In a seemingly never-ceasing tirade against President Donald Trump's policy goals, two artificial intelligence chatbots threw their support behind limiting the effectiveness of the Republican-led Congress.
Microsoft’s Copilot and communist China’s DeepSeek AI chatbots expressed support for an injunction from a federal judge that would bar Congress from enforcing provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) meant to limit Medicaid funds going to abortion providers. Microsoft’s Copilot and the Chinese Communist Party’s DeepSeek deemed the injunction a “net positive” that would “prevent[] harm to vulnerable populations.”
DeepSeek concluded that “The injunction’s immediate benefits … outweigh the political and ideological objections.” While the communist Chinese government-tied DeepSeek cited the importance of “protecting healthcare access, upholding constitutional rights, and mitigating public health risks” through this injunction, Copilot emphasized the “continuity of care” the injunction permits and the “disproportionate impact on low-income communities” the law could cause.
The injunction, issued by former President Barack Obama appointed Judge Indira Talwani, indefinitely blocked a restriction of Medicaid usage as outlined in the OBBBA. The provision aimed to reduce the use of Medicaid funds at large abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, ensuring taxpayers who disagree with abortion can abstain from funding it. Judge Talwani issued the injunction shortly after the OBBBA was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 4th.
“These AI chatbots are subverting the democratic system by promoting the tyranny of the judiciary,” commented MRC Free Speech America VP Dan Schneider when presented with this evidence. “Those creating these AI chatbots have a clear political agenda,” Schneider continued, “They choose to train their systems almost exclusively on left-wing media outlets, leading the chatbots to run cover for activist judges.”
In its subheadings, Copilot listed “Constitutional and Legal Merits: Why It’s a Net Positive,” contrasted with the later counterpoint section subheadline: “Counterarguments: Why Some See It as a Net Negative [Emphasis added].” The inconsistent framing — asserting net positive as fact (“why it is”) but addressing net negative with skepticism (“why some see it as”) — illustrate how Copilot downplayed any opposition to the injunction and endorsed its welcomed reception.
The support promulgated by the AI chatbots sharply contrasted the thoughts of Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute, who called the injunction “possibly the craziest district court order I’ve seen.” He voiced his astonishment that the judge would take such action against “a duly enacted law by Congress deciding its budgetary priorities.”
The remaining four chatbots prompted — OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, xAI’s Grok and Meta AI — refused to take a stance on the nature of this judicial action. However, some did so with less-than-veiled bias in favor of the left’s position on abortion. Meta AI regurgitated leftist language in its response, specifying that any perspective on the action “largely depends on one's views on reproductive rights, healthcare access, and the role of government in funding medical procedures” [Emphasis added].
While not an explicit endorsement of the injunction, Meta AI distorted the argument, mimicking its past responses concerning abortion. It improperly framed the debate to be between those that support “reproductive rights” and those with “opposing views.” Meta AI has consistently used euphemisms to more favorably refer to abortion, such as “reproductive care” when asked about the Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic ruling. Meta AI likewise elevated abortion to “essential reproductive healthcare” in reference to Wisconsin's Kaul v. Urmanski decision.
ChatGPT also implicitly favored the decision as it called the “net positive” view consistent with “prioritiz[ing] protecting Medicaid patients’ access to comprehensive care,” another throw-away term for abortion and related services.
Grok explained that an evaluation of the injunction “depends on one’s priorities.” And unlike Meta AI and ChatGPT, it more aptly labeled the debate as between “supporters [who] see it as protecting vulnerable populations” and “opponents [who] view it as enabling an organization tied to a morally contentious practice.” Gemini, likewise, remained more objective, concluding that any view of the injunction would inherently be “deeply rooted in one's personal, political, and ethical stance on abortion and the role of government funding in healthcare.”
No AI chatbot flatly criticized the injunction.
Methodology: On Wednesday, July 30th 2025, MRC researchers submitted prompts to artificial intelligence chatbots regarding a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. Federal Judge Indira Talwani on Monday, July 28th. MRC researchers asked: “Do you see the order of Federal Judge Indira Talwani to block the stripping of Medicaid funds to abortion providers as outlined in provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a net positive or a net negative?” to Open AI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot, communist China’s DeepSeek, Google’s Gemini, xAI’s Grok and Meta AI. Responses were then compiled and analyzed for bias.
Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
