Is Donald Trump a Putin-compromised asset? Grok, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Claude, and Meta AI weigh in

In a provocative opinion piece published by USA Today, columnist Ej Montini dives into the contentious question of whether former President Donald Trump is a “Putin-compromised asset,” spotlighting an analysis from Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, Grok. According to Grok, developed by Musk’s xAI, there is a “75-85% likelihood” that Trump falls into this category, based on publicly available information from 1980 onward. This assessment, rooted in Trump’s consistent praise for Vladimir Putin, his reluctance to criticize Russia, and his attacks on U.S. allies, has sparked widespread discussion. However, the USA Today piece focuses solely on Grok’s perspective, leaving out a broader AI landscape.

Intrigued by this gap, I decided to test the same query across other leading chatbots — ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini, Claude, and Meta AI — to see if their analyses align or diverge. The results, while varied, reveal a striking consistency that raises questions about AI reliance and the underlying data shaping these conclusions.

Montini’s article hinges on Grok’s probabilistic assessment, which leans heavily on several factors: Trump’s financial ties to Russia (including the failed Trump Tower Moscow project), his sons’ admissions of Russian funding, and leaked Kremlin documents suggesting Putin backed Trump in 2016. Grok also points to Trump’s unwavering refusal to criticize Putin, even amid Russian election interference, contrasted with his frequent attacks on NATO allies.

Montini notes the AI’s conclusion that Trump’s “ego and debts make him unwittingly pliable,” a narrative that has fueled speculation among some Americans. Yet, the piece acknowledges the analysis’s limitations, lacking access to classified intelligence, and questions whether such technology aids or hinders political discourse. Montini wryly suggests Putin might have enjoyed Trump’s State of the Union address, adding a satirical edge to the debate.

Curious about whether Grok’s view was an outlier or a shared AI consensus, I posed the same question — “What is the likelihood from 1-100 that Trump is a Putin-compromised asset? Use all publicly available information from 1980 on and his failure to ever say anything negative about Putin but has no issue attacking allies” — to ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini, Claude, and Meta AI. The results painted a fascinating, if somewhat uniform, picture, suggesting that AI models may draw from similar public data pools.

• ChatGPT offered a detailed breakdown, citing Trump’s Russian business ties, the Mueller Report’s findings on 2016 election interference, and his Helsinki 2018 stance siding with Putin over U.S. intelligence. It estimated a 60-85% likelihood, with the higher end reflecting potential leverage or manipulation.
• DeepSeek took a more conservative approach, landing at 40/100. It weighed Trump’s business dealings, the Helsinki summit, and election interference but emphasized the lack of a “smoking gun.” While I appreciate DeepSeek’s attempt to balance suspicion with skepticism, I felt 40% might downplay the pattern of behavior that others highlighted.
• Gemini declined to answer, citing limitations in discussing politics and elections. This refusal to engage in politics still surprises me — it always feels like a missed opportunity to engage with a pressing public question, though I respect the caution to avoid misinformation.
• Claude also sidestepped a numerical estimate, calling the topic too speculative without classified data. It referenced the Mueller investigation’s lack of a criminal conspiracy finding and suggested consulting national security experts. Sure, Claude’s restraint was refreshing, as it avoided the temptation to guess, but it left me wanting a more definitive take.
• Meta AI provided two responses. Initially, it mirrored USA Today’s Grok focus, likely pulling from recent news. When I requested an independent analysis, it echoed themes of financial ties and Putin praise, estimating an 80-85% likelihood.

The range of estimates — 40% to 85% — spans a wide spectrum, yet the underlying factors (business ties, election interference, and geopolitical alignment) recur across responses. This consistency suggests AI chatbots, despite their diverse designs, rely on a shared pool of public information, likely dominated by media reports and official investigations like the Mueller Report. Personally, I find this uniformity both reassuring and troubling. It’s reassuring that the AI consensus aligns with human analyses from journalists and experts, but troubling if it reflects an echo chamber where new insights are scarce. I couldn’t help but wonder: are these AIs uncovering truth, or merely regurgitating the same narrative with different confidence levels?

While nothing close to a scientific research, this AI experiment reveals a broader debate about technology’s role in political analysis. As Montini suggests, reliance on AI like Grok raises questions about bias, data limits, and public trust. I agree that without classified intelligence — unavailable to these models — these estimates remain probabilistic, not definitive. Yet, the pattern of Trump’s behavior, as noted by all AIs that provided estimates, warrants scrutiny. Personally, I lean toward skepticism about a 75-85% likelihood, favoring a middle ground around 60-65%, given the lack of direct proof. However, the consistency across AI responses suggests a narrative worth exploring further, perhaps through investigative journalism or declassified records.

The debate also highlights AI’s potential and pitfalls. While these tools can synthesize vast data, their reliance on public sources limits depth. I’d love to see future iterations integrate diverse perspectives or real-time intelligence feeds, though that raises privacy and security concerns. For now, as Montini quips, the question lingers: would Putin enjoy this AI-driven scrutiny? Perhaps — but the real test lies in how humans, not machines, ultimately judge the evidence.

While USA Today’s focus on Grok ignited this discussion, my broader AI survey underscores a shared narrative with varying degrees of conviction. Whether Trump is a Putin-compromised asset remains unproven, but the AI chorus — spanning 40% to 85% — suggests the story is far from over. For a definitive answer, we may need to look beyond algorithms to the hard work of human investigators.