Elon Musk, a Viral Video, and the Risks of Power in the Age of AI Disinformation

Elon Musk has long cultivated an image as a technological visionary—an entrepreneur capable of bending physics, markets, and even governments to his will. From reusable rockets to electric vehicles, his achievements have positioned him as one of the most influential figures of the digital age. Yet over the weekend, Mr. Musk demonstrated a vulnerability that critics say is increasingly common among powerful elites in an era of artificial intelligence: susceptibility to emotionally charged, algorithmically amplified misinformation.

Late Saturday, Mr. Musk shared a video on X, the social media platform he owns, purporting to show Venezuelans kneeling in the street and tearfully thanking President Donald Trump for what supporters described as the administration’s “liberation” of Venezuela following recent U.S. military action. The video spread rapidly among pro-Trump accounts, garnering hundreds of thousands of views within hours.

Within minutes, however, researchers, journalists, and the platform’s own community-based fact-checking system raised red flags. The video, they noted, bore multiple hallmarks of generative artificial intelligence: inconsistent facial features, unnatural eye movement, distorted hands, and audio that appeared synthetically produced. X’s Community Notes feature later labeled the video as “likely AI-generated” and lacking credible sourcing.

For critics of both Mr. Musk and the Trump administration, the episode underscored a deeper concern: the ease with which misinformation—particularly emotionally manipulative content—can penetrate even the highest levels of political and technological power.

A Pattern of Political Alignment

Mr. Musk’s relationship with President Trump has evolved over time, oscillating between public criticism and enthusiastic endorsement. In recent months, the two have appeared increasingly aligned. Mr. Trump has praised Mr. Musk as a “genius” and “one of the greatest minds in technology,” while appointing him to an advisory role focused on reducing government spending and bureaucracy. Mr. Musk, for his part, has amplified administration narratives on X, often framing them as challenges to what he calls “legacy media” or “institutional bias.”

That alignment has come with consequences. Since acquiring X, Mr. Musk has positioned the platform as a bastion of “free speech,” rolling back moderation policies and reinstating previously banned accounts. Supporters argue that this has restored ideological balance; critics counter that it has allowed coordinated misinformation campaigns to flourish, particularly around foreign policy and military actions.

The Venezuela video appears to be a case study in how such campaigns operate. The clip was originally shared by a prominent right-wing influencer account with more than one million followers, according to platform analytics. From there, it was rapidly reposted by a network of ideologically aligned users, many of whom have histories of promoting misleading or false content.

The Mechanics of Manufactured Consent

“This is not accidental,” said Murray, a political commentator with nearly 300,000 followers on X, who was among the first to flag the video. “What we’re seeing is a coordinated effort to manufacture consent using AI-generated content that triggers emotional responses—gratitude, relief, even religious imagery—rather than facts.”

Media scholars note that such tactics are particularly effective during fast-moving geopolitical events, when verified information is scarce and audiences are primed for narrative shortcuts. AI tools have lowered the barrier to entry, allowing individuals or small groups to produce content that once required significant resources.

Oliver Darko, another commentator, contrasted the viral clip with verified footage from independent journalists on the ground. “People keep posting fake AI videos about Venezuela because the real videos are less entertaining,” he wrote, sharing footage captured by Dutch freelance journalist Thomas Vanling showing Venezuelans waiting in long lines outside grocery stores amid continued shortages and uncertainty.

“There is no credible evidence of mass celebrations,” Mr. Darko added.

Public Opinion Tells a Different Story

Polling data suggests that the enthusiasm depicted in the viral video does not extend to the United States itself. A recent CBS News–YouGov survey found that approximately 70 percent of Americans opposed U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, expressing concerns about escalation, civilian harm, and long-term regional instability.

That disconnect between public sentiment and online narratives highlights the growing influence of digital platforms in shaping political perception—often independent of, or even contrary to, empirical data.

“The danger is not just that people believe false things,” said a former U.S. intelligence analyst who now studies information warfare. “It’s that decision-makers begin to inhabit the same distorted information environment as the most partisan corners of social media.”

When Expertise Meets Emotion

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the episode is not that a misleading video went viral, but that Mr. Musk—who has repeatedly warned about the dangers of artificial intelligence—appeared to accept it at face value.

Psychologists point to a phenomenon known as motivated reasoning: the tendency to process information in a way that aligns with one’s existing beliefs or emotional commitments. Even individuals with high technical expertise are not immune.

“Being brilliant in one domain does not confer immunity from cognitive bias,” said a professor of behavioral science at a major U.S. university. “In fact, power and status can make people more confident in their judgments, even when they’re wrong.”

A Broader Warning

Mr. Musk eventually deleted the post without comment. The White House declined to address the authenticity of the video directly, instead reiterating its position that U.S. actions in Venezuela were justified.

Still, the incident has reignited debate about the responsibilities of platform owners, particularly when they also act as influential political actors.

“When the person amplifying misinformation also controls the infrastructure through which it spreads, the stakes are extraordinarily high,” said a former federal regulator. “This is not just about one video. It’s about the integrity of the information ecosystem.”

As generative AI becomes more sophisticated, experts warn that similar incidents will become more frequent—and harder to detect. The line between reality and fabrication, already blurred, may soon disappear entirely for casual observers.

For now, the episode serves as a cautionary tale. In an age when a single post can reach millions in seconds, even the most powerful figures can be misled—and in doing so, mislead others.

The question, critics argue, is not whether such mistakes will happen again, but whether those with the greatest reach are willing to acknowledge their fallibility—and act accordingly.