My worst suspicions have now been confirmed. TIME and several other news organizations are reporting today that Trump consulted the AI chatbot Grok before making the decision to invade Venezuela and kidnap its president in January.
Given Trump’s outsized support for all things AI, including the construction of thousands of AI data-collection centers and his recent rebranding of artificial intelligence as “super intelligence,” we now know for a fact that he has a personal relationship with this technology and is at least partially dependent upon it for performing the duties of his office.
The AI watchdog organization OECD.ai reports as follows:
In December 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump consulted Grok, an AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk’s company, about Venezuelan public reaction to the potential capture of President Nicolás Maduro. The AI’s analysis influenced the decision-making process preceding a U.S. military operation that led to Maduro’s capture, causing significant political disruption in Venezuela.
The AI system (Grok) was explicitly used in the decision-making process preceding a military operation that resulted in the capture of a head of state and political upheaval. This operation caused direct harm and disruption, and the AI’s analysis was a contributing factor in the decision. Hence, the event meets the criteria for an AI Incident as the AI system’s use directly or indirectly led to harm and disruption.
Who knows if Grok might even have a system tailored specifically for Donald Trump and his personality type.
AI chatbots are well known to have a tendency to tell the person consulting them what they want to hear. AI experts have openly acknowledged this as a problem and even have a name for it. They call it “AI sycophancy.” Back in May, I posted an article on a Stanford University study verifying the dangers of AI sycophancy.
In other words, AI can be a narcissist’s best friend. No need to consult with human advisers who might disagree or offer advice that cuts through the narcissist’s strongly held biases. This is a recipe for disaster, and you can bet this story of Trump’s growing addiction to AI to perform his duties as president will fly under the radar with little press coverage. The coverage it does receive will not dive into all of the negative ramifications of having a president who relies on AI to make his decisions.
In a way, this is no different than the previous president, who reportedly relied on others to run his presidency and didn’t engage a mind of his own. When it came to foreign policy, Biden handed his brain over to Jake Sullivan. Donald Trump has turned his over to AI. I’m not sure which is worse, but both are examples of a president who is not really in charge of anything.
What’s to stop Grok, owned by arch technocrat Elon Musk, to create and train an AI designed to nudge Trump in the direction of technocracy. Musk is a champion of technocracy and is the maternal grandson of one of technocracy’s founding fathers, the Canadian Joshua Haldeman. Musk now has a potential stooge as president who is consulting his AI chatbot for a sort of divine guidance. Oh, think of the possibilities for creating a truly Manchurian Candidate!
Below is an excerpt from an article in the tech journal Techlicious regarding Trump’s use of AI:
It’s an unusual example of a president consulting a consumer AI chatbot about a consequential foreign policy question. And while there’s no evidence that Grok directly influenced the military operation, the account raises important questions about the growing role of artificial intelligence in government decision-making.
According to TIME, Trump met privately with Musk in the Oval Office in December 2025. During the meeting, he spent hours asking Grok questions about his presidency and legacy, according to an official who was present, including the one about how Venezuelans would respond to the capture of Maduro. When the U.S. military captured Maduro on January 3, and celebrations followed, Trump reportedly came away impressed by Grok’s apparent accuracy.
But an AI chatbot getting a prediction right doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a reliable source of information for decisions with potentially far-reaching consequences.
Generative AI systems are designed to produce responses based on patterns learned during training and information available to them. They can provide useful analysis and synthesize large amounts of information, but they can also generate inaccurate information, omit important context, and express unwarranted confidence in their conclusions. As OpenAI has acknowledged, even sophisticated language models are susceptible to hallucinations, producing plausible answers that aren’t supported by the facts.
I think it would be naive to believe that if Trump consulted Grok before launching his invasion of Venezuela and got the answer he was looking for, that he wouldn’t have also sought advice from Grok before attacking Iran. We will probably read about that story six months to a year from now.
As noted by Futurism, the Stanford study “adds to a growing consensus about the dangers of chatbot sycophancy as a design feature of the tech, as well as new research about the willingness of users to readily — and uncritically — trust AI outputs.”
“By default, AI advice does not tell people that they’re wrong nor give them ‘tough love,’” Myra Cheng, the study’s lead author said in a statement. “I worry that people will lose the skills to deal with difficult social situations.”
From a spiritual standpoint, isn’t that exactly how Satan works, zeroing in on our weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and then telling us what we want to believe, rather than what is true?
So, the most powerful man in the world consults a silicon crystal oracle to assist his decision making. What could possibly go wrong?
I am not saying AI is a demon, but I wonder if it's an idol. If so, it could be a house for demons. Ideal for deceiving the masses.