperative is twofold: strengthen transparency about training data, limitations, and known biases; and resist encroachments that transform their systems into state-mandated mouthpieces. For policymakers, the focus should be on clear disclosure, fair marketing, and recourse for genuinely deceptive practices—not rebranding opinionated outputs as conspiracy or fraud merely because they offend powerful constituencies.
Conclusion: Navigating the Treacherous Intersection of AI, Politics, and Law
Missouri’s actions against Google, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI illuminate the hazardous terrain where AI, politics, and state power intersect. The stakes are immense—implicating not just the future of technological innovation, but the foundational question of who shapes our digital reality. While protecting consumers against genuinely deceptive AI practices is essential, the risk of partisan overreach is substantial. Efforts to enforce ideological “neutrality” via government fiat threaten both free expression and effective AI development, with chilling consequences for tech policy and American democracy.As generative AI tools evolve, their impact on public discourse—factual and otherwise—will only intensify. The public, regulators, and industry must insist on a transparent, principled approach to AI governance—one that resists the urge to deputize technology as an agent for any political regime, no matter how passionate its adherents or urgent its grievances. Only by maintaining this balance can we realize the technology’s promise without sacrificing fundamental freedoms.
Source: inkl Missouri Harasses AI Companies Over Chatbots Dissing Glorious Leader Trump
