#FactCheck: AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows Trump Vandalising His Office After Midterm Election Defeat
Executive Summary
Following the defeat of US President Donald Trump’s Republican Party in the American midterm elections, a video purportedly showing Trump vandalising his office is going viral on social media. Some users are sharing the video, claiming that Trump resorted to vandalism in his office after his party lost the midterm elections. CyberPeace Research found the video to be AI-generated. However, users are sharing it as genuine.
Claim:
Facebook user ‘Lalan Prasad’ shared the video in a post dated November 5, 2026 (archived link), with the caption: “Does this man deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? After the election results were announced, he allegedly vandalised his office at around 2:30. Trump’s anger is at its peak.”
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1148698857556238
Fact Check
To verify the viral claim, we searched Google using relevant keywords. However, we did not find any credible media reports supporting the claim. In the next step of our research, we found a post by Instagram user ‘eman_russ’, who shared the video on November 4, 2026. The post is labelled ‘AI Generated’, and its caption explicitly states that the video was created using ‘higgsfield.ai’.
We also scanned the viral video using the AI detection tool SynthID. According to the results, the video is AI-generated.
In the next step of our research, we scanned the video using DetectVideo AI. According to the results, the viral video is 96 per cent AI-generated.
Conclusion
Our research found that the viral video is AI-generated and does not show US President Donald Trump vandalising his office following his party’s defeat in the midterm elections. The video was originally shared on Instagram with an ‘AI Generated’ label, and its creator explicitly mentioned that it was made using ‘higgsfield.ai’. Further analysis using AI detection tools also indicated that the video was artificially generated. Despite this, social media users are sharing it as a genuine incident, falsely linking it to the midterm election results.
Related Blogs
.webp)
Wishing one another on birthdays and other occasions, sharing messages and wisdom, debating or discussing current issues, and announcing one's opinions and announcements over WhatsApp is more or less nothing new. These all are some of the latest versions of traditional communication without which our lives seem to be an un-escaped miss. Therefore, to state the obvious, WhatsApp is the platform that offers a group of good friends (as decided by the user) to communicate over – sharing information or ideas over a digital platform.
The practice of sharing allegations, images, videos, and hyperlinks through WhatsApp groups on an indiscriminate basis is becoming more and more prevalent and naturally raises the pertinent question: When does the ordinary digital conversation become actionable?
To answer this question, we need to differentiate between what is obnoxious, what is hurtful and what is illegal. There may be overlap between them, but they are not the same thing.
1. The Legal Distinction Between Offensive Expression and Unlawful Communication
The law does not impose on the individual an obligation to communicate respectfully. Criminal liability cannot be founded upon irritation or disapproval. It must be one that is defined by law.
Where a message simply contains info that is forbidden by law, a CRIMINAL threat or libellous imputations, matters are substantially different. Take the defamation provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Section 356, for instance. To arrive at the conclusion that a certain commentary constitutes defamation, one must look at the nature of the imputation which is attributed, the knowledge and intention concerning the reputational injury and the statutory exception as applicable. If the recipient finds the commentary offensive, it does not necessarily mean that it is defamatory. Similarly, the protection granted to criticism or fair remark cannot be interpreted as an unrestrained license to publish harmful accusations regardless of their veracity, rationale, or sincerity.
In addition, pornographic and sexually explicit material sent electronically is governed by a separate law. The Information Technology Act, 2000, has Sections 67 and 67A that relate to the publication or distribution of pornographic or sexually explicit material, respectively. Section 67B relates to certain kinds of sexually explicit content involving minors. These provisions are not just different in wording but also in material substance.
In short, there are different regulations that regulate the publication or transmission of sexually explicit and pornographic material electronically. Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deal with the publication or transmission of such materials, while Section 67B deals with certain kinds of sexually explicit material involving children. The application of these clauses depends on content and circumstance.
2. Forwarding Is an Act, Not Merely a Gesture
The idea that a WhatsApp forward is just something that has been "shared" tends to downplay the importance of the act. Forwarding can increase the audience for a piece of content, make it easier for it to spread, and, in certain situations, even help someone commit a crime. The issue of accountability for its future dissemination is not always resolved by the fact that the original content was produced by someone else.
This is exemplified in cases of copyright infringement. The Copyright Act of 1957 protects original literary, artistic, musical and other works. While Section 63 of the Act prescribes the criminal punishment for any act committed with intent to infringe on copyrighted work or for knowingly aiding or abetting such infringement, Section 51 defines what constitutes the infringement of copyright. The simple act of sharing a link to a movie, a book, a software program or any other work protected by the Act will not always necessarily amount to 'crystal clear' criminal responsibility; an investigation into the nature of the content, rights owned, nature of behaviour of the person sharing and required law must be made. A messaged group is not something that questions or impacts the rights of copyright owners.
If a recipient sends such content without checking it, they might unintentionally aid in its spread. Depending on the relevant statutory elements and supporting documentation, it is a different matter entirely whether or not that individual faces legal obligation. However, indiscriminate sending is not a responsible practice just because there is no criminal culpability in a given situation. Even though digital communication does not in and of itself create a legal responsibility, it does create an ethical duty of care.
3. Freedom of Speech, Intermediary Obligations and Group Administrator Liability
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for the right to freedom of speech and expression. But sub-article 19(2) provides for reasonable restrictions on this right, and these restrictions, as they have been provided, are reasonable restrictions under the following grounds, namely: – public order, decency or morality, and defamation. So, the right is not absolute.
The due diligence specifications for intermediaries are contained in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended. Read along with these are the prescribed obligations of due diligence which must be placed into the context of the intermediary versus that of the criminal wrongdoer of a user or group admin. Even a consent to a malevolent post being posted on a WhatsApp group cannot itself be deemed a general violation of the rules.
In addition, the role and liability of a group admin are matters that should be pondered upon. Merely having the power to include or exclude members from the group, without proof of being responsible for every post made by a certain participant, cannot be grounds for holding an admin responsible for any offensive post made by any of the others. In Kishor v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court considered the question of the liability of an admin for offensive posts made by another member of the group.
This finding does not mean an administrator will always be free from criminal liability. There could be a different situation if the administrator personally creates, distributes, enables or aids in publication of illegal material or even conduct that constitutes a crime. The difference is the existence of duties under the control of the administrator as opposed to duties under their own lawful conduct.
4. The Case for Responsible Digital Conduct
The law has the ability to recognise wrongful behaviour and impose a sanction, but alone it cannot ensure that all use of the medium is thoughtful, proportionate and respectful. It’s mainly the audience that has that obligation.
False allegations, unapproved copyrighted content, personal images, fake links, and content that violates the dignity and rights of another should not be part of a WhatsApp group. Admins can assist by setting out what a group's aims are, banning abuse, and reacting to something that needs reacting to. To post content, members should exercise their judgement, particularly if the content is related to another person's reputation, privacy, or finance.
The principle is quite straightforward: ease of transmission should not be mistaken for lack of responsibility. There remains a potential for illegal behaviour and rights breaches in what is essentially a private gathering. Nevertheless, it is essential to think about the details in each case and the factors of the law before asserting any legal consequences.
Think before you type. Verify before you forward. Respect before you post.
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media with the claim that the Chinese Army has entered 60 kilometres inside Arunachal Pradesh and occupied Indian territory. In the video, a man appears to be recording the situation using his selfie camera, while soldiers can be seen standing face-to-face and arguing with each other in the background. The CyberPeace Research Wing found that the claim is false. The viral video is not from Arunachal Pradesh. It shows a confrontation between India’s Border Security Force (BSF) and Bangladesh’s Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) along the India-Bangladesh border.
Claim
A Facebook user shared the video with the caption:
"China is entering 60 km inside India and occupying Arunachal Pradesh. China is turning Arunachal Pradesh into its territory. Where are Prime Minister Modi, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Home Minister Amit Shah?"
Post link:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1736825064305394
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1736825064305394
FactCheck
Our research found no credible news report confirming that Chinese troops had entered 60 kilometres inside Arunachal Pradesh or occupied Indian territory.
The people in the viral video can be heard speaking in Bengali, suggesting that the footage could be from the India-Bangladesh border rather than Arunachal Pradesh.
A reverse image search of keyframes from the viral video led us to an identical video posted on the Facebook page of Bangladeshi news channel Jamuna TV on June 20. According to the caption, the incident took place along the Chapainawabganj border in Bangladesh, where personnel of India’s BSF and Bangladesh’s BGB had confronted each other.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1049262804595610
We also found reports from Bangladeshi media outlet Prothom Alo about the incident. According to the reports, Bangladeshi security personnel had stopped around 20 people who were attempting to return to Bangladesh from India, following which a verbal altercation took place between BSF and BGB personnel.
https://www.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/district/syzkfootaq
Conclusion
The viral claim is false. The video does not show Chinese troops entering or occupying 60 kilometres of territory inside Arunachal Pradesh. It actually shows a confrontation between BSF and BGB personnel along the India-Bangladesh border in the Chapainawabganj area of Bangladesh. The footage is being circulated with a false Arunachal Pradesh-related narrative.
Executive Summary:
A video circulating online claims to show a man being assaulted by BSF personnel in India for selling Bangladesh flags at a football stadium. The footage has stirred strong reactions and cross border concerns. However, our research confirms that the video is neither recent nor related to the incident that occurred in India. The content has been wrongly framed and shared with misleading claims, misrepresenting the actual incident.
Claim:
It is being claimed through a viral post on social media that a Border Security Force (BSF) soldier physically attacked a man in India for allegedly selling the national flag of Bangladesh in West Bengal. The viral video further implies that the incident reflects political hostility towards Bangladesh within Indian territory.
Fact Check:
After conducting thorough research, including visual verification, reverse image searching, and confirming elements in the video background, we determined that the video was filmed outside of Bangabandhu National Stadium in Dhaka, Bangladesh, during the crowd buildup prior to the AFC Asian Cup. A match featuring Bangladesh against Singapore.
Second layer research confirmed that the man seen being assaulted is a local flag-seller named Hannan. There are eyewitness accounts and local news sources indicating that Bangladeshi Army officials were present to manage the crowd on the day under review. During the crowd control effort a soldier assaulted the vendor with excessive force. The incident created outrage to which the Army responded by identifying the officer responsible and taking disciplinary measures. The victim was reported to have been offered reparations for the misconduct.
Conclusion:
Our research confirms that the viral video does not depict any incident in India. The claim that a BSF officer assaulted a man for selling Bangladesh flags is completely false and misleading. The real incident occurred in Bangladesh, and involved a local army official during a football event crowd-control situation. This case highlights the importance of verifying viral content before sharing, as misinformation can lead to unnecessary panic, tension, and international misunderstanding.
- Claim: Viral video claims BSF personnel thrashing a person selling Bangladesh National Flag in West Bengal
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
