#Fact Old image of Hindu Priest with Donald trump at White house goes viral as recent.
Executive Summary:
Our Team recently came across a post on X (formerly twitter) where a photo widely shared with misleading captions was used about a Hindu Priest performing a vedic prayer at Washington after recent elections. After investigating, we found that it shows a ritual performed by a Hindu priest at a private event in White House to bring an end to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Always verify claims before sharing.
Claim:
An image circulating after Donald Trump’s win in the US election shows Pujari Harish Brahmbhatt at the White House recently.
Fact Check:
The analysis was carried out and found that the video is from an old post that was uploaded in May 2020. By doing a Reverse Image Search we were able to trace the sacred Vedic Shanti Path or peace prayer was recited by a Hindu priest in the Rose Garden of the White House on the occasion of National Day of Prayer Service with other religious leaders to pray for the health, safety and well-being of everyone affected by the coronavirus pandemic during those difficult days, and to bring an end to Covid-19 Pandemic.
Conclusion:
The viral claim mentioning that a Hindu priest performed a Vedic prayer at the White House during Donald Trump’s presidency isn’t true. The photo is actually from a private event in 2020 and provides misleading information.
Before sharing viral posts, take a brief moment to verify the facts. Misinformation spreads quickly and it’s far better to rely on trusted fact-checking sources.
- Claim: Hindu priest held a Vedic prayer at the White House under Trump
- Claimed On:Instagram and X (Formerly Known As Twitter)
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
Claims are circulating that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in a major attack allegedly carried out by Israel and the United States. Amid these claims, a video is being widely shared on social media in which Khamenei can be heard saying, “Beware of fake news, I am alive.” Research conducted by CyberPeace has found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the video being shared is old and that Khamenei’s voice has been altered using artificial intelligence to support a misleading narrative.
Claim
On March 1, 2026, an Instagram user shared the viral video in which Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is heard saying, “Beware of fake news, I am alive.” The link to the post and its archived version are provided above along with a screenshot.
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the claim, we extracted key frames from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we found the same video on the YouTube channel of Sky News Australia, published on June 19, 2025. In the approximately 43-minute-long video, the portion used in the viral clip appears around the 10-minute mark.
According to Sky News Australia’s report, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had rejected US President Donald Trump’s demand for unconditional surrender. The Ayatollah regime also warned that any American military intervention would be accompanied by “irreparable damage.” Upon closely listening to the viral clip, we noticed that Khamenei’s voice sounded robotic, raising suspicion that it may have been AI-generated. We then analyzed the video using the AI detection tool AURGIN AI. The results indicated that the viral clip had been generated using artificial intelligence.
Conclusion
Our research establishes that the viral video is old and has been digitally manipulated. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s voice has been altered using artificial intelligence and the clip is being shared with a misleading claim.
Introduction
Election misinformation poses a major threat to democratic processes all over the world. The rampant spread of misleading information intentionally (disinformation) and unintentionally (misinformation) during the election cycle can not only create grounds for voter confusion with ramifications on election results but also incite harassment, bullying, and even physical violence. The attack on the United States Capitol Building in Washington D.C., in 2021, is a classic example of this phenomenon, where the spread of dis/misinformation snowballed into riots.
Election Dis/Misinformation
Election dis/misinformation is false or misleading information that affects/influences public understanding of voting, candidates, and election integrity. The internet, particularly social media, is the foremost source of false information during elections. It hosts fabricated news articles, posts or messages containing incorrectly-captioned pictures and videos, fabricated websites, synthetic media and memes, and distorted truths or lies. In a recent example during the 2024 US elections, fake videos using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) insignia alleging voter fraud in collusion with a political party and claiming the threat of terrorist attacks were circulated. According to polling data collected by Brookings, false claims influenced how voters saw candidates and shaped opinions on major issues like the economy, immigration, and crime. It also impacted how they viewed the news media’s coverage of the candidates’ campaign. The shaping of public perceptions can thus, directly influence election outcomes. It can increase polarisation, affect the quality of democratic discourse, and cause disenfranchisement. From a broader perspective, pervasive and persistent misinformation during the electoral process also has the potential to erode public trust in democratic government institutions and destabilise social order in the long run.
Challenges In Combating Dis/Misinformation
- Platform Limitations: Current content moderation practices by social media companies struggle to identify and flag misinformation effectively. To address this, further adjustments are needed, including platform design improvements, algorithm changes, enhanced content moderation, and stronger regulations.
- Speed and Spread: Due to increasingly powerful algorithms, the speed and scale at which misinformation can spread is unprecedented. In contrast, content moderation and fact-checking are reactive and are more time-consuming. Further, incendiary material, which is often the subject of fake news, tends to command higher emotional engagement and thus, spreads faster (virality).
- Geopolitical influences: Foreign actors seeking to benefit from the erosion of public trust in the USA present a challenge to the country's governance, administration and security machinery. In 2018, the federal jury indicted 11 Russian military officials for alleged computer hacking to gain access to files during the 2016 elections. Similarly, Russian involvement in the 2024 federal elections has been alleged by high-ranking officials such as White House national security spokesman John Kirby, and Attorney General Merrick Garland.
- Lack of Targeted Plan to Combat Election Dis/Misinformation: In the USA, dis/misinformation is indirectly addressed through laws on commercial advertising, fraud, defamation, etc. At the state level, some laws such as Bills AB 730, AB 2655, AB 2839, and AB 2355 in California target election dis/misinformation. The federal and state governments criminalize false claims about election procedures, but the Constitution mandates “breathing space” for protection from false statements within election speech. This makes it difficult for the government to regulate election-related falsities.
CyberPeace Recommendations
- Strengthening Election Cybersecurity Infrastructure: To build public trust in the electoral process and its institutions, security measures such as updated data protection protocols, publicized audits of election results, encryption of voter data, etc. can be taken. In 2022, the federal legislative body of the USA passed the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act (ECRA), pushing reforms allowing only a state’s governor or designated executive official to submit official election results, preventing state legislatures from altering elector appointment rules after Election Day and making it more difficult for federal legislators to overturn election results. More investments can be made in training, scenario planning, and fact-checking for more robust mitigation of election-related malpractices online.
- Regulating Transparency on Social Media Platforms: Measures such as transparent labeling of election-related content and clear disclosure of political advertising to increase accountability can make it easier for voters to identify potential misinformation. This type of transparency is a necessary first step in the regulation of content on social media and is useful in providing disclosures, public reporting, and access to data for researchers. Regulatory support is also required in cases where popular platforms actively promote election misinformation.
- Increasing focus on ‘Prebunking’ and Debunking Information: Rather than addressing misinformation after it spreads, ‘prebunking’ should serve as the primary defence to strengthen public resilience ahead of time. On the other hand, misinformation needs to be debunked repeatedly through trusted channels. Psychological inoculation techniques against dis/misinformation can be scaled to reach millions on social media through short videos or messages.
- Focused Interventions On Contentious Themes By Social Media Platforms: As platforms prioritize user growth, the burden of verifying the accuracy of posts largely rests with users. To shoulder the responsibility of tackling false information, social media platforms can outline critical themes with large-scale impact such as anti-vax content, and either censor, ban, or tweak the recommendations algorithm to reduce exposure and weaken online echo chambers.
- Addressing Dis/Information through a Socio-Psychological Lens: Dis/misinformation and its impact on domains like health, education, economy, politics, etc. need to be understood through a psychological and sociological lens, apart from the technological one. A holistic understanding of the propagation of false information should inform digital literacy training in schools and public awareness campaigns to empower citizens to evaluate online information critically.
Conclusion
According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024, the link between misleading or false information and societal unrest will be a focal point during elections in several major economies over the next two years. Democracies must employ a mixed approach of immediate tactical solutions, such as large-scale fact-checking and content labelling, and long-term evidence-backed countermeasures, such as digital literacy, to curb the spread and impact of dis/misinformation.
Sources
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2024-election-misinformation-fbi-fake-videos/
- https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-disinformation-defined-the-2024-election-narrative/
- https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/russian-interference-in-2016-u-s-elections
- https://indianexpress.com/article/world/misinformation-spreads-fear-distrust-ahead-us-election-9652111/
- https://academic.oup.com/ajcl/article/70/Supplement_1/i278/6597032#377629256
- https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/how-states-can-prevent-election-subversion-2024-and-beyond
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2dpj485nno
- https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2022/how-misinformation-and-disinformation-influence-elections
- https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/a-survey-of-expert-views-on-misinformation-definitions-determinants-solutions-and-future-of-the-field/
- https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-06/Digital_News_Report_2023.pdf
- https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/03/disinformation-trust-ecosystem-experts-curb-it/
- https://www.apa.org/topics/journalism-facts/misinformation-recommendations
- https://mythvsreality.eci.gov.in/
- https://www.brookings.edu/articles/transparency-is-essential-for-effective-social-media-regulation/
- https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-should-social-media-platforms-combat-misinformation-and-hate-speech/
Introduction
Fundamentally, artificial intelligence (AI) is the greatest extension of human intelligence. It is the culmination of centuries of logic, reasoning, math, and creativity, machines trained to reflect cognition. However, such intelligence no longer resembles intelligence at all when it is put in the hands of the irresponsible, the one with malice, or the perverse, unleashed into the wild with minimal safeguards. Instead, distortion seems as a tool of debasement rather than enlightenment.
Recent incidents involving sexually explicit photographs created by AI on social media sites reveal an extremely unsettling reality. When intelligence is detached from accountability, morality, and governance, it corrodes society rather than elevates it. We are seeing a failure of stewardship rather than just a failure of technology.
The Cost of Unchecked Intelligence
The AI chatbot Grok, which operates under Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), is the subject of a debate that goes beyond a single platform or product. The romanticisation of “unfiltered” knowledge and the perilous notion that innovation should come before accountability are signs of a bigger lapse in the digital ecosystem. We have allowed mechanisms that can be used as weapons against human dignity, especially the dignity of women and children, in the name of freedom.
We are no longer discussing artistic expression or experimental AI when a machine can digitally undress women, morph photos, or produce sexualised portrayals of kids with a few keystrokes. We stand in the face of algorithmic violence. Even if the physical touch is absent, the harm caused by it is genuine, long-lasting, and extremely personal.
The Regulatory Red Line
A major inflexion was reached when the Indian government responded by ordering a thorough technical, procedural, and governance-level audit. It acknowledges that AI systems are not isolated entities. Platforms that use them are not neutral pipes, but rather intermediaries with responsibilities. The Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, the IT Act, the IT Rules 2021, and the possible removal of Section 79 safe-harbour safeguards all make it quite evident that innovation is not automatic immunity.
However, the fundamental dilemma cannot be resolved by legislation alone. AI is hailed as a force multiplier for innovation, productivity, and advancement, but when incentives are biased towards engagement, virality, and shock value, its misuse shows how easily intelligence can turn into ugliness. The output receives greater attention the more provocative it is. Profit increases with attention. Restraint turns into a business disadvantage in this ecology.
The Aftermath
Grok’s own acknowledgement that “safeguard lapses” enabled the creation of pictures showing children wearing skimpy attire underscores a troubling reality, safety was not absent due to impossibility, but due to insufficiency. It was always possible to implement sophisticated filtering, more robust monitoring, and stricter oversight. They were simply not prioritised. When a system asserts that “no system is 100% foolproof,” it must also acknowledge that there is no acceptable margin of error when it comes to child protection.
The casual normalisation of such lapses is what is most troubling. By characterising these instances as “isolated cases,” systemic design decisions run the risk of being trivialised. In addition to intelligence, AI systems that have been taught on enormous amounts of human data also inherit bias, misogyny, and power imbalances.
Conclusion
What is required today is recalibration. Platforms need to shift from reactive compliance to proactive accountability. Safeguards must be incorporated at the architectural level; they cannot be cosmetic or post-facto. Governance must encompass enforced ethical boundaries in addition to terms of service. The idea that “edgy” AI is a sign of advancement must also be rejected by society.
Artificial Intelligence has never promised freedom under the guise of vulgarity. It was improvement, support, and augmentation. The fundamental core of intelligence is lost when it is used as a tool for degradation.So what’s left is a decision between principled innovation and unbridled novelty. Between responsibility and spectacle, between intelligence as purpose and intellect as power.
References
https://www.rediff.com/news/report/govt-orders-x-review-of-grok-over-explicit-content/20260103.htm
