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.
A deep look at how "All in the Family" remains a striking mirror of American politics, class tensions, and cultural manipulation—proving its relevance decades later.
All in This American Family
There are a few shows that have aged as eerily well as All in the Family.
It’s not just that it’s still funny and has the feel not of a sit-com, but of unpretentious, working-class theatre. It’s that, decades later, it remains one of the clearest windows into the American psyche. Archie Bunker’s living room has been, as it were, a small stage on which the country has been working through the same contradictions, anxieties, and unresolved traumas that still shape our politics today. The manipulation of the working class, the pitting of neighbor against neighbor, the scapegoating of the vulnerable, the quiet cruelties baked into everyday life—all of it is still here with us. We like to reassure ourselves that we’ve progressed since the early 1970s, but watching the show now forces an unsettling recognition: The structural forces that shaped Archie’s world have barely budged. The same tactics of distraction and division deployed by elites back then are still deployed now, except more efficiently, more sleekly.
Archie himself is the perfect vessel for this continuity. He is bigoted, blustery, reactive, but he is also wounded, anxious, and constantly misled by forces above and beyond him. Norman Lear created Archie not as a monster to be hated (Lear’s genius was to make Archie lovable despite his loathsome stands), but as a man trapped by the political economy of his era: A union worker who feels his country slipping away, yet cannot see the hands that are actually moving it. His anger leaks sideways, onto immigrants, women, “hippies,” and anyone with less power than he has. The real villains—the wealthy, the connected, the manufacturers of grievance—remain safely and comfortably offscreen. That’s part of the show’s key insight: It reveals how elites thrive by making sure working people turn their frustrations against each other rather than upward.
Edith, often dismissed as naive or scatterbrained, functions as the show’s quiet moral center. Her compassion exposes the emotional void in Archie’s worldview and, in doing so, highlights the costs of the divisions that powerful interests cultivate. Meanwhile, Mike the “Meathead” represents a generation trying to break free from those divisions but often trapped in its own loud self-righteousness. Their clashes are not just family arguments but collisions between competing visions of America’s future. And those visions, tellingly, have yet to resolve themselves.
The political context of the show only sharpens its relevance. Premiering in 1971, All in the Family emerged during the Nixon years, when the “Silent Majority” strategy was weaponizing racial resentment, cultural panic, and working-class anxiety to cement power. Archie was a fictional embodiment of the very demographic Nixon sought to mobilize and manipulate. The show exposed, often bluntly, how economic insecurity was being rerouted into cultural hostility. Watching the show today, it’s impossible to miss how closely that logic mirrors the present, from right-wing media ecosystems to politicians who openly rely on stoking grievances rather than addressing root causes.
What makes the show unsettling today is that its satire feels less like a relic and more like a mirror. The demagogic impulses it spotlighted have simply found new platforms. The working-class anger it dramatized has been harvested by political operatives who, like their 1970s predecessors, depend on division to maintain power. The very cultural debates that fueled Archie’s tirades — about immigration, gender roles, race, and national identity—are still being used as tools to distract from wealth concentration and political manipulation.
If anything, the divisions are sharper now because the mechanisms of manipulation are more sophisticated, for much has been learned by The Machine. The same emotional raw material Lear mined for comedy is now algorithmically optimized for outrage. The same social fractures that played out around Archie’s kitchen table now play out on a scale he couldn’t have imagined. But the underlying dynamics haven’t changed at all.
That is why All in the Family feels so contemporary. The country Lear dissected never healed or meaningfully evolved: It simply changed wardrobe. The tensions, prejudices, and insecurities remain, not because individuals failed to grow but because the economic and political forces that thrive on division have only become more entrenched. Until we confront the political economy that kept Archie and Michael locked in an endless loop of circular bickering, the show will remain painfully relevant for another fifty years.
Ahmed Bouzid is the co-founder of The True Representation Movement.