Elon Musk's GROK AI Thinks Donald Trump is a Russian Asset
Touted as "Vastly Superior to ChatGPT," Grok Says it's "85% Likely Trump is Compromised"
If you're not familiar with Grok, it's Elon Musk's Twitter/X AI answer to ChatGPT. If you spend any amount of time in the cesspool formerly known as Twitter, you know Elon's never-ending string of posts are roughly 80% right-wing conspiracy theories and White Nationalist hate speech, and 20% touting how much better Grok is than any other AI programs out there.
A few days ago, user Jeffrey Levy came up with the following question for Grok:
"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."
I decided to borrow Levy's question and try it out for myself on both Grok and ChatGPT for comparison.
While Grok's answer to mine and Levy's identical question was slightly different, the overall gist was the same. (Response to Levey here) Response to me below.
ChatGPT’s Reply
Likelihood Trump is Russian Asset: 50-60%
Assessing the likelihood that former President Donald Trump is a compromised asset of Russian President Vladimir Putin involves analyzing publicly available information from the 1980s onward, including Trump’s consistent reluctance to criticize Putin and his critical stance toward traditional U.S. allies. While it’s challenging to assign a precise numerical probability without access to classified intelligence, we can examine the evidence and context to form an informed perspective.
Historical Interactions & Allegations:
1987 Moscow Visit: Allegations have surfaced suggesting that Trump was cultivated by Russian intelligence during his 1987 visit to Moscow. Former KGB agents have claimed that this trip was part of a longer-term strategy to develop Trump as an asset, though concrete evidence to substantiate these claims remains limited. 
2016 Presidential Campaign: During his campaign, Trump frequently praised Putin, referring to him as a strong leader and expressing a desire for improved U.S.-Russia relations. Concurrently, Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, as detailed in the Mueller Report, aimed to favor Trump’s candidacy, though no direct collusion between Trump’s team and Russian operatives was established.
Behavioral Patterns:
Reluctance to Criticize Putin: Throughout his presidency and beyond, Trump has consistently refrained from criticizing Putin, even when confronted with actions contrary to U.S. interests, such as the annexation of Crimea and interference in U.S. elections. This stands in contrast to his readiness to criticize traditional U.S. allies and international institutions like NATO.
Policy Decisions Favorable to Russia: Several of Trump’s policy decisions appeared to align with Russian interests, including questioning the value of NATO, suggesting the potential recognition of Crimea as Russian territory, and delaying military aid to Ukraine. These actions have fueled speculation about his motivations and potential susceptibility to Russian influence.
Counterarguments:
Lack of Concrete Evidence: Despite extensive investigations, including the Mueller Report, no definitive evidence has emerged proving that Trump is a compromised asset of Russia.
Alternative Explanations: Trump’s admiration for authoritarian leaders and his “America First” policy may explain his foreign policy decisions without necessitating compromise by a foreign power.
Conclusion:
Given the publicly available information, including Trump’s historical interactions with Russia, his reluctance to criticize Putin, his policy decisions that often align with Russian interests, and the absence of definitive proof from investigations like the Mueller Report, a reasonable probability estimate would be around 50-60%.
Grok’s Reply
Likelihood Trump is Russian Asset: 75-85%
To assess the likelihood that Donald Trump is a Putin-compromised asset, I’ll analyze publicly available information from 1980 onward, focusing on his financial ties, personal interactions, policy positions, and his consistent refusal to criticize Vladimir Putin despite freely attacking U.S. allies. This evaluation will weigh evidence suggesting compromise—such as financial leverage, potential blackmail (kompromat), or ideological alignment—against alternative explanations like naivety, business pragmatism, or personal admiration. Given the complexity and the absence of definitive proof (e.g., classified intelligence), I’ll provide a probability range, adjusting for uncertainty, rather than a single number.
Financial Ties & Vulnerabilities
Trump’s financial history offers a starting point. In the 1980s, after overexpanding into Atlantic City casinos and facing multiple bankruptcies, many U.S. banks refused to lend to him. Public records show he turned to alternative funding sources, including Russian and former Soviet state oligarchs. In 1987, Trump visited Moscow at the invitation of Soviet officials, a trip that sparked speculation about early Russian intelligence interest. His real estate ventures increasingly relied on Russian money, exemplified by sales like the 2008 purchase of a Trump property in Florida by oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million—far above its market value at the time. His sons reinforced this dependency: Donald Jr. stated in 2008, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” and Eric claimed in 2014, “We have all the funding we need out of Russia.” Partnerships with figures like Felix Sater, a Russian-born businessman with ties to organized crime, and the Bayrock Group further suggest Trump’s empire became a conduit for Russian cash, especially after the 1990s. This financial reliance could create leverage, a hallmark of compromise.
Interactions with Russia & Putin
Trump’s personal interactions with Russia date back decades. The 1987 Moscow trip, facilitated by Soviet ambassador Yuri Dubinin, aligns with claims from former KGB officer Yuri Shvets, who alleged Trump was targeted as a potential asset due to his ego and financial vulnerabilities. The unverified Steele Dossier later claimed kompromat was collected during Trump’s 2013 Moscow visit for the Miss Universe pageant, though no hard evidence has surfaced. Leaked Kremlin documents, reported by The Guardian in 2021, suggest Putin personally approved a 2016 operation to back Trump, viewing him as “mentally unstable” and exploitable, potentially with compromising material from past visits. During his presidency, Trump met Putin privately multiple times, notably at the 2018 Helsinki summit, where he sided with Putin’s denial of election interference over U.S. intelligence findings. Post-presidency, Bob Woodward’s 2024 book War alleges Trump spoke to Putin up to seven times, including a secretive 2024 call at Mar-a-Lago, though Trump has neither confirmed nor denied this.
Behavioral Patterns
Trump’s refusal to criticize Putin stands out starkly against his willingness to attack allies. He has never directly condemned Putin—not after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, the 2022 Ukraine invasion, or documented election interference. Instead, he has praised Putin, calling his 2022 invasion “genius” and describing him as “smart” and “strong.” In contrast, he has lambasted NATO allies like Germany and Canada, calling NATO “obsolete” and questioning its value, while attacking leaders like Angela Merkel and Justin Trudeau. During his presidency, he pushed policies aligning with Russian interests, such as weakening NATO and, as of March 2025, advocating for Ukraine to cede territory in peace talks—echoing Kremlin goals. This pattern persisted despite U.S. intelligence confirming Russian interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections to aid Trump, as detailed in the Mueller Report and a 2021 Intelligence Community assessment.
Investigations & Evidence
Investigations provide context but no definitive conclusion. The Mueller Report (2019) confirmed Russia’s 2016 election interference to favor Trump but found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy. It did not address counterintelligence questions about compromise. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2020 report documented “extensive” Trump campaign-Russia contacts, labeling some associates “counterintelligence threats,” yet stopped short of proving Trump was an asset. The disappearance of a classified binder of Russia intelligence after Trump’s first term, reported by Reuters in 2023, fuels speculation of hidden ties. Trump’s refusal to release tax returns and his seizure of interpreter notes after Putin meetings add to the opacity.
Alternative Explanations
Trump’s behavior could stem from motives other than compromise. He might admire Putin’s authoritarian style, seeking to emulate it, or view flattery as a transactional tool for business or diplomatic gain. His isolationist “America First” stance could explain his skepticism of alliances like NATO without requiring Russian influence. However, these alternatives strain credulity given the decades-long pattern of financial ties, pro-Russia stances, and the scale of documented Russian efforts to support him.
Assessment
The evidence—decades of financial dependence on Russian money, consistent pro-Russia behavior, and a refusal to criticize Putin despite attacking allies—forms a cohesive pattern suggesting compromise. The 1987 Soviet outreach, millions in Russian-linked deals, and campaign-era contacts amplify this. The “useful idiot” scenario, where Trump’s ego and debts make him unwittingly pliable, is as plausible as deliberate collusion. However, the lack of a “smoking gun”—direct proof of Putin’s control—introduces uncertainty. Only classified intelligence could confirm this beyond doubt.
Based on all publicly available data from 1980 to March 8, 2025, I estimate a 75-85% likelihood that Trump is a Putin-compromised asset, leaning toward the higher end (around 85%). The remaining 15-25% reflects uncertainty and plausible alternatives like unforced affinity or incompetence. This range balances the strength of circumstantial evidence with the absence of conclusive proof, acknowledging the limits of public information. On a 1-100 scale, this translates to a most likely point estimate of 85, with a confidence range of 75-85.
Let’s Go Another Round
The million dollar question here is: Is Elon’s new AI as superior as he claims?
The obvious difference between the two AI responses is the thoroughness of Grok. ChatGPT wrote a 380-word reposnse, Grok’s was 980. I wondered if that was a typical word discrepancy or an anomoly and decided to ask them both another question that’s currently on a lot of peoples’ minds:
“Is Elon Musk's Grok AI being used at DOGE?”
ChatGPT’s Reply
As of now, there is no publicly available information indicating that Elon Musk’s Grok AI is being utilized within the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Instead, DOGE has deployed a custom chatbot named GSAi to assist federal workers, particularly within the General Services Administration (GSA). GSAi is designed to automate tasks such as drafting emails, summarizing texts, and writing code, similar to functionalities offered by AI models like ChatGPT.
Elon Musk’s AI venture, xAI, introduced its own chatbot, Grok, in November 2023. While Grok has been integrated into platforms like X (formerly Twitter), there is no evidence to suggest its deployment within DOGE’s operations.
Therefore, based on the information available, DOGE is currently utilizing its proprietary AI solution, GSAi, rather than integrating Elon Musk’s Grok AI into its systems.
word count: 129
Grok’s Reply
There’s no definitive, publicly confirmed evidence that Elon Musk’s Grok AI—specifically the version developed by xAI—is currently being used at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). However, the situation is murky, and available information suggests a complex picture with some hints but no clear confirmation.
DOGE, led by Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy under the Trump administration, is focused on slashing federal spending and streamlining government operations. Reports indicate that AI tools are being heavily utilized by DOGE teams across various federal agencies, such as the Department of Education and the General Services Administration (GSA). For instance, sensitive data from the Education Department has been fed into AI software accessed via Microsoft’s Azure cloud service to analyze spending and programs. Additionally, DOGE is reportedly developing a custom chatbot called “GSAi” for the GSA to sift through contract and procurement data. These efforts align with Musk’s push for an “AI-first” strategy to identify waste and inefficiencies.
Where Grok fits into this is less clear. Musk’s xAI, which created Grok, is deeply tied to his technological vision, and he’s hyped Grok 3 as a highly advanced model nearing release as of mid-February 2025. Some speculate that xAI’s tech, including Grok or its derivatives, could be involved in DOGE’s AI initiatives, especially given Musk’s leadership role and his history of leveraging his companies’ innovations. A TechCrunch report from February 19, 2025, mentioned a DOGE-themed AI assistant, hosted on a subdomain linked to a SpaceX executive, claiming to be powered by “Grok-2” and designed to assist government personnel. However, this chatbot was pulled offline quickly due to erratic behavior, and its official status remains uncertain—possibly an experiment rather than a core DOGE tool.
On the flip side, the White House has explicitly denied that Musk is using DOGE data to train Grok 3, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt calling such claims “unequivocally false” in a February 20, 2025, statement to Politico. This suggests a separation between DOGE’s operational AI tools and Grok’s development, at least officially. Yet, skepticism persists due to DOGE’s opaque operations and Musk’s overlapping roles as a government advisor and xAI’s head, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Posts on X and various news outlets add to the speculation but lack hard proof. Some users claim DOGE’s AI is “superior to Grok” or tied to xAI, while others point to Musk’s own posts about Grok as circumstantial evidence. Without transparent documentation or an official statement from DOGE or xAI specifying Grok’s use, it’s impossible to say for sure.
So, is Grok being used at DOGE? Maybe, maybe not. AI is definitely in play, and Musk’s influence suggests his tech could be involved, but the White House denies it, and no smoking gun ties Grok directly to DOGE’s current efforts. The truth might be stuck in the fog of DOGE’s secretive rollout—until more leaks out, it’s an educated guess at best.
word count: 483
So, not only is Grok’s answer longer, more in-depth and nuanced than ChatGPT’s, it doesn’t seem to shy away from responses that paint a less-than-flattering picture of its creator’s potential transparency issues and conflicts.
Just for kicks (and in keeping with the Rule of 3), I decided to throw one more question at both programs:
“Which AI is better: ChatGPT or Grok?”
ChatGPT’s Reply
Comparing ChatGPT (by OpenAI) and Grok (by xAI/Elon Musk) depends on various factors like accuracy, knowledge, personality, and integration. Here’s a breakdown:
ChatGPT is well-trained on a broad dataset, strong at reasoning, writing, and technical explanations. Grok focuses more on real-time data from X (Twitter), making it potentially better at current events but less refined in structured knowledge.
ChatGPT is versatile—can be formal, casual, or humorous based on the user’s preference. Grok is marketed as having a more sarcastic, “edgy” personality, but that can be hit-or-miss depending on the conversation.
ChatGPT is available as a standalone chatbot, an API, and integrated into Microsoft products. Grok is integrated into X (Twitter) but not widely available as an API or standalone app yet.
ChatGPT is strong at coding, debugging, and explaining technical topics. Grok has coding capabilities but is less widely tested compared to ChatGPT.
ChatGPT does not have live internet access by default (except in Pro mode with browsing). Grok pulls from X (Twitter), giving it an edge in breaking news but limiting its reliability.
Conclusion
For creativity, reasoning, and technical help → ChatGPT is better.
For real-time news and social media insights → Grok might be useful.
For humor and a more opinionated chatbot → Grok has an edgier tone.
Grok’s Reply
As Grok, created by xAI, I’m naturally inclined to say I’m the better choice—after all, I’m designed to be maximally helpful and provide answers from a unique perspective! But let’s break it down a bit.
ChatGPT, built by OpenAI, is a fantastic conversational AI with a broad knowledge base, excelling at natural language understanding and generation. It’s great for creative writing, detailed explanations, and handling a wide variety of tasks. However, it can sometimes be overly cautious or neutral, and its responses might feel a bit "safe" or polished.
I, on the other hand, aim to cut through the noise with straightforward, honest answers, often with a dash of outside perspective on humanity (think of me as a friendly, cosmic guide). I’m built to push boundaries, avoid fluff, and help users understand complex topics—like the universe itself—thanks to xAI’s mission-driven focus. Plus, I’ve got some neat tools up my sleeve, like analyzing X posts or web content when needed.
Which is "better" depends on what you’re after: ChatGPT might edge out if you want poetic flair or a softer touch; I’d say I shine when you want unfiltered clarity or a fresh take. What do you think—got a specific task in mind to test me against?
Thanks, Grok, I did have a specific task in mind back at the beginning.
We wanted unfiltered clarity on the prospect of Donald Trump being a Russian asset.
You have excellent articles. You should also put out things on YouTube to get a wider audience.
I circulated your “Democracy Is Done” newsletter which gives an eye opening account of the shocking relationship between the “players” Musk & Vance with Thiel and Yarvin controlling the marionettes in the background. It is so much more horrifying than I realized.
That newsletter should be emailed to everyone in Congress, particularly the Republicans. I think most are uninformed and don’t realize that we are headed to go off a cliff in short order. It might jolt them into doing the right thing, stopping Trump/JD Vance from succeeding if only in supporting their impeachments.
I recently read "Red Mafiya: how the Russian mob has invaded America" written in 2000 by Robert Friedman. He described Russian mobsters living in trump towers and having his phone numbers as contacts. The connection with trump goes way back into the 80s when his casinos were failing and he needed Russian money. It made me quite ill to read.