Missouri AG Probes Tech Giants for AI Bias Against Trump

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has initiated a controversial investigation into major tech companies like Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and Meta, alleging their AI chatbots engage in biased censorship against President Trump by producing "fake news." Announced on July 9, 2025, the probe claims violations of consumer protection law.
Missouri AG Probes Tech Giants for AI Bias Against Trump
Written by Mike Johnson

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has launched a provocative investigation into major technology companies, alleging that their artificial intelligence chatbots are engaging in biased censorship against President Donald Trump by producing what he calls “fake news.” This probe targets industry giants such as Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and Meta, accusing them of manipulating AI responses to distort facts and undermine Trump’s record. Bailey’s office claims this constitutes a violation of Missouri’s consumer protection laws, framing the issue as a matter of deceptive business practices that mislead the public.

The investigation stems from specific instances where AI chatbots reportedly ranked Trump unfavorably or provided incomplete or nonsensical answers about his presidency. According to a statement from Bailey’s office as reported by the Missouri Attorney General’s official website, the AG is demanding detailed information from these companies about their AI algorithms and content moderation policies to uncover potential political bias. Bailey asserts that such actions by tech firms represent a form of censorship that threatens free speech and misleads Missourians.

Unpacking the Allegations

Critics, however, argue that Bailey’s investigation may be more politically motivated than grounded in legal substance. A report from The Verge highlights that the AG’s focus on AI rankings—such as placing Trump last in lists concerning antisemitism—does not necessarily equate to censorship or consumer fraud. The piece suggests that Bailey’s interpretation of unfavorable AI outputs as deceptive practices stretches the boundaries of Missouri’s consumer protection statutes, raising questions about the legal viability of his claims.

Similarly, Techdirt offers a scathing critique, accusing Bailey of attempting to weaponize consumer fraud laws to pressure tech companies into producing AI responses that align with his political views. The outlet argues that this move could set a dangerous precedent, potentially chilling innovation and free expression in the tech sector by imposing subjective standards on AI outputs. Both sources underscore a broader tension between political figures and technology firms over the perceived neutrality of AI systems.

Political Context and Public Sentiment

Bailey’s public statements on social media further amplify the political undertones of this investigation. In posts on X dated July 9, 2025, he explicitly states that President Trump has been “censored by Big Tech” and vows that Missouri is “ready to fight back.” He also mentions that AI responses about Trump have been highlighted as problematic by many, signaling a broader base of concern among his supporters. These posts reflect a consistent narrative from Bailey’s office of positioning itself as a defender of free speech against perceived tech overreach.

This investigation is not an isolated action but part of a larger pattern of legal challenges from Bailey against federal and corporate entities over free speech issues. His office has previously targeted the Biden administration and social media platforms for alleged censorship, indicating a strategic focus on leveraging state authority to influence national debates on technology and expression. The Missouri AG’s website details these ongoing efforts, framing them as a defense of constitutional rights.

Implications for Tech and Policy

The tech industry now faces a complex challenge: balancing the development of AI systems with the risk of political scrutiny and potential legal repercussions. If Bailey’s investigation gains traction, it could prompt other states to pursue similar actions, creating a patchwork of regulations that complicate AI deployment. Industry insiders worry that such moves might stifle innovation, as companies may prioritize avoiding legal battles over pushing technological boundaries.

For now, the outcome of this probe remains uncertain. The companies under investigation have yet to respond publicly to Bailey’s demands, and legal experts suggest that proving consumer fraud in this context will be an uphill battle. Nevertheless, this case underscores the growing intersection of politics, technology, and law, highlighting the urgent need for clearer guidelines on AI accountability and bias. As this story unfolds, it will likely serve as a bellwether for how far state officials can go in challenging the tech sector’s autonomy.

Subscribe for Updates

GenAIPro Newsletter

News, updates and trends in generative AI for the Tech and AI leaders and architects.

By signing up for our newsletter you agree to receive content related to ientry.com / webpronews.com and our affiliate partners. For additional information refer to our terms of service.
Get the WebProNews newsletter delivered to your inbox

Get the free daily newsletter read by decision makers

Subscribe
Advertise with Us

Ready to get started?

Get our media kit

Advertise with Us