How Should the Law Regulate AI-Generated Deceptive Media in Elections?

By Margarita Johnson '26

---

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is our current reality, which transforms how information is created, shared, and consumed across different areas of life. In the past, the development of robotics and machine intelligence was limited to science fiction, but now AI systems can generate realistic images and videos that are nearly indistinguishable from authentic ones. (1) Such innovations have opened many doors in government, education, business, and entertainment, but they have also enabled the spread of AI-generated deceptive media. The idea of fabricated political speeches, realistic impersonations of public officials, and the potential to manipulate campaign advertisements (all now highly accessible) immediately raises legal and ethical concerns. 

The particular concern with AI-generated deceptive content is its threat to democratic elections. Elections depend on informed public decision-making based on accurate information. Artificial intelligence makes false media easier to produce and spread, which can mislead voters, damage candidates’ reputations, and undermine confidence in electoral outcomes. (2) The growing ability of domestic and foreign actors to disseminate deceptive content within minutes through social media presents a challenge for the legal framework, which now requires legislative reform and new laws to control the ethical and legal use of AI in public. This issue is particularly of interest because the rule of law, as a legal and political principle, guarantees citizens the right to participate in free and fair elections. (3) So, when AI-generated deceptive media manipulates political discourse or misleads voters, it threatens the whole integrity of that democratic process.

Current legal rights that offer remedies against harmful conduct include: the First Amendment, defamation law, privacy statutes, and election regulations. (4)  However, they were created a long time before the emergence of modern generative artificial intelligence. Consequently, courts and lawmakers are forced to apply decades-old legal principles and find loopholes to apply to technology that evolves faster than legislation. (5) Although states like California have begun adopting laws requiring disclosures for certain AI-generated political advertisements and prohibiting the distribution of materially deceptive election-related media close to an election, while Texas and Minnesota prohibit the use of deceptive AI-generated videos intended to influence voters, several other states have adopted different standards or have yet to decide on legislation. (6) Since federal elections are overseen nationwide, these efforts remain inconsistent and fragmented across jurisdictions, allowing deceptive media to spread across states despite differing legal standards. (7) Therefore, legislatures must adopt more comprehensive regulations that specifically protect election integrity while also controlling technological innovation and ensuring constitutional freedom and national security. 

Rather than relying mostly on existing legal doctrines, Congress should consider establishing a federal framework that requires clear disclosure of AI-generated political content, sets standardized transparency requirements, and adds civil and/or criminal penalties for individuals who intentionally distribute deceptive AI-generated media to influence democratic elections. Currently, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech, which makes it difficult for governments to regulate political expression without raising constitutional concerns. (8) In fact, intentional false statements may, in certain circumstances, fall outside of full constitutional protection (if they constitute defamation, fraud, or other unlawful misconduct). (9) Since political speech has the highest level of constitutional protection, any new legislation must narrow its scope to target intentionally deceptive AI-generated content without restricting legitimate political expression and the constitutional commitment to freedom of speech.

Moreover, legal doctrines such as defamation law, fraud statutes, privacy protections, and the right of publicity already exist and may provide relief after harm has already occurred. (10) For example, an individual whose likeness is used in a fabricated video may pursue a civil remedy when financial and/or reputational harm has been factually demonstrated. (11) Likewise, existing fraud laws can apply to AI-generated media if it is used to impersonate public figures and/or deceive individuals into providing sensitive information. (12) Even then, these legal tools are largely ineffective as they address misconduct only after deceptive content has already appeared and caused damage rather than preventing its dissemination during critical societal moments such as election campaigns. So, by the time litigation begins, all the misleading political content may have already reached millions of voters, influencing public perception in ways that cannot easily be undone.

Some might argue that existing legal doctrines are enough to address fraud and election laws, as they provide remedies for deceptive conduct. (13) However, these laws were not designed to address the technicalities of AI-generated media, which can produce convincing fabricated content at unmatched speed and global scale. Therefore, the law should not simply address harm after elections have occurred; it should provide us with preventative safeguards that prevent deception in the first place.  

If artificial intelligence continuously evolves, then our legal system must evolve alongside it. Policymakers must develop comprehensive federal legislation that complements existing constitutional protections while establishing consistent standards for AI-generated political content across the United States. Doing so would strengthen election integrity, preserve public trust in democracy, and ensure that technological innovation develops alongside legal accountability rather than ahead of it.

Endnotes

1. Elham Tabassi, “Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0),” January 23, 2023, https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.ai.100-1. 

2. The White House, “Election Integrity – the White House,” July 28, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/election-integrity/

3. “Overview - Rule of Law,” United States Courts, n.d., https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/overview-rule-law. 

4. Killion, Victoria L. The First Amendment: Categories of Speech. IF11072. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Updated January 16, 2019. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072

5. “Is The Law Playing Catch-up With AI? - Harvard Law School,” Harvard Law School, January 16, 2025, https://hls.harvard.edu/today/is-the-law-playing-catch-up-with-ai/. 

6. National Conference of State Legislatures. “Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Elections and Campaigns.” Last modified June 23, 2026. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/artificial-intelligence-ai-in-elections-and-campaigns

7. “Regulating AI Deepfakes and Synthetic Media in the Political Arena,” Brennan Center for Justice, December 12, 2023, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/regulating-ai-deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-political-arena

8. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. “First Amendment.” Accessed July 29, 2026. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment.

9. Killion, Victoria L. The First Amendment: Categories of Speech. IF11072. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Updated January 16, 2019. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072

10. Ibid.

11. Ashton Dennis, “Can You Sue Someone for Making a Deepfake Video of You in Washington?,” Washington Law Center, March 4, 2026, https://www.washingtonlawcenter.com/deepfake-video-lawsuit/. 

12. National Conference of State Legislatures. “Deceptive Audio or Visual Media (‘Deepfakes’) 2024 Legislation.” Last modified November 22, 2024. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/deceptive-audio-or-visual-media-deepfakes-2024-legislation. 

13. Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Deceptive Election Practices and Voter Intimidation: The Need for Voter Protection. Washington, DC: Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, July 2012. https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/DeceptivePracticesReportJuly2012FINALpdf.pdf