Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

AI enters Congress: Sexually explicit deepfakes target women lawmakers

People standing outside the Capitol

Dozens of members of Congress have had their likeness used in nonconsensual intimate imagery, otherwise known as deepfake porn. The majority of those impacted are women.

Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

Originally published by The 19th.

More than two dozen members of Congress have been the victims of sexually explicit deepfakes — and an overwhelming majority of those impacted are women, according to a new study that spotlights the stark gender disparity in this technology and the evolving risks for women’s participation in politics and other forms of civic engagement.


The American Sunlight Project (ASP), a think tank that researches disinformation and advocates for policies that promote democracy, released findings on Wednesday that identify more than 35,000 mentions of nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII) depicting 26 members of Congress — 25 women and one man — that were found recently on deepfake websites. Most of the imagery was quickly removed as researchers shared their findings with impacted members of Congress.

“We need to kind of reckon with this new environment and the fact that the internet has opened up so many of these harms that are disproportionately targeting women and marginalized communities,” said Nina Jankowicz, an online disinformation and harassment expert who founded The American Sunlight Project and is an author on the study.

Nonconsensual intimate imagery, also known colloquially as deepfake porn ( though advocates prefer the former), can be created through generative AI or by overlaying headshots onto media of adult performers. There is currently limited policy to restrict its creation and spread.

ASP shared the first-of-its-kind findings exclusively with The 19th. The group collected data in part by developing a custom search engine to find members of the 118th Congress by first and last name, abbreviations or nicknames on 11 well-known deepfake sites. Neither party affiliation nor geographic location had an impact on the likelihood of being targeted for abuse, though younger members were more likely to be victimized. The largest factor was gender, with women members of Congress being 70 times more likely than men to be targeted.

ASP did not release the names of the lawmakers depicted in the imagery to avoid encouraging searches. They did contact the offices of everyone impacted to alert them and offer resources on online harms and mental health support. Authors of the study note that in the immediate aftermath, imagery targeting most of the members was entirely or almost entirely removed from the sites — a fact they’re unable to explain. Researchers have noted that such removals do not prevent material from being shared or uploaded again. In some cases involving lawmakers, search result pages remained indexed on Google despite the content being largely or entirely removed.

“The removal may be coincidental. Regardless of what exactly led to removal of this content — whether ‘cease and desist’ letters, claims of copyright infringement, or other contact with the sites hosting deepfake abuse — it highlights a large disparity of privilege,” according to the study. “People, particularly women, who lack the resources afforded to Members of Congress, would be highly unlikely to achieve this rapid response from the creators and distributors of AI-generated NCII if they initiated a takedown request themselves.”

According to the study’s initial findings, nearly 16 percent of all the women who currently serve in Congress — or about 1 in 6 congresswomen — are the victims of AI-generated nonconsensual intimate imagery.

Jankowicz has been the target of online harassment and threats for her domestic and international work dismantling disinformation. She has also spoken publicly about being the victim of deepfake abuse — a fact she found out through a Google Alert in 2023.

“You can be made to appear in these compromised, intimate situations without your consent, and those videos, even if you were to say, pursue a copyright claim against the original poster, as in my case, they proliferate around the internet without your control and without some sort of consequence for the people who are amplifying or creating deepfake porn,” she said. “That continues to be a risk for anybody who is in the public eye, who is participating in public discourse, but in particular for women and for women of color.”

Image-based sexual abuse can have devastating mental health effects on victims, who include everyday people who are not involved in politics — including children. In the past year, there have been reports of high school girls being targeted for image-based sexual abuse in states like California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. School officials have had varying degrees of response, though the FBI has also issued a new warning that sharing such imagery of minors is illegal.

The full impact of deepfakes on society is still coming into focus, but research already shows that 41 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 29 self-censor to avoid online harassment.

“That is a hugely powerful threat to democracy and free speech, if we have almost half of the population silencing themselves because they’re scared of the harassment they could experience,” said Sophie Maddocks, research director at the Center for Media at Risk at the University of Pennsylvania.

There is no federal law that establishes criminal or civil penalties for someone who generates and distributes AI-generated nonconsensual intimate imagery. About a dozen states have enacted laws in recent years, though most include civil penalties, not criminal ones.

AI-generated nonconsensual intimate imagery also opens up threats to national security by creating conditions for blackmail and geopolitical concessions. That could have ripple effects on policymakers irrespective of whether they’re directly the target of the imagery.

“My hope here is that the members are pushed into action when they recognize not only that it’s affecting American women, but it’s affecting them,” Jankowicz said. “It’s affecting their own colleagues. And this is happening simply because they are in the public eye.”

Image-based sexual abuse is a unique risk for women running for office. Susanna Gibson narrowly lost her competitive legislative race after a Republican operative shared nonconsensual recordings of sexually explicit livestreams featuring the Virginia Democrat and her husband with The Washington Post. In the months after her loss, Gibson told The 19th she heard from young women discouraged from running for office out of fear of intimate images being used to harass them. Gibson has since started a nonprofit dedicated to fighting image-based sexual abuse and an accompanying political action committee to support women candidates against violations of intimate privacy.

Maddocks has studied how women who speak out in public are more likely to experience digital sexual violence.

“We have this much longer, ‘women should be seen and not heard’ pattern that makes me think about Mary Beard’s writing and research on this idea that womanhood is antithetical to public speech. So when women speak publicly, it’s almost like, ‘OK. Time to shame them. Time to strip them. Time to get them back in the house. Time to shame them into silence.’ And that silencing and that shaming motivation … we have to understand that in order to understand how this harm is manifesting as it relates to congresswomen.”

ASP is encouraging Congress to pass federal legislation. The Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits Act of 2024, also known as the DEFIANCE Act, would allow people to sue anyone who creates, shares or receives such imagery. The Take It Down Act would include criminal liability for such activity and require tech companies to take down deepfakes. Both bills have passed the Senate with bipartisan support, but have to navigate concerns around free speech and harm definitions, which are typical hurdles to tech policy, in the House.

“It would be a dereliction of duty for Congress to let this session lapse without passing at least one of these bills," Jankowicz said “It is one of the ways that the harm of artificial intelligence is actually being felt by real Americans right now. It's not a future harm. It's not something that we have to imagine.”

In the absence of congressional action, the White House has collaborated with the private sector to conceive creative solutions to curb image-based sexual abuse. But critics aren’t optimistic about Big Tech’s ability to regulate itself, given the history of harm caused by its platforms.

“It is so easy for perpetrators to create this content, and the signal is not just to the individual woman being targeted,” Jankowicz said. “It’s to women everywhere, saying, ‘If you take this step, if you raise your voice, this is a consequence that you might have to deal with.’”


If you have been a victim of image-based sexual abuse, the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative maintains a list of legal resources.


Read More

​Young adult woman accessing artificial intelligence

Young adult woman accessing artificial intelligence, managing digital information, and exploring future technology within an office setting

Getty Images

When One Person Can Do the Work of a Team

The harder question is how many capable people organizations will need. My latest lesson about artificial intelligence did not come from a research report or technology conference. It came from running the Security and Sustainability Forum.

Until recently, I depended heavily on an assistant to manage much of the website and webinar production process. Now I can do many of those tasks myself with Claude and ChatGPT. They help me develop content, revise web pages, solve technical problems, and manage projects that once required considerably more human support.

Keep ReadingShow less
photograph shows a handheld smartphone displaying the icons of some of the main artificial intelligence based apps

This photograph shows a handheld smartphone displaying the icons of some of the main artificial intelligence based apps, including LLMs, chatbots and generative AI, with logos (from L) of Proton AG's Lumo, Meta AI, Mistral Vibe (formerly Le Chat), xAI's Grok, Microsoft's Copilot, Google's Gemini, Anthropic's Claude, Perplexity, Deepseek, OpenAI's Chat GPT, Google's Notebook LLM and generative AI music app Suno, in Saint-Mande, east of Paris, on July 15, 2026.

Photo by Martin LELIEVRE / AFP via Getty Images)

The Second AI Election: Testing the Safeguards Before November

The 2024 U.S. presidential election was supposed to be the “first AI election.” Experts warned that generative AI could flood voters with deepfakes and fabricated evidence of fraud, U.S. intelligence officials declassified intel reports on foreign influence operations already experimenting with the technology, and leading AI companies pledged to combat deceptive election content. But foreign nations faced significant barriers to deploying AI to influence that election, according to the now-shuttered U.S. Foreign Malign Influence Center.

Two years later, the picture looks very different. AI tools have become far more sophisticated and widely available. Russia, China, and Iran are deploying a wide variety of cutting-edge AI tools in more sophisticated ways in foreign influence operations aimed at the United States and its citizens, among others. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has itself used AI in misleading ways, while at the same time dismantling or defunding the federal and independent bodies that identified and countered election-related influence campaigns. With the potential for AI-driven misinformation campaigns to escalate sharply in this year’s midterms, we tested some of the most popular AI models to learn how they can be exploited to peddle false election narratives. The results are clear: AI companies, lawmakers, and civil society must do more to blunt the threat ahead of elections this November and in 2028 to help ensure free and fair elections. We outline the steps they can take to do so below.

Keep ReadingShow less
Robot Holding a Resume Doing HR Work Vector Illustration

AI résumé screening can filter out qualified candidates before a human ever looks. Here's why transparency and human oversight in hiring matter.

nicoletaionescu/Getty Images

When AI Screens the Resume, Who Gets a Fair Shot at Work?

A job seeker can spend hours tailoring a résumé, checking qualifications and writing a thoughtful application, believing the next step will be a person deciding whether to schedule an interview.

Increasingly, that assumption may be wrong.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Trump answers questions from reporters.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters before boarding Air Force One on August 21, 2026 in Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Trump’s White House Press Ban Violates 1st Amendment

The principle is simple. Just like politicians are not supposed to pick their voters, government officials don’t get to pick the reporters who cover them.

If they did, the First Amendment would be meaningless. and we would no longer live in anything resembling a constitutional republic. That is why President Trump’s September 18 announcement that he is banning reporters from CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House is so dangerous.

Keep ReadingShow less