An AI-generated image of College Park, Georgia, Mayor Bianca Motley Broom appeared to show her kissing a man who was not her husband in a bar. The image spread far and wide on Facebook, and thousands of people saw it before the truth caught up. The fact that it was fake is now spreading faster than the original lie, but only after it had already reached a large audience. The incident has become a powerful example of how artificial intelligence can be used to manufacture political scandals from nothing. “I think this is a sad commentary about where we are in our democracy, and where we are in our political discourse,” Motley Broom said. “It also seeks to reinforce really tired stereotypes about women in leadership.” Six years ago, when Motley Broom first took office in the Atlanta suburb, a political enemy would have needed at least rudimentary image-editing skills to forge a compromising image of a politician. Today, all that is required is a computer and a prompt for an AI image generator. The episode underscores how dramatically the barriers to political sabotage have collapsed. What once required technical expertise and time can now be done in seconds by anyone with internet access. For women in leadership, the threat is especially insidious: fake images can be designed to trigger sexualized judgment, to suggest impropriety or instability, and to reinforce the very stereotypes that already make it harder for women to be taken seriously. Motley Broom said she was determined not to be deterred by what she described as internet trolls, but she acknowledged that the viral spread of a lie can exact a toll not only on the individual target but also on public confidence in the political process itself.
Motley Broom’s experience fits a broader pattern of concern about artificial intelligence and its role in democratic life. The threat of deepfakes and AI-driven misinformation has become a point of deep concern for legislators, advocates, and the public. A poll conducted in mid-June by Rad Campaign, a digital marketing agency, and Women Who Tech, an advocacy organization for female entrepreneurs, found that about 71 percent of respondents worry about AI-generated deepfakes and disinformation affecting elections. Two in three respondents said they were concerned about AI being used to sexualize women. The poll revealed that these worries outweigh even fears about job displacement and economic upheaval. Allyson Kapin, founder of Rad Campaign and cofounder of Women Who Tech, said the findings are unmistakable: Americans are more concerned about AI’s use in deepfakes, election disinformation, and the sexualization of women and children than about its impact on jobs or the economy, by about three to one. “The public is deeply concerned,” Kapin said. The gap between public anxiety and policy response is significant. While tech companies and many in government emphasize the potential of AI to drive innovation and economic growth, voters are more focused on the ways the technology can be used to deceive, harass, and manipulate. For elected officials, the implication is clear: AI is no longer just a matter of industrial policy or labor markets. It is a direct threat to the integrity of political communication. The poll also suggests that concerns about AI are not limited to any one party or ideological group. Deepfakes can target candidates from across the spectrum, and the public appears to recognize that what happened to Motley Broom could happen to anyone in public life.
The past year has offered a stream of examples of AI imagery being used for political purposes. In January, the White House’s official account on the social media platform X posted a digitally altered image of Nekima Levy Armstrong, who had been arrested in connection with a demonstration that disrupted church services in St Paul, Minnesota. A picture of her calmly being escorted by a Department of Homeland Security agent was altered to make her appear to be crying, and her skin had been darkened. Kaelan Dorr, the White House deputy communications director, later described the image as a “meme.” In February, fake images of Zohran Mamdani, a New York mayoral candidate, began circulating from a “parody” account on X, falsely depicting him and his mother in the company of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Using Google’s SynthID tool, Reuters was able to debunk the images, but not before other accounts had recirculated them as authentic, fueling conspiracy theories. Senator Raphael Warnock, a Georgia Democrat, said in a video posted to Facebook that deepfake images had been circulating online falsely depicting him with health problems, an armful of grandchildren he does not have, and a full head of hair—which he said was funny, if problematic. “As these tools become increasingly powerful, it will get harder and harder to distinguish fact from fiction,” Warnock said. “There are already bad actors out there, who are doing everything they can to divide us and confuse us. This has huge implications for our democracy. What if hours before an election, someone created a page with AI-generated images, fake stories about the candidates, how will voters know what’s true, and what’s not true?” Warnock is among a group of Senate Democrats who have been war-gaming political responses to possible election interference scenarios. Chief among those scenarios is disinformation driven by fabricated images or videos circulated through social media.
Washington has struggled to respond. Warnock and his colleagues have spent time preparing for worst-case scenarios, but legislative action has been limited and often blocked. Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, offered a bill last week requiring AI firms to install a “kill switch” for rogue AI. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky blocked Kennedy’s bill, arguing that the effort was premature without additional industry input. The episode demonstrated the difficulty of building consensus on AI regulation, even when the threat is widely acknowledged. House Democratic minority leader Hakeem Jeffries said in an interview earlier this month on SiriusXM that government should move “urgently” on AI regulations broadly, calling for “guardrails to protect the American people from bad actors and bad behavior.” “It should be a high priority,” Jeffries said. He also noted that Republicans attempted to pass legislation preempting states from regulating AI last year, as part of the omnibus One Big Beautiful Bill. That amendment failed on a 99-1 vote in the Senate, a rare and emphatic rejection of the effort to curtail state authority. The failure of the preemption amendment was significant because it underscored that lawmakers from both parties are wary of preventing states from acting on AI-related harms. But the rejection did not produce a federal alternative. Instead, the United States currently has a fragmented regulatory landscape, with some states enacting their own protections and others, like Georgia, still trying to catch up. The result is that the response to deepfakes and AI disinformation depends largely on geography. A candidate in one state may have stronger legal protections than a candidate in another, even though the technology used to target them is identical.
State legislatures are now wrestling with AI regulation amid a widespread, bipartisan public backlash. Some states have moved aggressively. Tennessee, for example, has enacted the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, known as the Elvis Act, which protects politicians and residents alike from AI voice cloning and digital likeness replication. The law draws on Tennessee’s robust right-of-publicity protections, which were developed because of the state’s recording industry in Nashville. Clear disclaimers are legally required in most states when a political campaign uses AI to manipulate the speeches, appearances, or actions of officials or candidates. Georgia is not one of those states. Legislators in Georgia began debating deepfake protections in bills proposed in 2024 and 2025, but they have not yet enacted legislation. That means Motley Broom has no specific AI-related statute to invoke in response to her fake image. She could potentially pursue legal action under existing defamation law, but defamation cases are difficult, expensive, and often arrive long after the public has formed impressions. The absence of a state law is especially striking given Georgia’s importance in American elections. Georgia has been at the center of recent battles over election integrity, with competitive statewide races and a prominent role in presidential contests. Warnock, who represents Georgia, has been outspoken about the danger of AI misinformation, warning that fabricated images could be deployed in the final hours before voting begins. Without a state statute, Georgia voters have little protection against such tactics, and candidates have no clear remedy. The debates in the Georgia legislature have stalled, but the problem has not waited for legislation.
Motley Broom said she believes she was targeted by political opponents who objected to her role as a past president of the Georgia Municipal Association. “I have worked for my city to try to be the best advocate I can be on behalf of College Park,” she said. “And I certainly won’t be deterred by internet trolls who think this carries weight.” Asked what legislators should do, Motley Broom paused. She acknowledged that the First Amendment’s protections for speech must be considered, but she argued that freedom of expression should not mean there are no consequences for deliberate fabrication. “These types of attacks should not be without consequences,” she said. “I hope that lawmakers can address this in a way that balances not only First Amendment protections, but the right of an individual not to have completely false accusations being levied. And I’m really hopeful that lawmakers on the state and federal level can think about that and think about it carefully, because this is the tip of the iceberg.” Her comments highlight the fundamental challenge of AI regulation: how to protect individuals from malicious content without creating a censorship regime. It is a balance that legal scholars, lawmakers, and civil liberties advocates will be debating for years. In the meantime, the technology is moving much faster than the law. A fabricated image can be created in seconds, spread to thousands of people within hours, and become part of the public record even after it is debunked. Motley Broom’s case, like Warnock’s, like the White House meme and the Epstein conspiracy images, is a warning of what is to come. The question is whether democratic institutions can adapt before the lie becomes indistinguishable from the truth.