A pro-Trump PAC is running an AI-generated attack ad that depicts Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) in a fabricated romantic relationship with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says the ad breaks a federal law signed by President Trump less than a year ago.
The ad, paid for by MAGA Kentucky PAC, opens with the line: "In Washington, he's cheating with the Squad on the America First movement." It then uses AI-generated imagery to insinuate that Massie is in a "throuple" with the two progressive congresswomen, a claim Greene flatly denied and Massie himself called "disgusting and defamatory."
The Kentucky GOP primary is May 19th. The ad urges voters to back Ed Gallrein, Massie's Trump-backed primary opponent. But with a Big Data Poll from late April showing Massie leading Gallrein 52 to 48 percent, within a 4-point margin of error, the fabricated ad looks less like confident campaigning and more like a last-ditch effort to move numbers that haven't moved.
Greene, who left Congress but remains an outspoken voice in MAGA politics, posted her response on X on May 4, calling the ad a direct violation of the Take It Down Act, legislation championed by First Lady Melania Trump and signed into law by President Trump.
"This FAKE AI campaign ad LYING about Thomas Massie is a violation of The TAKE IT DOWN Act that First Lady Melania Trump championed, we voted for and President Trump signed into law nearly a year ago!!!"
Greene laid out the statute's provisions plainly. The law makes it illegal to knowingly publish intimate images, including AI-generated ones, of non-consenting adults or minors. It also requires websites and social media platforms to remove such content within 48 hours once a victim notifies them.
The ad itself carries a disclaimer stating it is satirical and created using artificial intelligence. Whether that disclaimer provides legal cover is an open question. Greene clearly believes it does not.
"Thomas Massie NEVER dined, held hands with, or intimately engaged with AOC and Ilhan Omar."
Her two-word directive to the platforms hosting the content: "TAKE IT DOWN."
Massie took the unusual step of sharing the ad himself, apparently calculating that exposing it would do more damage to his opponents than suppressing it. His post pulled no punches about who he holds responsible.
"Woke Eddie's billionaire puppet masters are running this disgusting and defamatory ad now. It reeks of desperation, but they're hoping the older generation won't realize it's an AI generated lie."
That line about "the older generation" is worth pausing on. Massie's bet is that older Kentucky primary voters, the backbone of any Republican electorate, may not immediately recognize AI-fabricated video for what it is. If he's right, the ad isn't just defamatory. It's deliberately designed to mislead the voters least equipped to spot the deception.
Massie included a plea for donations alongside his post. In a race where outside money is flooding in against him, that's less opportunism than survival.
Ocasio-Cortez, whose political ambitions have drawn scrutiny of their own, including questions about her media-avoidance strategy and 2028 positioning, has not publicly responded to the ad. Neither has Omar. Neither has Gallrein or the MAGA Kentucky PAC.
MAGA Kentucky PAC was launched with a specific purpose: to push Massie out of office over his opposition to Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill." The PAC's initial big-dollar support came from GOP megadonor Paul Singer, hedge fund manager John Paulson, and a PAC belonging to Miriam Adelson.
Greene did not mince words about those donors. She referred to them as "3 Israel FIRST billionaires funding woke Eddies campaign" and urged Massie to sue them, along with "everyone involved in making this fake video and everyone who puts it out."
That framing, billionaire donors using fabricated content to oust a sitting congressman who votes with Trump 91 percent of the time, is the kind of intra-party fight that should concern every Republican voter. When the disagreement is over a single bill, and the response is an AI-generated smear ad, something has gone badly wrong with how primary challenges are waged.
Greene made a point of defending Massie's broader record, noting that his breaks with the president came on specific policy grounds, "when he's pushing war, protecting Epstein pedophiles, violating your freedoms with warrantless spying FISA 702, or overspending your money into further ruinous debt." Agree or disagree with Massie on those votes, they are policy disagreements. They are not grounds for fabricating intimate imagery of a colleague.
Ocasio-Cortez herself has faced her own share of accountability questions in recent months, from an FEC complaint over campaign spending on a psychiatrist to ongoing tensions with her progressive base. But being depicted without consent in a fabricated romantic scenario crosses a different line entirely, one that the Take It Down Act was written to address.
Greene reserved particular criticism for Gallrein himself, calling him "too timid, too weak, and too afraid, to debate Thomas Massie" and noting that he "refused to show up at campaign debates in the district he's trying to get elected in."
If that characterization is accurate, it paints a picture of a candidate whose campaign is being run almost entirely by outside money and outside operatives, with the candidate himself unwilling to face voters or his opponent directly. That is not a recipe for accountable representation.
Gallrein has not responded publicly to the ad or to Greene's accusations. The MAGA Kentucky PAC has likewise remained silent.
The broader pattern here is familiar. Well-funded outside groups drop into a primary, run scorched-earth advertising, and leave the district to clean up the mess. What makes this case different is the technology. AI-generated imagery that fabricates intimate scenarios involving real, named public officials is a new frontier, and one that Congress anticipated when it passed the Take It Down Act.
Whether that law will actually be enforced here remains to be seen. Greene has laid out the legal argument. Massie has called the ad defamatory. But no formal legal filing or complaint has surfaced yet. The question now is whether platforms will comply with the 48-hour removal mandate, and whether anyone involved in producing or distributing the ad will face consequences.
Ocasio-Cortez's own political trajectory, including her reported interest in a 2028 presidential bid, makes her an especially high-profile figure to be dragged into a Kentucky Republican primary through fabricated imagery. If she or Omar choose to invoke the Take It Down Act on their own behalf, this story could expand well beyond one congressional race.
The Take It Down Act exists precisely for situations like this. It was championed by the First Lady, passed by Congress, and signed by the president. If a pro-Trump PAC can violate it with impunity in a Republican primary, the law's deterrent value drops to zero before it is even a year old.
There is also a question of principle. Conservatives have rightly argued that AI-generated deepfakes pose a serious threat to public trust, to election integrity, and to the dignity of individuals targeted without consent. Those arguments do not stop applying when the deepfake is produced by people who claim to be on your side.
AOC has drawn plenty of legitimate criticism, from questionable campaign expenditures to policy positions that most conservatives find reckless. Omar's record invites even sharper scrutiny. But fabricating intimate imagery of them to smear a fellow Republican is not opposition research. It is not satire. And slapping a disclaimer on it does not make it legal.
Kentucky voters go to the polls on May 19th. They deserve a primary fought on the merits, on voting records, on policy, on who will best represent them. What they got instead was an AI-generated lie bankrolled by billionaires, aimed at a congressman whose real offense was voting his conscience on a spending bill.
If the party that signed the Take It Down Act into law can't enforce it against its own operatives, voters will draw the obvious conclusion: the rules only matter when the other side breaks them.
