Right-wing pundits suddenly hate an AI bill. Are they getting paid to kill it?

Suspicious similarities in posts from over a dozen conservative influencers including Laura Loomer, Brad Parscale, and Ryan Fournier hint at a coordinated-yet-slapdash effort to stop an AI bill.

Something strange happened on conservative social media in the last few days.

Around a dozen right-wing influencers suddenly launched a barrage of false and misleading attacks on X this week against a bill meant to block American adversaries from getting advanced AI chips. In reviewing these X posts, we found indications that they’re the result of a coordinated effort — potentially funded by big tech companies — similar to previously reported political influence campaigns.

It began on Thursday, when popular conservatives including Laura Loomer, Brad Parscale, and Ryan Fournier suddenly began posting extremely similar criticisms of the AI OVERWATCH Act. The bill had received relatively little public attention since its introduction in December 2025.

The posts shared not just a viewpoint, but linguistic fingerprints: the same metaphors, the same framings, and the same false and misleading narrative about what the bill actually does and where it comes from.

Covert, coordinated influence campaigns are increasingly common on social media. In conservative circles, two recent examples were orchestrated by the same company offering this as a service:

• In March 2025, a wave of conservative influencers were caught posting nearly identical criticism of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s initiative to remove soda from SNAP benefits. Journalist Nick Sortor revealed that a PR company called Influenceable had been paying influencers $1,000 or more per post, complete with pre-written talking points and images of Trump drinking Diet Coke.

• In August 2023, the Texas Tribune documented how Influenceable recruited Gen-Z influencers to defend impeached Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and promote the film “Sound of Freedom.” The same company has been linked to promotional campaigns for films like “Nefarious,” “Homestead,” and “Reagan.”

The AI OVERWATCH Act campaign looks awfully similar. And the stakes are high: the bill has implications for Nvidia’s ability to sell advanced AI chips to China, a market worth billions of dollars to the company. If someone wanted to kill this legislation before it gained momentum, a coordinated influencer campaign — using conservative figures to pressure the Republicans running Congress — would be one way to do it.

The bill was introduced by Florida Republican Rep. Brian Mast to create a review process of advanced AI chip exports to US adversaries, treating them as similar to arms sales. It’s co-sponsored by multiple Republican committee chairs, and it has been endorsed by Microsoft, the think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the conservative think tank American Compass. People can reasonably disagree about whether this kind of congressional oversight is wise policy. What’s less reasonable is the way the bill was characterized by a sudden flood of influencers who all seemed to be reading from the same script.

Starting on January 15, the day after President Trump formally approved Nvidia to sell its powerful H200 AI chips to China, the posts began flooding in.

One small but striking piece of evidence that these posts originated from a shared source is that two of them contain an identical typo. In both, “AI” is typed as “Al” — a mistake that happens when a capital I gets copied as a lowercase L, the type of mistake that is hard to make if not copy-pasting from another source.

Joey Mannarino (@JoeyMannarino, 658K followers, Thu 2:35 PM ET):
“If America loses the AI race to China, we are completely screwed for generations as a nation. Al is going to redefine the way we do literally everything. This is the modern-day arms race... Democrats are trying to force an Al Overwatch Act through the House to tie President Trump’s hands on the issue.”

Not Jerome Powell (@alifarhat79, 712K followers, Thu 5:30 PM ET):
“The Al Overwatch Act is being proposed to strip President Trump of his constitutionally mandated authority as the Commander in Chief of the United States, handing it over to the volatile, ineffective hands of Congress. House Republicans are being lied to, and misled by the Democrats and their Deep State partners... Even worse, this bill would empower Hakeem Jeffries and House Democrats the ability to veto President Trump’s definitive plan to beat China...”

That second post’s mention of Democrats, and specifically “Hakeem Jeffries,” being given “veto power” was echoed in two further posts. A third uses the identical phrase “democrats and their deep state partners:”

Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby, 251K followers, Thu 3:37 PM ET):
“The AI OVERWATCH Act is a power grab that strips Trump of control over AI chip exports and hands it to Congress. If Dems take the House, this gives Hakeem Jeffries veto power over Trump’s China strategy.”

Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer, 1.8M followers, Thu 8:37 PM ET):
“The AI Overwatch Act (H.R. 6875) may sound like a good idea, but when you examine it closely, it’s pro-China sabotage disguised as oversight... It yanks control of advanced AI chip exports away from President Trump... and instead hands veto power to Congress. When the Democrats take back the House in 2026, Hakeem Jeffries @RepJeffries could greenlight sales of these chips to China... What’s alarming is the fact that the bill is largely being supported in the media by Never-Trumpers, ex-Biden staffers, and Democrat AI executives like Anthropic’s @AnthropicAI Dario Amodei... We need to beat China in AI...”

Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier, 1.2M followers, Thu 4:09 PM ET):
“President Trumps authority is clear. The Commander in Chief has ultimate authority on foreign affairs. Democrats and their Deep State partners are purposefully misleading House Republicans to strip him of this authority... America must win the AI Cold War with China, and the AI Overwatch Bill destroys Trump’s China strategy.”

That “Never-Trumpers and Obama/Biden staffers” framing appeared in three posts. Two of them also invoked the president’s “authority as Commander in Chief”:

Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby, 251K followers, Fri 2:15 PM ET):
“The proposed AI Overwatch Act represents a direct challenge to President Trump’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief... Rather than strengthening U.S. competitiveness, the Act would effectively tie the President’s hands, undermining efforts to position the United States advantageously against China... It is being driven by a network of prominent Never Trump figures and former Obama and Biden administration officials...”

Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav, 1.7M followers, Thu 6:20 PM ET):
“The AI Overwatch Act is being proposed to take away President Trump’s authority as Commander in Chief and undermine his America First strategy. This would restrict the President’s ability to restrict AI chip export controls. It handicaps Trump’s ability to strategically position the USA favorably against China. This is being orchestrated by a several notable Never Trumpers and Obama/Biden former staffers...”

Meanwhile, language about “winning the AI race” while the bill would “strip” Trump’s power and “give it to Congress” recurred across several more:

Angel Kaay Lo (@kaay_lo, 16K followers, Thu 5:26 PM ET):
“Now, they’re misleading even some Republicans into supporting bills like the AI Overwatch Act (H.R. 6875), which would hamstring Trump’s strategy to dominate the AI race against China by giving Congress veto power over key exports.”

Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs, 1.6M followers, Fri 11:53 AM ET):
“America needs to win the AI race. The AI Overwatch Act strips the president of constitutional authority, hands foreign policy to Congress, and blocks action against China.”

Brad Parscale (@parscale, 725K followers, Thu 10:49 AM ET):
“House Republicans are being lied to by Democrats who want America to lose the AI race against China. They are proposing the AI Overwatch Act, a Trojan horse to strip Trump of foreign policy powers and give them to Congress... We need to win the AI race...”

Gentry Gevers (@gentrywgevers, 16K followers, Thu 6:16 PM ET):
“Trump needs leverage over China. This bill would strip Trump of negotiating power by giving congress power. And if China lobbies and buys congress people, then they get the best chips which means they win the ai war.”

Peter St Onge (@profstonge, 290K followers, Thu 10:55 AM ET):
“The AI Overwatch Act would strip Trump of his ability to control AI chip exports to China. Turning that power to Congress. Where lobbyists make the rules.”

Fight With Memes (@FightWithMemes, 225K followers, Thu 6:52 PM ET):
“The AI Overwatch Act is up for deliberation. It looks to me like they want to move oversight of AI chip sales from Trump to Congress. Which would be fine... if Congress was worth anything at all. The bill is sponsored by a long list of degenerate Democrats.”

To summarize the similarities:

• Eight accounts used some variation of “win/lose/beat/dominate” the “AI race.”

• Seven used “strip Trump of his” power/authority/control.

• Five mentioned hand/handing control to Congress or Democrats.

• Four invoked Trump’s “authority as Commander in Chief.”

• Four mentioned giving Democrats or Congress a “veto.”

• Three named “Hakeem Jeffries.”

• Three mentioned “Never Trumpers” and Obama/Biden officials.

• Three referred specifically to Trump’s “constitutionally mandated authority:”

• Two used the exact same phrase: “Democrats and their Deep State partners.”

• Two (Joey Mannarino and “Not Jerome Powell”) even had the same subtle typo in the “Al OVERWATCH Act” — using a lowercase “L” in “AI” instead of an uppercase “I”. This is a rare typo but it’s easy to miss when it occurs, so it’s more likely to be repeated if you’re copy-and-pasting from the same text.

Several of the accounts quoted above have documented or apparent ties to previous campaigns run by Influenceable, the PR firm that pays conservative influencers to post coordinated content without disclosure. To be clear: we don’t know that Influenceable orchestrated this particular campaign, and it’s possible that another organization or no organization was involved. But the overlap with accounts that appear to be involved with past Influenceable campaigns is suggestive:

• @parscale (Brad Parscale): His company Campaign Nucleus partners with Influenceable, and he has spoken at networking events hosted by the firm. He also appeared to participate in the coordinated promotional campaign for “Sound of Freedom,” a film that Influenceable helped market to conservative audiences alongside the Paxton defense.
  

• @RyanAFournier (Ryan Fournier): He posted content defending Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against impeachment — a campaign Influenceable was likely paid to orchestrate. He also appeared to participate in promotional campaigns for the films “Nefarious” and “Reagan,” both of which were promoted by Influenceable.
  

• @gentrywgevers (Gentry Gevers): He posted extensively about “Sound of Freedom,” the Influenceable-promoted film, and defended Paxton using the same hashtags (#texascorruption) that appeared across other accounts in the Influenceable network.
  

• @LauraLoomer (Laura Loomer): She promoted “Sound of Freedom,” the Influenceable-promoted film, and defended Paxton, attacking Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan as a “drunk RINO” — the same talking point other Influenceable-linked accounts pushed. Loomer has strongly denied being paid for her social media posts despite speculation, though the Wall Street Journal reports that she has received funding from entities with aligned political interests.
  

• @WallStreetMav: This account posted repeatedly about Homestead, another film promoted by Influenceable, with disclosure that the posts were part of a paid partnership.
  

• @DefiantLs: This account also posted about Homestead, the Influenceable-promoted film, with a similar acknowledgment of paid partnership.

This doesn’t prove these accounts were paid for the AI OVERWATCH posts specifically. But when accounts that have participated in previous Influenceable campaigns all suddenly become experts on semiconductor export control policy within a single day, posting similar language with similar errors, the coincidence raises serious questions.

It would be one thing if this were simply a case of undisclosed paid influencer posts — unfortunate and ethically questionable, but increasingly common on social media. What makes this case more troubling is that the posts contain claims that are difficult to reconcile with the actual text of the legislation.

• Several posts characterize this as an effort led by Democrats, with one even claiming it’s “sponsored by a long list of degenerate Democrats.” The bill was introduced by Republican Brian Mast, and every single cosponsor is a Republican. The bill has support from Microsoft, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (a hawkish think tank that is not generally considered a Democratic Party operation), and American Compass, a conservative economic policy organization whose chief economist, Oren Cass, praised the bill as “how America First policy looks.”
  

• Multiple posts suggest the bill is intended to help China, or that it would “greenlight [chip] sales” to China. The bill actually creates a mechanism for Congress to block chip exports to adversary nations.
  

• The claim that the bill “strips” Trump of constitutional authority is a matter of interpretation. But the bill is modeled on the Arms Export Control Act, which has existed since 1976 and is generally not considered to have “stripped” any president of their foreign policy powers.

Why would someone want conservative influencers to attack this specific bill?

The most obvious beneficiary is Nvidia, which has been lobbying aggressively for the ability to sell chips to China. CEO Jensen Huang met personally with Trump in December to discuss export controls, and the company stood to lose billions in potential revenue from any legislation that would give Congress veto power over chip exports. In January, Punchbowl News reported that he publicly opposed the AI OVERWATCH Act.

“Export control has been assigned to Commerce for good reason,” Huang said. “One source in the government to enforce laws I think is plenty.”

Nvidia appears to have allies in the administration — on January 15th, White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks quote-tweeted Wall Street Mav’s post, which contains the mistaken narratives about the origin and function of the bill, with a single word: “Correct.” It’s possible Sacks was endorsing the post’s broader argument about executive authority rather than its factual claims, but in appearance, his comment seems to endorse a patently misleading picture of the bill.

Nvidia, Influenceable, and the nine reachable Twitter accounts mentioned in this article did not respond to a request for comment on Friday night.

It’s possible there was no paid influence campaign. Maybe, instead of paid posts, talking points were distributed among a close-knit ideological community, and these accounts chose to share the info on their own accord. Or, perhaps 12 conservative influencers really did independently decide to research the minutiae of semiconductor export control policy on the same day and independently arrived at the same metaphors, the same framings, and the same typos.

But if these influencers weren’t paid for these posts, or handed suggested language on a pre-prepared document, they should say so explicitly. If you did your own research, share your sources. If you arrived at this language independently, explain how.

In 2024, when the Texas Ethics Commission adopted new rules requiring disclosure of paid political posts after the Paxton campaign, the commission’s general counsel noted that their decision was prompted by “at least one business,” presumed to be Influenceable, whose “business model now is to do just that,” namely, paying people with platforms to shape political conversations. The representative made clear: “It is not a hypothetical.”

It still isn’t.

This article represents nonpartisan commentary on social media campaigns and disclosure practices. The Midas Project takes no position on the AI OVERWATCH Act or any legislation referenced herein.