#FactCheck - Old Video of Yogi Adityanath Edited to Push ‘Next PM 2029’ Claim
Executive Summary
A video featuring Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath is being widely shared on social media. In the video, Adityanath can be heard saying, “Let me become the Prime Minister, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir will also become a part of India.” The video also carries an on-screen text that reads “Next PM 2029.” By sharing this clip, social media users are claiming that Yogi Adityanath is set to become India’s Prime Minister in 2029.
However, CyberPeace research found the viral claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that the video circulating online has been edited and is being shared out of context. The original video dates back to May 2024. In the original footage, Yogi Adityanath is not speaking about himself. Instead, he is referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In the original statement, Adityanath says:
“Let Modi ji become Prime Minister for the third time, and within the next six months, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir will also become a part of India.”
It is evident that the video has been trimmed and misleading text has been added to falsely portray the statement as a declaration about Yogi Adityanath becoming Prime Minister in 2029.
Claim
A YouTube user shared the viral video on January 29, 2026, claiming that Yogi Adityanath said, “Let me become Prime Minister, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir will be part of India.” The video carries the caption “Next PM 2029,” suggesting that Adityanath is set to become the Prime Minister in 2029.
Link to the post n archive
Fact Check:
To verify the viral claim, we first conducted a keyword search on Google. During this process, we found a report published by Aaj Tak on May 18, 2024. According to the report, Yogi Adityanath stated that if Narendra Modi becomes Prime Minister for the third time, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir would become part of India within six months.
Report link:
Next, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and ran them through Google Lens. This led us to the official YouTube channel of Yogi Adityanath, where the same video was uploaded on May 18, 2024.
Original video link:
In the original video, Yogi Adityanath clearly makes the statement in reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, not himself.Finally, we compared the viral clip with the original footage. The visuals in both videos are identical; however, the viral version has been edited and overlaid with misleading text to change the meaning of the statement.
Conclusion
Our research confirms that the viral video is edited and misleading. The original video is from May 2024, in which Yogi Adityanath was speaking about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, not about himself becoming Prime Minister in 2029. The video has been falsely altered and shared with a deceptive claim on social media.
Related Blogs
India’s Rapid Digital Expansion
Over the past decade, India has experienced a rapid digitalisation process. The rise of digital financial services, affordable internet costs, and the penetration of smartphones have transformed the way people communicate, transact and do business online.
Online payment systems, including Unified Payments Interface (UPI), have enabled real-time transactions between banks and financial systems. As much as these systems have enhanced access to finance and efficiency, they have also created new opportunities for cybercriminals.
Cybercrime has evolved alongside the shift of financial and social interactions to digital platforms. The fraud attacks on online payments, online banking, and personal information have become common and increasingly costly.
To analyse the scale and trend of cybercrime in India, this analysis will use the datasets released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and financial fraud data released by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Rise of Cybercrime in India
The Rise of Cybercrime in India
Source: National Crime Records Bureau – Crime in India Reports
The data released by the NCRB documents cybercrime incidents registered by the police at the national level under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and criminal provisions covering offences such as cheating, impersonation, and digital fraud. In the past, the offences were listed in the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following criminal law reforms in India, on 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the IPC, came into force. Section 419 (cheating by impersonation), IPC, would be related to BNS Section 319 and Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), which would be related to BNS Section 318(4). Similarly, crimes involving forgery and use of forged documents or electronic documents, which were previously contained in the IPC Sections 465-471, are dealt with in BNS Sections 335-340.
The data published by the NCRB represent the number of crimes that reached the point of the First Information Report (FIR) registration, meaning they reflect only cybercrime cases that were formally presented to the law enforcement system to investigate, rather than all complaints reported. The data shows that cybercrime cases increased from 27,248 in 2018 to 86,420 in 2023, a 3.17-fold increase in 5 years.
Two structural shifts are visible: the post-pandemic jump and subsequent acceleration.
However, these figures likely underestimate the true scale of cybercrime because many incidents are reported only through online complaint portals and may not result in FIR registration.
The Financial Scale of Digital Fraud
The Financial Scale of Digital Fraud
This dataset tracks financial fraud complaints reported through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) and the estimated financial losses associated with those complaints.
The financial losses reported between 2021 and 2024 increased by 41 times over four years, compared to 2021, from 551 crore to 22,848 crore. At the same time, the number of complaints rose from 262,846 to over 1.9 million, an increase of ~623%, indicating both rising victimisation and greater public awareness of reporting mechanisms.
The contrast between these two trends is striking:
While complaints increased by around 7 times, financial losses increased by over 40 times.
Distribution of Cyber-Fraud Complaints and Financial Losses by Fraud Type
This divergence implies an uneven relationship between the number of incidents and the financial damage that they inflict. Most cyber fraud incidents involve relatively small transaction values; however, a smaller group of fraud categories result in disproportionate numbers of financial losses.
Distribution of Financial Losses Across Major Cyber-Fraud Categories in India
As reported by The Indian Express, based on the data compiled by the I4C, investment-related scams alone account for roughly 77% of reported cyber-fraud losses, followed by smaller shares from “digital arrest” scams (8%), credit card fraud (7%), sextortion (4%), e-commerce fraud (3%), and malware or app-based fraud (1%). This distribution means that even though scams with lower values, like phishing, OTP fraud, and small payment fraud, produce a high proportion of complaints, few categories of fraud produce most of the financial losses.
Analysis
1. Cybercrime is expanding faster than most traditional crimes: The fact that cybercrime cases have tripled in five years shows that cyber offences are presently becoming a significant element of Indian crime. Unlike conventional crimes that require physical proximity, cybercrime can be conducted remotely and at scale, enabling perpetrators to target large numbers of victims simultaneously.
2. Financial losses are concentrated in a small set of fraud categories: As cases of cybercrimes have been on the increase, the monetary losses of digital fraud cases have been increasing at a higher rate. The fact that the number of reported financial losses has increased 40 times in 4 years indicates that cybercrime has a very high economic impact.
3. Complaint volumes and financial damage follow different patterns: When comparing complaints and financial losses, it is evident that cyber fraud losses are unevenly distributed across types of incidents. Most of the prevalent scams reported, including phishing or OTP fraud, involve relatively small transaction values but yield a high portion of complaints. Conversely, fewer categories of fraud, especially investment-based schemes, contribute a significantly higher percentage of total financial losses.
4. Digital financial infrastructure has expanded the attack surface: India’s rapid adoption of digital payment systems, mobile banking and digital financial systems has dramatically increased the number of potential victims of cybercriminals. The scale of online transactions creates new vulnerabilities that organised cybercrime networks take advantage of.
5. Reporting improvements reveal previously hidden crime: The expansion of national reporting systems has enhanced the transparency in the trends of cybercrime. The increase in the number of complaints recorded is partially due to improved reporting systems and not necessarily to the increased criminal activity, meaning that previous data might have understated the magnitude of cyber fraud.
Recommendations
1. Move from reactive policing to proactive cyber-risk monitoring: The conventional models of policing focus on investigation of crimes that have already taken place. With such a magnitude and pace of cyber fraud, India should have systems that are designed to detect and prevent the fraud at its early stages, such as real-time observation of suspicious patterns in transactions by financial institutions.
2. Strengthen financial intelligence sharing across institutions: There are a lot of instances of cyber fraud that use more than one bank, payment system, and telecommunication provider. To detect new networks of fraud sooner, it can be suggested to establish more information-sharing measures between the financial institution and law enforcement agencies.
3. Target organised cyber fraud networks rather than individual incidents: Many digital scams operate through organised networks that coordinate phishing, mule accounts, and fake payment channels. The solution in regard to this involves dismantling these networks through investigative procedures instead of treating incidents on a case-by-case basis.
4. Improve recovery mechanisms for stolen funds: The recovery of the funds lost is one of the most difficult issues in cases of cyber fraud. Expanding systems such as the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System (CFCFRMS) can improve the speed at which fraudulent transactions are frozen or reversed.
5. Strengthen digital financial literacy: A significant percentage of cyber frauds are based on social engineering methods that take advantage of user behaviour as opposed to technical weaknesses. Victimisation can be greatly reduced through specific public awareness efforts on typical scam schemes.
Conclusion
India’s experience illustrates a broader global trend: as economies digitise, crime increasingly follows the flow of digital money. While cybercrime incidents are rising steadily, the much faster growth in financial losses suggests that cybercriminals are becoming more organised, technologically sophisticated, and economically motivated.
References:
- https://indianexpress.com/article/india/indians-lost-rs-53000-crore-fraud-cheating-cases-six-years-maharashtra-2025-10452185/
- https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2226441®=3&lang=2 -
- https://www.ncrb.gov.in/crime-in-india.html
- https://i4c.mha.gov.in/index.aspx
- https://i4c.mha.gov.in/index.aspx
Introduction
On June 2, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order called "Promoting Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security." The order tells federal agencies to improve cyber defences against AI-based threats and creates a system where AI companies can choose to let the government access powerful new models before they are released to the public. This happens as the U.S. and China are in a heated competition to lead the next generation of AI. While the order only affects the United States, its impact could reach the global AI industry, including India.
What Does the Executive Order Do?
The White House order focuses on three areas: First, it aims to upgrade government cyber security. Federal agencies must strengthen their information systems with AI-enabled defences within 30 days. Cyber Security and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) will issue new guidelines for civilian agencies, and an AI Cyber security Clearinghouse will be established for the government and private companies to share and resolve software vulnerabilities.
Second, the order introduces a voluntary pre-release review process for advanced AI models. Before a new model is publicly available, AI companies can give the government up to 30 days to evaluate it for cyber security risks. An earlier draft proposed a 90-day review period, but this was cut back due to feedback from the technology industry. The government will also create classified benchmarks to figure out which models qualify as a “covered frontier model” and are therefore subject to this review process.
Finally, the order emphasises criminal enforcement. It prioritises legal action against those who use AI tools to commit cybercrimes.
According to the White House, the aim is to promote AI innovation and security by collaborating with the private sector to modernise government and private information systems and protect them from external threats.
Why Does This Matter Globally?
- AI Is Now a National Security Issue Until recently, most governments viewed AI as an economic or scientific issue. This order officially changes that for the United States, placing advanced AI alongside other sensitive technologies that need government oversight before deployment. When the world's largest military makes this change, other governments pay attention. Countries allied with or partnering with the U.S. will likely revisit their own AI governance frameworks in the months ahead.
- Two Competing Models for the World The U.S. and EU represent two different approaches to AI governance. The EU AI Act lays down strict rules, is focused on ethics, and requires heavy compliance. The US approach is lighter on ethics, promoting voluntary cooperation, prioritising security, and encouraging innovation. Countries developing their own AI policies will either continue to align with one of these models or take ideas from both. The Atlantic Council has pointed out that if the U.S. model is successful, it could influence international security standards for AI development, even without formal global agreements.
- The China Factor Trump initially delayed signing the order, worried it would slow down American companies and give China an edge. The final version avoids mandatory licensing requirements but clearly indicates that the U.S. aims to lead, not only in building AI but also in securing it. China is likely to respond by speeding up its own evaluation systems, creating another global framework.
What Could This Mean for India?
India has taken a careful, non-mandatory approach to AI governance. MeitY's India AI Governance Guidelines, issued in November 2025, are based on principles and are not binding. India's AI Safety Institute has been announced but is not fully operational. Efforts to create binding regulation have been seen in actions like the Private Member's Bill, the AI Ethics and Accountability Bill, 2025, introduced in the Lok Sabha. This bill suggests mandatory reviews for high-risk AI systems but has not been passed yet. It's important to note that groups like the AI Governance Expert Group (AIGEG) and the Technology and Policy Expert Committee (TPEC) serve only in an advisory role; they do not have legislative power. As a result, nothing binding has been implemented so far. The Trump order puts additional pressure on India to pass measurable, binding AI-security-related measures. As AI use increases in banking, healthcare, telecommunications, and government services and frontier AI models continue to evolve without global oversight, stronger security evaluation methods are becoming necessary, especially in critical sectors.
Recent events prove this need. In June 2026, a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack hit the CBSE's On-Screen Marking portal. It saw 1.5 million requests in two minutes and over one lakh unauthorised file access attempts targeting a system used by millions of students. Similar attacks have impacted AIIMS Delhi and other public digital infrastructure. As AI tools make these attacks easier to carry out, security testing before deployment can no longer be seen as optional.
For Indian AI companies aiming at global markets, the U.S. framework is also important for business. Standards that are set voluntarily in Washington often become necessary for international partnerships and contracts.
Conclusion
Trump's AI cyber security order signals a shift. A government that resisted regulating AI has now recognised that powerful models need oversight before they reach the public. Its immediate impact affects U.S. agencies and developers. However, the broader message is that advanced AI is a national security concern. This will influence policy conversations around the world. For India, the priority is to develop its own security evaluation capacity now, rather than waiting to adopt frameworks created for other contexts.
References
- White House Executive Order, "Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security," June 2, 2026
- Federal Register — Executive Order Publication, June 5, 2026
- Council on Foreign Relations — Assessing Trump's Executive Order on AI Oversight, June 4, 2026
- Atlantic Council — Reading Between the Lines of Trump's New Executive Order on AI, June 3, 2026
- Times of India — Donald Trump Passes AI Cyber security Order
- MeitY India AI Governance Guidelines, November 2025
- AI Ethics and Accountability Bill, 2025 — Explained
- NPR — Trump Signs EO Seeking Early Government Access to Powerful AI Models
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media showing a flood-affected area. In the video, several houses appear to be almost completely submerged in water, with only their triangular rooftops visible above the surface. Several people can be seen sitting on these rooftops, while ducks and other animals appear to be floating in the water. The video is being shared with the claim that it shows the real situation during the recent floods in Assam. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the claim to be misleading. The research revealed that the viral video is not from any real flood incident but was created using Artificial Intelligence (AI). Although the flood situation in Assam is real and several parts of the state have been affected, the viral video has no connection with those events. The AI-generated video is being falsely shared as an actual visual from the Assam floods.
Claim
A user on Instagram shared the viral video on July 27, 2026, claiming that Assam continues to face severe flooding, with more than seven lakh people affected. The post link, archive link and screenshot are provided below.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbSVmAApQf6/
FactCheck
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we extracted several key frames from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. The search did not reveal any credible news report, official source, or reliable information confirming that the video showed real flood visuals from Assam. During the research, we found a report published by Aaj Tak on July 27, 2026. According to the report, the flood situation in Assam remained severe, with several deaths reported and more than 7.05 lakh people affected across nine districts of the state. The report link and screenshot are provided below.
As the video appeared suspicious, we analysed it using the AI detection tool HIVE Moderation. The tool’s analysis indicated a 98.8 percent probability that the video was AI-generated, suggesting that it was not a real recording.
Further research was carried out using another AI detection tool, DetectVideo.AI, which found a 77 percent likelihood of the video being AI-generated.
For additional verification, we extracted key frames from the viral video and analysed them using another AI detection tool, AI or Not. The tool’s assessment indicated a 96 percent probability that the visuals were AI-generated.
Conclusion
The research established that the viral video is not from a real flood incident but was created using AI. While flooding in Assam is a real situation, this AI-generated video is unrelated to the actual floods and is being circulated on social media with a misleading claim.
