#FactCheck-AI-Generated Image Falsely Shows Donald Trump Raising Fist During Washington Incident
Executive Summary
A photo of Donald Trump is going viral on social media, showing him raising his fist. Users claim the image was taken during a press event in Washington, when security personnel were escorting him out amid reports of gunfire. Research by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the viral image is AI-generated and is being shared with misleading claims.
Claim
On April 26, 2026, an X user shared the image with the caption: “Thank You, Lord our God, for protecting our President.” The post suggests that Trump made the gesture during a chaotic evacuation at a Washington event.
Fact Check
Reports confirm that Trump and senior officials were hurried away from the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on April 25 after gunshots were reportedly heard from a floor above the ballroom. However, no authentic visuals show Trump raising his fist during the evacuation.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/arts/design/trump-photo-raised-fist.html
- https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/11/politics/trump-obama-portrait-white-house
Further analysis of the viral image indicates signs of digital manipulation. Google’s SynthID detection tool flagged the file as containing SynthID—an invisible watermark embedded in content generated using Google’s AI tools.
Additionally, AI detection platform Hive Moderation assessed that the image is likely AI-generated or a deepfake.
Conclusion
The research confirms that the viral image of Donald Trump raising his fist during a Washington incident is not real. It was created using AI and is being circulated with a misleading narrative.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever is on an official visit to India. During the visit, he met Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Meanwhile, a video of his speech is going viral on social media. In his speech, Bart De Wever can be heard saying to PM Modi, “Chocolate is excellent for diplomacy, but not for diplomatic travel.” The video is being shared with the claim that Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever took a jibe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s diplomacy by referring to “chocolate diplomacy.” A research done by the CyberPeace Research Wing found that Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever had brought an unusual and thoughtful gift for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It was a miniature replica of Delhi’s iconic India Gate, made entirely from Belgian chocolate. However, the chocolate replica melted during the journey to India. Referring to the incident, Bart De Wever made the remark in a humorous manner, saying that the chocolate gift could not withstand the journey. The video is now being shared by users with a misleading claim.
Claim:
X user Jyoti Verma wrote, “Belgium is a small country, smaller than the city of Mumbai, yet its Prime Minister is taking a jibe at Modi by saying that ‘chocolate is a very good thing for diplomacy.’ Modi has brought the level of Indian diplomacy down so much that even the leader of a small country does not hesitate to mock and belittle him. How much more humiliation does Modi want India to face because of his weak leadership? In my view, he has turned Indian citizens into ‘third-class’ citizens in the eyes of the world. There are also reports that discrimination and bias against Indian citizens are increasing in other countries.”
https://x.com/Jotti__Vr/status/2096154750425424086?s=20
Fact Check
During the research of the claim, a search using relevant keywords led us to the full video of the Belgian Prime Minister posted on ANI’s official X handle. In the video, Bart De Wever can be seen mentioning the chocolate replica of India Gate during a joint press conference with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
https://x.com/ANI/status/2095426762243281060?s=20
As part of the research, we found a report published on the Times of India website on September 4, 2026. According to the report, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever arrived in India carrying a unique and special gift for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It was a miniature replica of Delhi’s iconic India Gate, made entirely of Belgian chocolate. However, there was one problem—the chocolate replica melted during the journey to India. During a joint press conference with Prime Minister Modi in New Delhi on September 3, De Wever shared the anecdote in a light-hearted manner. He said he had planned to gift Modi a replica of India Gate made from “the finest Belgian chocolate.” However, unlike the real India Gate, which has stood for nearly a century, the chocolate replica did not survive the journey intact. De Wever jokingly remarked, “Chocolate is great for diplomacy, but not for diplomatic travel.”
Conclusion:
Our research found that the viral claim is misleading. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever did indeed bring a miniature replica of India Gate made entirely of Belgian chocolate as a gift for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. However, the claim that the replica “melted during the journey” needs context. De Wever mentioned the incident humorously during his joint press conference with PM Modi, explaining that the chocolate replica did not survive the journey intact. Therefore, the viral post is based on a genuine incident but may present the context in a misleading manner.
Australia is set to make its most significant reform to online safety laws since the Online Safety Act 2021. On 8 September 2026, the government published a draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026. This would shift the focus of the online safety regime from responding to harmful content to requiring platforms to take steps to prevent foreseeable harms. Consultation closed on 22 September 2026, and the government has signalled its intent to bring legislation to parliament this year. It should be noted that this is a draft document, and there may be changes before any law is made.
What the Bill Proposes
At its core is a single statutory duty: any person responsible for an online service must ensure, “so far as is reasonably practicable”, a safe online environment. The wording is borrowed from work health and safety law, a parallel the Rickard Review itself drew when recommending the duty. The bill would replace the Basic Online Safety Expectations and the industry codes and standards that currently govern harmful content, following a 12-month transition after Royal Assent.
Who Is Covered
The reach is deliberately wide. The duty applies to nine categories of “online service”: internet carriage services, social media, messaging services, designated internet services (websites and platforms), hosting services, search engines, app stores, equipment suppliers, and a new category for AI generation tools such as chatbots and image generators. It attaches both to the provider and to anyone in a position to exercise day-to-day control, so parent companies and subsidiaries could be caught. The minister may exempt low-risk services, and lawful private communications between consenting adults are excluded.
The “Reasonably Practicable” Test
Whether a provider has done enough is judged by weighing the likelihood and degree of harm, what the provider knows or ought reasonably to know, the availability and cost of safety measures, and the privacy impact of those measures. The privacy limb is notable: measures such as age assurance or AI moderation must not intrude on privacy in a way that is “grossly disproportionate” to the risk. Liability is systems-based, meaning a provider is judged on whether it maintains appropriate systems and processes, not on every individual piece of harmful content that slips through.
Three Tiers of Protection
The “safe online environment” is defined in three layers, each more demanding than the last:
- All people in Australia must be protected from seriously harmful material and conduct, including child sexual exploitation material, grooming, terrorism and violent extremism, and content promoting suicide or self-harm.
- Children under 18 must also be protected from material harmful to children, such as pornography, content promoting disordered eating, bullying, and content encouraging hostile attitudes towards women, as well as addictive design features.
- Children under 16 on social media must not be exposed to design features with negative behavioural impacts, regardless of whether they hold an account.
Design Features and “My Feed, My Way”
A distinctive element is the focus on how services are built. The Bill designates five categories of design feature as having negative behavioural impacts: recommender systems, endless feeds, feedback features such as likes and follower counts, time-limited content such as stories, and logged-in versions of these features. The minister could add more. Providers must manage these features appropriately, including by offering “user empowerment tools”. The flagship is “My Feed, My Way”, under which social media users could opt in to algorithmic recommendations or choose to see only content from accounts they follow, with the detail to be set by legislative instrument.
Compliance Obligations
Providers would need to complete a written risk assessment for each service at least annually and before making changes that could give rise to new risks. These assessments would need to be retained for six years and provided to the eSafety Commissioner within 30 days of a request. Additional requirements include transparency reporting, publication of safety information, accessible complaints processes, and, in some cases, an Australian point of contact.
The Bill also includes a number of other reforms, including take-down timeframes for removal notices reducing from 48 to 24 hours from the day after Royal Assent, the power for the Commissioner to direct the removal of 'nudify' apps, the ability to remove reposted material without a new complaint, and approved university researchers being given access to platform data.
Enforcement and Penalties
The Commissioner will have a range of tools available, including the power to issue formal warnings publicly, impose binding remedial directions, and obtain documents and sworn examinations. Civil pecuniary penalties up to 60,000 penalty units may be imposed for failure to comply with obligations, although for the largest platforms this represents a cap well below a hypothetical turnover-based calculation.
Implications
For businesses, the net is wider than just social media. So any website, app, messaging platform, hosting service or AI tool which is accessible in Australia may be subject to assessment. Risk assessments are effectively discoverable enforcement documents. As such they should be prepared with the same degree of rigour and regard for legal privilege as any document likely to come before a regulator. The reforms are also intersecting with the Privacy Act 'tranche two' draft, the Children's Online Privacy Code and the under-16 social media minimum age. So overlaps need to be mapped together. Uncertainty remains around whether compliance with existing codes would meet the new duty, and regulator guidance will be key.
For users, the likely benefits are greater control over algorithmic feeds, faster removal of harmful content and stronger protections for children. For regulators and policymakers, the bill represents a move from content-by-content moderation to regulation of the systems driving and amplifying harm.
Debate and Criticism
The proposal is contested. The Coalition has said it will oppose the Bill in its current form, citing risks to free speech and journalism. The US Government’s consultation submission warned that the Bill could encourage platforms to over-moderate and questioned how “foreseeable harm” would be defined. Academic commentary from Monash University observes that the Bill expressly protects privacy but not freedom of expression, while legal analysis points to broad delegated powers for the minister to expand the harms and services covered. The short consultation window of 18 days has also drawn comment.
Conclusion
The Digital Duty of Care Bill would change online safety in Australia from a complaints-and-takedown model to a proactive, design-focused duty with serious financial consequences. Because it is still an exposure draft, the sensible response is preparation rather than panic: work out whether your services are in scope, review existing safety and risk practices, map overlapping privacy and children’s obligations, and watch for the Bill’s introduction to Parliament.
Executive Summary:
A video is going viral on social media with the claim that the protests and unrest at Lovely Professional University (LPU) over the alleged rape of a female student were linked to the nephew of Union Home Minister Amit Shah. The viral video purportedly shows a police officer telling the media that the involvement of an alleged relative of Amit Shah had surfaced in the case and that a police team had been sent to Delhi to arrest him. However, CyberPeace Research found that the original video has been digitally manipulated using AI and is being circulated with a misleading claim.
Claim:
The post caption reads: “Breaking Punjab Police officials have confirmed that Amit Shah’s nephew was involved in the LPU (Lovely Professional University) incident, which took place in Room No. 116 of GH3 Hostel. Officials say they have sent a special team to arrest him.” In the viral video, a police officer is purportedly heard telling the media: “We are receiving information that the person who committed this crime was a BJP worker and a relative of the Home Minister. This incident took place in Room 116 of GH3 Hostel. But now the Punjab Police is fully alert and an FIR has been registered. We will take action. The boy is currently in Delhi, but our teams have been sent there.
https://x.com/SSLawat_INC/status/2104794508311540147
Fact Check:
To verify the viral video claiming that the nephew of Union Home Minister Amit Shah was named as an accused in the LPU case in Punjab, we conducted a Google search using relevant keywords. During the search, we did not find any credible media reports in which the Punjab Police had made such a statement. Since the video carries the ‘Crime Tak’ logo, we checked the channel’s YouTube account. During our research, we found the original version of the viral video uploaded on the ‘Crime Tak’ YouTube channel on September 27. We found that the police officer seen in the video is Phagwara SP Major Singh. In the original video available on the ‘Crime Tak’ YouTube channel, SP Major Singh does not mention any involvement of Amit Shah’s relative. Instead, while speaking about the protests at LPU and rumours surrounding an alleged rape and suicide, he says that the police have not received any concrete information or complaint regarding the matter. He further states that if students provide any complaint or credible information, the police will take appropriate action as per the medical examination and investigation process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY7cE0S65-k
Since the police officer in the original video did not make any statement about Amit Shah’s nephew, it became clear that the viral video had been manipulated. To further verify this, we analyzed the audio in the video using the AI detection tool Resemble AI. The tool identified the voice of the police officer in the video as fake.
The Kapurthala Police posted on its official X handle on September 29, 2026, describing the video as fake.
Conclusion:
The evidence gathered during our research confirms that the video of a Punjab Police officer allegedly accusing Amit Shah’s relative has been digitally manipulated using AI. In the original video, the Punjab Police officer did not make any such statement while responding to questions from the media.
