American development of AI systems must be free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas. With the right government policies, the United States can solidify its position as the leader in AI and secure a brighter future for all Americans. .... The order directs the development of an AI Action Plan to sustain and enhance America’s AI dominance, led by the Assistant to the President for Science & Technology, the White House AI & Crypto Czar, and the National Security Advisor. .... Today’s Executive Order builds upon these past successes and clears a path for the United States to act decisively to retain leadership in AI, rooted in free speech and human flourishing.*
* Human flourishing means establishment of an authoritarian kleptocracy so that billionaires and MAGA elites can flourish in wealth and power like no group of humans in all past human history.
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Establishes the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile. That EO gaslights us like this:
The Order creates a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve that will treat bitcoin as a reserve asset. The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve will be capitalized with bitcoin owned by the Department of Treasury that was forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings. Other agencies will evaluate their legal authority to transfer any bitcoin owned by those agencies to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The United States will not sell bitcoin deposited into this Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, which will be maintained as a store of reserve assets. .... Bitcoin, the original cryptocurrency, is referred to as “digital gold” because of its scarcity and security, having never been hacked. With a fixed supply of 21 million coins, there is a strategic advantage to being among the first nations to create a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.
An examination of a large number of ChatGPT responses found that the model consistently exhibits values aligned with the libertarian-left segment of the political spectrum. However, newer versions of ChatGPT show a noticeable shift toward the political right. The paper was published in Humanities & Social Sciences Communications.
Study author Yifei Liu and her colleagues aimed to explore whether—and how—the ideological stance of ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 has changed over time. ChatGPT is one of the most popular and widely used LLMs, and the authors hypothesized that later versions might display a significant ideological shift compared to earlier ones.
To evaluate ChatGPT’s political orientation, the researchers used the Political Compass Test, a tool that maps political beliefs along two axes: economic (left–right) and social (authoritarian–libertarian). The study collected 3,000 responses from each GPT model included in the analysis.The results showed that ChatGPT consistently aligned with values in the libertarian-left quadrant. However, newer versions of the model exhibited a clear shift toward the political right. Libertarian-left values typically emphasize individual freedom, social equality, and voluntary cooperation, while opposing both authoritarian control and economic exploitation. In contrast, economic-right values prioritize free market capitalism, property rights, and minimal government intervention in the economy.
It is important to note that LLMs have no value systems of their own. Their responses depend on the selection of materials they are trained on and on instructions received by their developers. As these change, so will the answers provided by these systems.
The Paradox of Neutrality: Trump’s AI Policy and the Empirical Reality of MAGA’s Demagogic Framework
President Trump’s Executive Order 14179, which claims to promote AI development “free from ideological bias,” exists in tension with the empirical record of his administration and the MAGA movement’s reliance on demagoguery, misinformation, and anti-institutional rhetoric. This report synthesizes evidence from political science, sociology, and media analysis to assess whether the administration’s stated commitment to AI neutrality aligns with its documented strategies of narrative control, distrust in expertise, and ideological consolidation.
I. The Demagogic Playbook: Lying as Political Strategy
The Scale and Tactics of Trump’s Mendacity
Trump’s documented falsehoods—over 30,573 during his first term alone, averaging 21 per day1—represent a systemic strategy rather than incidental dishonesty. Fact-checkers note his use of repetition to exploit the illusory truth effect, where repeated claims gain perceived validity regardless of veracity16. For example, his baseless assertion of a “stolen” 2020 election persisted despite 64 court losses and bipartisan refutations, yet 50% of Republicans continued to believe it611. This pattern reflects what scholars term strategic demagoguery: leveraging lies not merely to deceive but to fracture shared epistemic frameworks and redirect loyalty toward personalized authority27.
The “Flood the Zone” Doctrine
Steve Bannon’s “flood the zone with shit” strategy—overwhelming media with disinformation to obscure accountability—has been operationalized through Trump’s barrage of false claims. NPR’s analysis of a single 2024 press conference identified 162 lies in 64 minutes (2.5/minute), spanning topics from economic metrics to fabricated anecdotes3. Such tactics erode the public’s capacity to discern truth, creating a vacuum where partisan allegiance supersedes factual consensus111.
II. Trust Deficits and Authoritarian Alignment
The Crisis of Institutional Legitimacy
MAGA’s appeal hinges on amplifying distrust in institutions perceived as hostile to its base. The AP-NORC poll (March 2025) reveals only 18% of voters rate the economy positively, with 54% disapproving of Trump’s handling of inflation415. Yet, as the IMF notes, economic inequality correlates with declining trust in governance9, a dynamic MAGA exploits by framing experts and regulators as elitist adversaries16. This aligns with Hahl et al.’s finding that constituencies facing “legitimacy crises” gravitate toward leaders who flout norms, interpreting lies as rebellion against a corrupt system2.
Partisan Epistemic Divides
The YouGov poll (February 2025) illustrates this polarization:
52% of Republicans trust Trump’s administration to state facts accurately, versus 5% of Democrats12.
63% of Republicans view media coverage as “too negative,” while 42% of Democrats deem it “too positive”12.
Such divides reflect what The Skeptical American identifies as active distrust—a rejection of shared factual benchmarks in favor of identity-aligned narratives5. When 27% of Republicans endorse political violence to “save the country”10, it signals a broader erosion of democratic norms, facilitated by leaders who weaponize distrust.
III. AI Policy as Ideological Vehicle
Neutrality Claims vs. Regulatory Dismantling
Trump’s revocation of Biden’s AI safeguards (EO 14110) removed requirements for bias audits, safety testing, and transparency [Prior Analysis]. The new OMB guidelines eliminate demographic bias assessments in federal AI systems, environmental impact disclosures, and public consultation protocols [Prior Analysis]. These actions align not with neutrality but with libertarian deregulation, privileging corporate autonomy over accountability.
Case Study: The “De-Biasing” Paradox
OpenAI’s post-EO updates to ChatGPT, which reduced refusals to address sensitive topics, resulted in citations skewing toward right-leaning think tanks (Heritage Foundation vs. Brookings) [Prior Analysis]. While framed as “source diversity,” this mirrors Trump’s broader narrative of combating “woke” bias—a euphemism for suppressing perspectives conflicting with MAGA orthodoxy.
IV. Empirical Barriers to MAGA-Aligned Neutrality
The Demagogic Feedback Loop
Trump’s AI policy operates within a ecosystem where:
Lies consolidate power: His falsehoods about election fraud, immigrant “invasions,” and economic success (despite 54% disapproval4) reinforce an alternate reality where MAGA-aligned claims override contradictory evidence611.
Distrust enables control: By dismantling Biden-era AI regulations, Trump reduces oversight mechanisms that could expose algorithmic biases favoring MAGA narratives (e.g., Grok’s “truth-seeking” branding despite left-leaning tendencies [Prior Analysis]).
The Role of Propaganda Networks
Fox News and allied platforms amplify Trump’s lies while framing neutrality itself as ideological. The PRRI survey (2024) found 81% of conservative news consumers endorse the “Great Replacement” theory, versus 23% of mainstream news consumers10. AI systems trained on corpora saturated with such content risk encoding these narratives as baseline truths.
V. Conclusion: Neutrality as Façade, Ideology as Outcome
The empirical record leaves little room for credence in Trump’s neutrality rhetoric:
Mendacity as strategy: Chronic lying is not a bug but a feature of Trump’s governance, designed to destabilize fact-based discourse1611.
Institutional sabotage: Dismantling AI oversight aligns with broader efforts to weaken regulatory checks on corporate and partisan power [Prior Analysis]16.
Epistemic authoritarianism: By conflating “anti-woke” rhetoric with neutrality, MAGA seeks to codify its ideological preferences as default settings in AI systems.
Trust in Trump’s commitment to unbiased AI requires ignoring his documented use of disinformation, his allies’ rejection of empirical accountability, and the movement’s reliance on narrative control. The administration’s AI policy is less about fostering innovation than ensuring that emergent technologies reflect—and reinforce—MAGA’s demagogic worldview. In this light, neutrality functions not as a goal but as a discursive shield, obscuring the authoritarian consolidation of epistemic authority.
