AI-Generated Racism: A Presidential Crisis

White House Scrambles After AI Post Backfires
A single late-night social media post forced the White House to choose between credibility and the “it was a staffer” excuse—right as AI-driven political propaganda gets harder to police.

Story Snapshot

President Trump reposted a video containing AI-generated racist imagery depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes, then deleted it the next day.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt initially brushed off criticism as “fake outrage,” then the White House later blamed an unnamed staffer for the post.
Reporting described rare bipartisan blowback, including criticism from some Republicans and pressure from allies to take the post down.
Fox News coverage was uneven, with at least one report noting the network largely avoided the story for much of the day.

What Was Posted, When It Vanished, and Why It Mattered

President Donald Trump shared a video to his Truth Social account late Thursday night that included an AI-generated clip portraying former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama with their faces superimposed onto apes. According to reporting, the video was framed as commentary about alleged voting abnormalities. By Friday, the post had been deleted shortly before noon Eastern, after condemnation and calls for removal and an apology.

'How Did This Happen?' Laura Ingraham Confronts Karoline Leavitt on Trump's Racist Obama Post https://t.co/pkQoJ70q3C

— Mediaite (@Mediaite) February 7, 2026

The incident quickly became less about ordinary partisan sparring and more about a basic standard Americans expect from any presidency: accountability for what is posted under the president’s name. The research also indicates that the post disrupted the White House’s planned messaging, including an intended push around TrumpRX.gov. That’s not a minor communications hiccup—it’s a self-inflicted diversion in a media environment already primed to amplify chaos.

Leavitt’s Response Shifted from Dismissal to a “Staffer” Explanation

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s public posture changed over the course of Friday. Early in the day, she characterized the uproar as “fake outrage” and described the content as an “Internet meme video,” according to one account. Later, the White House attributed the post to an unnamed staffer who allegedly posted it “erroneously.” The sources provided do not identify the staffer or explain what controls prevented similar access.

That gap is central to why the “staffer did it” claim drew skepticism. The research cites social media reaction doubting that an unnamed staffer would have access to a president’s account without clear oversight, especially for a post uploaded late at night. One report also said it was unclear whether President Trump even saw the specific image before it went up. As presented, the public is left with unresolved questions rather than verifiable answers.

Why Critics Say the “Intern/Staffer” Defense Strains Credibility

The research points to a longer pattern of similar explanations stretching back years. A producer and a journalist are cited as recalling a 2015 incident where Trump blamed a “young intern” for an accidental retweet that offended Iowans. That history doesn’t prove what happened in this case, but it explains why many observers reject the explanation on face value: the defense has been used before, and the White House has not offered evidence that would settle the question.

Other context in the research complicates the effort to separate the president from provocative messaging. One report describes plaques installed around the White House that mock former President Biden and former President Obama, with Leavitt quoted saying many were written “directly by the President himself.” That detail doesn’t establish authorship of the deleted post, but it undercuts the notion that provocative political messaging is always accidental or outsourced.

Political Fallout and the Media Coverage Problem

One analysis describes rare bipartisan criticism and notes that some of Trump’s own allies pressured him to remove the post. Reporting also referenced at least one Republican, Sen. Katie Britt, publicly criticizing the content. That matters politically because it shows a line some supporters are unwilling to cross, even in a polarized moment. It also reinforces that racialized AI content is a political third rail that can fracture coalitions fast.

Separate reporting highlighted a coverage disparity, alleging Fox News went much of the day without mentioning the controversy and later gave it limited time on Bret Baier’s program. The research also notes Laura Ingraham covered it, but the provided materials do not include verified transcripts showing a direct on-air confrontation between Ingraham and Leavitt on this specific post. With that limitation, the clearest takeaway remains the documented sequence: post, backlash, shifting explanation, and deletion.