Days after Vice President Kamala Harris launched her presidential bid, a video — created with the help of artificial intelligence — went viral.

“I … am your Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate,” a voice that sounded like Harris’ said in the fake audio track used to alter one of her campaign ads. “I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire.”

Billionaire Elon Musk — who has endorsed Harris’ Republican opponent, former President Trump— shared the video on X, then clarified two days later that it was actually meant as a parody. His initial tweet had 136 million views. The follow-up calling the video a parody garnered 26 million views.

To Democrats, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the incident was no laughing matter, fueling calls for more regulation to combat AI-generated videos with political messages and a fresh debate over the appropriate role for government in trying to contain emerging technology.

On Friday, California lawmakers gave final approval to a bill that would prohibit the distribution of deceptive campaign ads or “election communication” within 120 days of an election. Assembly Bill 2839 targets manipulated content that would harm a candidate’s reputation or electoral prospects along with confidence in an election’s outcome. It’s meant to address videos like the one Musk shared of Harris, though it includes an exception for parody and satire.

“We’re looking at California entering its first-ever election during which disinformation that’s powered by generative AI is going to pollute our information ecosystems like never before and millions of voters are not going to know what images, audio or video they can trust,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz). “So we have to do something.”

Newsom has signaled he will sign the bill, which would take effect immediately, in time for the November election.

The legislation updates a California law that bars people from distributing deceptive audio or visual media that intends to harm a candidate’s reputation or deceive a voter within 60 days of an election. State lawmakers say the law needs to be strengthened during an election cycle in which people are already flooding social media with digitally altered videos and photos known as deepfakes.

The use of deepfakes to spread misinformation has concerned lawmakers and regulators during previous election cycles. These fears increased after the release of new AI-powered tools, such as chatbots that can rapidly generate images and videos. From fake robocalls to bogus celebrity endorsement of candidates, AI-generated content is testing tech platforms and lawmakers.

Under AB 2839, a candidate, election committee or elections official could seek a court order to get deepfakes pulled down. They could also sue the person who distributed or republished the deceptive material for damages.

The legislation also applies to deceptive media posted 60 days after the election, including content that falsely portrays a voting machine, ballot, voting site or other election-related property in a way that is likely to undermine the confidence in the outcome of elections.

It doesn’t apply to satire or parody that’s labeled as such, or to broadcast stations if they inform viewers that what is depicted doesn’t accurately represent a speech or event.

Tech industry groups oppose AB 2839, along with other bills that target online platforms for not properly moderating deceptive election content or labeling AI-generated content.

“It will result in the chilling and blocking of constitutionally protected free speech,” said Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel for NetChoice. The group’s members include Google, X and Snap as well as Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and other tech giants.

Online platforms have their own rules about manipulated media and political ads, but their policies can differ.

Unlike Meta and X, TikTok doesn’t allow political ads and says it may remove even labeled AI-generated content if it depicts a public figure such as a celebrity “when used for political or commercial endorsements.” Truth Social, a platform created by Trump, doesn’t address manipulated media in its rules about what’s not allowed on its platform.

Federal and state regulators are already cracking down on AI-generated content.

The Federal Communications Commission in May proposed a $6-million fine against Steve Kramer, a Democratic political consultant behind a robocall that used AI to impersonate President Biden’s voice. The fake call discouraged participation in New Hampshire’s Democratic presidential primary in January. Kramer, who told NBC News he planned the call to bring attention to the dangers of AI in politics, also faces criminal charges of felony voter suppression and misdemeanor impersonation of a candidate.

Szabo said current laws are enough to address concerns about election deepfakes. NetChoice has sued various states to stop some laws aimed at protecting children on social media, alleging they violate free speech protections under the 1st Amendment.

“Just creating a new law doesn’t do anything to stop the bad behavior, you actually need to enforce laws,” Szabo said.

More than two dozen states, including Washington, Arizona and Oregon, have enacted, passed or are working on legislation to regulate deepfakes, according to the consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen.

In 2019, California instituted a law aimed at combating manipulated media after a video that made it appear as if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was drunk went viral on social media. Enforcing that law has been a challenge.

“We did have to water it down,” said Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), who authored the bill. “It attracted a lot of attention to the potential risks of this technology, but I was worried that it really, at the end of the day, didn’t do a lot.”

Rather than take legal action, said Danielle Citron, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, political candidates might choose to debunk a deepfake or even ignore it to limit its spread. By the time they could go through the court system, the content might already have gone viral.

“These laws are important because of the message they send. They teach us something,” she said, adding that they inform people who share deepfakes that there are costs.

This year, lawmakers worked with the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a project of the nonprofit California Common Cause, on several bills to address political deepfakes.

Some target online platforms that have been shielded under federal law from being held liable for content posted by users.

Berman introduced a bill that requires an online platform with at least 1 million California users to remove or label certain deceptive election-related content within 120 days of an election. The platforms would have to take action no later than 72 hours after a user reports the post. Under AB 2655, which passed the Legislature Wednesday, the platforms would also need procedures for identifying, removing and labeling fake content. It also doesn’t apply to parody or satire or news outlets that meet certain requirements.

Another bill, co-authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), requires online platforms to label AI-generated content. While NetChoice and TechNet, another industry group, oppose the bill, ChatGPT maker OpenAI is supporting AB 3211, Reuters reported.

The two bills, though, wouldn’t take effect until after the election, underscoring the challenges with passing new laws as technology advances rapidly.

“Part of my hope with introducing the bill is the attention that it creates, and hopefully the pressure that it puts on the social media platforms to behave right now,” Berman said.

Vice President Kamala Harris made a 180-degree turn on her opinion about prosecuting illegal border crossings during her long-awaited first interview since becoming the Democratic Party’s official nominee for president. 

CNN anchor Dana Bash questioned Harris Thursday about whether she still believed illegal border crossings should be prosecuted, something Harris indicated she was against while running her 2019 campaign to become president.

“I believe there should be consequence,” Harris told Bash. “We have laws that have to be followed and enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally. … And let’s be clear, in this race, I’m the only person who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations who traffic in guns, drugs and human beings. I’m the only person in this race who actually served a border state as attorney general to enforce our laws. And I would enforce our laws as president going forward.”

TOP 5 MOMENTS FROM KAMALA HARRIS’ FIRST INTERVIEW AS DEM NOMINEE: ‘I WILL NOT BAN FRACKING’

Harris’ comments Thursday contrasted with what she has said and done in the past regarding illegal immigration, particularly when it comes to illegal border crossings. 

Besides indicating during a nationally televised debate that she would not pursue people who have crossed the border illegally for prosecution, she told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2015 that “an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” She also posted the claim on social media. And in a riff with the late Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain’s daughter, Meghan, during a 2019 episode of “The View,” Harris reiterated her stance.

“I would not make it a crime punishable by jail,” she said. “It should be a civil enforcement issue but not a criminal enforcement issue.” 

As a U.S. senator, Harris sought to strip funding from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And as California’s attorney general, she instructed local law enforcement not to adhere to ICE detainers when they request that someone who has committed a crime and crossed the border illegally be held until they can be taken into custody to initiate deportation procedures. 

Harris has also compared ICE to the Ku Klux Klan.

KAMALA HARRIS OFFERS VAGUE ‘DAY 1’ OVAL OFFICE PLAN IN CNN INTERVIEW: ‘A NUMBER OF THINGS’

Fox News Digital spoke to critics who called Harris’ comments “insincere” and “for election purposes” only. (Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)

Fox News Digital spoke to two conservative immigration law experts who called her comments “insincere” and “for election purposes” only. 

“If someone cares about enforcing our laws as they pertain to the border, you would think that they would be a part of and lead an administration that prosecutes sufficient offenses related to crossing the border unlawfully,” said Gene Hamilton, the director of America First Legal, a right-wing legal group founded by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller. 

“The Department of Justice’s prosecution for border-related offenses are at rock bottom. They are lower than even the Obama years, and that’s saying something.”

Hamilton, who served as counselor to the attorney general at the Department of Justice under former President Trump, argued a key metric in determining how seriously an administration is taking border security is the number of illegal border crossings compared to the number of individuals deported. 

Last year, there were 2.4 million illegal border crossings, according to Department of Justice data, Hamilton said. 

Meanwhile, the Justice Department prosecuted around 20,000 of those violations. 

“You know, the numbers — the numbers speak for themselves,” Hamilton argued. He also pointed out that in 2019, under Trump, there were fewer illegal border crossings than the country faced in 2023, but the Trump administration still prosecuted more than five times the number of illegal border crossers than the Biden-Harris administration in 2023.

“As she said last night in her interview, her values have not changed. She said that over and over again,” said Lora Ries, the director of the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center. “She is telling her base, ‘Look, don’t worry about what the campaign is saying right now. We just have to say that to try and get elected. But my values have not changed.’”

NBC REPORTER CALLS OUT KAMALA HARRIS FOR SAYING HER ‘VALUES HAVEN’T CHANGED’: ‘HER POSITIONS HAVE CHANGED’

Vice President Kamala Harris raised eyebrows when telling CNN’s Dana Bash that her “values haven’t changed” after making complete reversals on far-left positions she held in 2019. (Screenshot/CNN)

CNN’S KAMALA HARRIS, TIM WALZ INTERVIEW CAN BE SUMMED UP IN JUST TWO WORDS

Ries slammed the Biden-Harris administration for “gaslighting” the American public but argued the Harris campaign “is taking it to another level” by denying Harris was tapped to be the border czar and pretending as if she is not in power and able to enact tougher measures at the border.

“She’s in power right now. If she truly meant it, she would do it now, and she’s not. But to pretend like you’re not in power and not in office right now is a higher level of gaslighting,” said Ries. “I think this is just, you know, for election purposes.” 

Hamilton echoed that statement, calling Harris’ comments Thursday “insincere.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris campaign repeatedly for comment but did not receive a response.

With just over two months left until Election Day, Vice President Kamala Harris has taken a slight lead over former President Trump in national polls and has made advances in several swing states that previously seemed locked up for Trump.

Poll after poll shows the race essentially tied, with leads for either Trump or Harris often within the margin of error.

Harris would take 45% of the nationwide vote, compared with Trump’s 41%, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll of registered voters, released Thursday. Her margin widened to 13 percentage points over Trump among women and Hispanic voters, the survey found.

Harris leads Trump 48% to 47% in a head-to-head matchup, according to a Thursday poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal, which noted the vice president holds a 2-point lead when independent and third-party candidates are factored into the survey.

And in a USA Today/Suffolk University survey, also released Thursday, Harris holds a 48%-to-43% lead over Trump.

The spate of new polls, released after the pro-Harris blitz at the Democratic National Convention wrapped up, reflects a dramatic shift in the state of the race since President Biden dropped out just over a month ago.

The Trump campaign anticipated the post-DNC bump of support for Harris, saying in a statement before her acceptance speech Aug. 22, “These bumps do not last.” The campaign noted that it had also predicted a “honeymoon” period of positive polling and good press after Harris’ nomination, adding that it blamed the media, which it said had “decided to extend the honeymoon for over 4 weeks now.”

Narrow margins in swing states

Both the Trump and Harris campaigns have been zeroing in on the swing states likely to determine the election. Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, campaigned in Georgia and North Carolina this week and announced a “reproductive freedom bus tour” across several battleground states, beginning next week. Meanwhile, Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, visited Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that Trump led Harris 45% to 43% among registered voters across the seven battleground states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Michigan and Nevada. But a Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll showed Harris either leading or tied with Trump in the same states.

A Fox News poll conducted over the weekend showed Harris leading by 1 percentage point in Arizona, and by 2 points in Georgia and Nevada. Trump was up 1 point in North Carolina, according to the Fox News poll.

The Fox News polling finds Harris keeping pace with the support that won President Biden the election in 2020; he eked out leads in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada while Trump won North Carolina. In the 2024 campaign, Trump previously held a commanding lead in the four Sun Belt states before Biden dropped out, according to Fox News polls conducted earlier this year.

Harris maintained a 1-point lead across the four states even when third-party candidates such as Chase Oliver, Jill Stein and Cornel West were included, the Fox News survey found.

Issues voters care about

More Americans trust Harris on the issues of abortion, healthcare, uniting the country, fighting for the people and bringing needed change, according to the Fox News poll. But Trump is the go-to candidate for border security and immigration, the economy and the Israel-Hamas war, it found.

Voters who spoke to Reuters/Ipsos pollsters agreed that Trump would have a better approach to managing the U.S. economy — 45% compared with 36% for Harris. But they preferred the vice president at a 47% to 31% advantage on the issue of abortion policy.

On the topic of democracy and election integrity, 68% of voters in a poll conducted by ABC News/Ipsos said that Harris was likely to accept the election results, compared with just 29% who said the same about Trump. As for the voters themselves, 81% said they would accept the outcome no matter who won.

Pro-Palestinian voters continue to show discontent

Harris’ numbers are not all so bright, however. The Council on American-Islamic Relations found in a poll released Thursday that 29.4% of American Muslims intend to vote for Harris — nearly tying with their support for Green Party candidate Stein at 29.1%. The findings reveal that American Muslims continue to press their complaints about the Biden-Harris administration’s policies on Gaza.

Trump voters made up 11.2% of those polled, with small percentages for West and Oliver. About 16% said they were undecided.

During the spring’s Democratic primaries, many Muslims and pro-Palestinian voters showed their discontent with Biden by casting ballots marked “uncommitted.” This was especially true in Michigan, a swing state where Biden won by less than 3% of the vote in 2020 and home to the largest population of Arab Americans in the nation. More than 13% of voters cast “uncommitted” ballots in the state’s February primary.

Stein, a long-shot third-party candidate, frequently runs in presidential elections without notching much support countrywide. But CAIR’s survey shows that she provides an outlet for disgruntled Americans to register their discontent. Still, Harris’ prospects among American Muslims are an improvement over Biden’s. In a previous survey of 2,500 Muslim Americans, CAIR found that they supported Biden at 7.3%, compared with Trump at 4.9%. Overwhelming support went to third-party candidates Stein at 36% and West at 25.2%.

The RFK Jr. effect

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dropped out of the race last week and endorsed Trump, pundits were aflutter with questions about how his decision would affect the leading two candidates. Early polling shows that the remaining support for Kennedy — which had diminished after Biden dropped out and Harris became the Democratic nominee — is turning toward Trump.

The Fox News poll found that 3 in 4 voters who had a favorable view of Kennedy now support Trump.