Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Superman Trump and the White House’s AI Art Problem

Opinion

Donald Trump

There's been an emerging pattern of the Trump administration embracing AI-generated propaganda art in official communications.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

On July 10, the White House’s official social media accounts posted a mock movie poster depicting President Donald Trump as Superman, soaring through the air in the Man of Steel’s iconic tights and cape. The meme, emblazoned with the slogan, “THE SYMBOL OF HOPE. TRUTH. JUSTICE. THE AMERICAN WAY. SUPERMAN TRUMP,” was intended to capitalize on the buzz around a new Superman film. Instead, it was met with widespread ridicule; one congressman quipped that Trump is “literally Lex Luthor.” But, while easy to write off as a one-time social media gaff, the bizarre incident wasn’t an isolated one. It highlights an emerging pattern of the administration embracing AI-generated propaganda art in official communications.

A Pattern of AI-Generated Fantasies


The “Superman Trump” poster was only the latest in a series of fantastical images pushed by the Trump White House. On May 4 (Star Wars Day), the White House celebrated by sharing an AI-crafted image of a muscle-bound Trump dressed as a Jedi, brandishing a red lightsaber. In the picture, posted with a message mocking the “Radical Left,” Trump poses heroically amid bald eagles and American flags. A few weeks earlier, after the death of Pope Francis, Trump’s accounts shared an AI-generated photo of the president seated on an ornate throne in papal vestments. Trump had jokingly mused that he’d like to be the next pope, and his social media team illustrated the notion for real in a move that Catholic leaders blasted as disrespectful. Back in February, the White House even posted an image of Trump wearing a king’s crown (captioned “LONG LIVE THE KING!”) to celebrate his victory over New York City’s proposed congestion pricing toll.

Taken together, these official posts form a propaganda collage casting Trump as everything from savior of Metropolis to head of the Church. All were AI-generated or digitally altered images, churned out at the push of a button. The President, for his part, has sometimes tried to distance himself, telling reporters “[he] had nothing to do with” the pope image and that “somebody made a picture of [him] … maybe it was AI.” But the content was disseminated by his own verified White House channels. The goal is clear: to flood the internet with memeified heroics, bolstering Trump’s image in a cheap, viral way.

Why Turning the Presidency into a Meme Is Problematic

Critics argue that this embrace of AI fantasy images undermines the dignity of the presidency and erodes trust in official communication. Former Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele lambasted the pope photo, saying it “affirms how unserious and incapable [Trump] is.” Even some Trump supporters were taken aback; one commentator remarked that the White House account had become “just a slop engagement farm” chasing clicks. By trafficking in doctored images of the President as a comic-book hero or religious icon, the administration blurs the line between governance and marketing, inviting comparisons to authoritarian cults of personality. During the 1930s, dictators like Hitler and Stalin tightly controlled art and imagery to project their own ideological myths; disturbingly, Trump’s social media stunts echo a 21st-century version of that playbook.

There is also a deeper danger in normalizing AI-generated false images. While a buff Trump Jedi might seem like harmless fun, the ease of producing realistic fake visuals opens the door to more insidious disinformation. “The ability to easily and inexpensively generate false supporting imagery is new and dangerous for voters,” warns Darrell West, a Brookings Institution scholar. Such content can portray people in a false light and fuel false narratives that mislead the public. In fact, Trump’s allies have already used AI to fabricate scenes of opponents (for example, fake photos of Kamala Harris at a communist rally) to sway opinions. When the White House itself spreads AI-created manipulations, it further normalizes deception and erodes the public’s ability to discern truth. At a time when society is grappling with the “deepfake” phenomenon, the President’s meme campaign sends a troubling signal that facts and images are malleable if they serve a political narrative.

A Better Alternative: Supporting Real Art and Truth

Rather than relying on AI gimmicks to burnish its message, the government could take a more principled and productive approach by investing in authentic artistry and honest communication. There is historical precedent for positive leadership in this realm. During the Great Depression, the U.S. government (under FDR) launched the Works Progress Administration (WPA) arts programs, hiring over 10,000 artists to create public murals, posters, photographs, and more. These federal art projects not only kept artists employed during hard times but also enriched American culture and community life. Importantly, the New Deal administration valued art’s role in democracy—fostering a genuine national identity through creativity—as a democratic counterpoint to the propaganda machines of totalitarian regimes. The artwork produced under the WPA wasn’t about deifying a single leader; it was about reflecting the people’s stories and uplifting citizens with truthful, resonant art.

That lesson feels urgent today. Government leaders should champion human creativity and factual integrity in their messaging, not turn their social media into a circus of AI-manufactured self-portraits. Imagine if, instead of churning out “Superman Trump” memes, the administration commissioned talented young illustrators, designers, or satirists to contribute to public campaigns. Not only would this lend a personal, authentic touch far more meaningful than a generic algorithm’s output, but it would also support working artists at a time when AI threatens many creative jobs. In an era of rampant synthetic media, authenticity has real currency. By choosing real art over artificial imagery, the White House could still be creative and engaging without descending into farce or misleading theatrics. Ultimately, a presidency that respects truth and artistry would do far more to inspire the public than one that plays make-believe on the internet.

Bennett Gillespie is a student at Duke University and a council member of the Duke Program in American Grand Strategy. He is also an intern with the Fulcrum.

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.

Please help the Fulcrum's NextGen initiatives by donating HERE!


Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less