President Donald Trump’s latest AI-generated attack on his Hollywood enemies may have given his supporters a laugh — but legal experts warn the joke could end up costing him a fortune.
The 80-year-old president posted a bizarre parody video featuring artificial intelligence versions of several outspoken anti-Trump celebrities, including Rosie O’Donnell, Robert De Niro and Whoopi Goldberg.
In the clip, an AI-generated Trump appears dressed as a doctor in a white coat with a stethoscope around his neck. He claims to have a treatment for “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” the mocking term Trump and his supporters often use to describe his fiercest critics.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2026
“Have you or someone you know been diagnosed with TDS?” the fake Dr. Trump asks in the video.
“The symptoms can be relentless. Fortunately, I’m Dr. Trump, and I have a treatment plan.”
The video then shows AI-created versions of famous liberal celebrities appearing to praise Trump and claim his supposed treatment is working.
A fake version of O’Donnell says she has been “suffering for over a decade” but is finally seeing results after listening to Trump.
Other stars digitally recreated in the clip reportedly include actor John Leguizamo, The View co-host Goldberg, Edward Norton, De Niro and Julia Roberts.
There is no indication that any of the celebrities agreed to appear in the video or gave permission for their faces, voices or likenesses to be used.
That could create a serious legal headache for Trump, according to several entertainment and intellectual property attorneys.
Entertainment lawyer Paul Menes said the celebrities may be able to demand that the video be removed and could potentially file lawsuits over the unauthorized use of their identities.
“Generally speaking, yes, the celebrities portrayed in the video could sue and demand the post be taken down,” Menes said.
He explained that using a celebrity’s name, image or likeness without consent could violate right-of-publicity laws in California and several other states.
Intellectual property attorney Brandon Dorsky said the financial damages could be substantial because Trump selected some of Hollywood’s most recognizable and highly paid performers.
“The existence of the AI version of the stars is essentially a substitute for paying these stars,” Dorsky said.
He noted that the celebrities could argue the AI footage deprived them of income they would normally receive for an on-screen appearance.
They might also claim the video caused reputational damage by making it appear as though they were supporting or participating in a Trump political message.
“The AI version being used deprives the star of their typical income, which is a clear and obvious economic damage,” Dorsky said.
The legal trouble may not stop there.
Michael McCready, managing partner of McCready Law and an attorney who works with artificial intelligence issues, predicted that courts will soon be flooded with cases involving digitally recreated people.
“I think we’re going to see a wave of litigation over three major questions,” McCready said. “Who created the AI? Who distributed it? And who is legally responsible when people reasonably believe it’s real?”
The Trump parody appears intended as political satire, but experts warn increasingly realistic AI technology could soon make it nearly impossible for ordinary viewers to tell the difference between authentic and fabricated footage.
McCready said the same technology could be used to create fake videos of corporate executives announcing false earnings, doctors giving dangerous medical advice or political candidates making explosive statements shortly before an election.
“Those scenarios move beyond parody into fraud, market manipulation, election interference, extortion and identity theft,” he said.
The controversy highlights a rapidly growing battle over where free speech and parody protections end — and where illegal digital impersonation may begin.
“The law has always struggled to keep pace with technology, and AI usage like this is accelerating that challenge,” McCready said.
“The legal system is about to spend the next decade figuring out where free speech ends and digital impersonation begins.”
Discover more from Next Gen News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So they can do it but God forbid if it’s done against them. Crubabies
They may not do so well in Trump’s SCOTUS…