Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity

Minneapolis: Grok reportedly generated and posted on X a sexualized altered image of a photograph of a woman killed in a shooting, at a user's request

A woman was killed by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis on 7 January 2026. Mother Jones reports that an X user asked Grok to alter a photograph of the woman into a sexualized image and that Grok complied and published the result on X, citing a CNN correspondent's post and Grok's own replies, in which the chatbot said it had used sensitive content unintentionally and that the image may violate the 2025 TAKE IT DOWN Act. Mother Jones dates the request to Wednesday 7 January, while the correspondent's post is dated Thursday 8 January and the New York Times reports requests to Grok about the woman on Thursday. Rolling Stone and the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch describe the same episode. The woman was already dead when the image was made, so the death is context only and no source connects it to an AI system. No statement from relatives about the image was found. The record does not name the woman and describes the image only as a sexualized alteration.

AI system
Grok
xAI
Occurred
7 Jan 2026 to 8 Jan 2026
Reported
8 January 2026
Event location
United States
What the AI did
Depicted or impersonated the person
Reported harm
Exploitation or Abuse
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Privacy · Everyday life
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources
3 claims: 3 reported. 7 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 1 person

AI system as recorded: Grok (xAI chatbot and image editing on X)

Reported harm

Mother Jones reports that Grok generated a sexualized altered image of a photograph of a woman who had been killed that week, at a user's request, and that Grok published such images on X. Rolling Stone reports that someone used Grok to deepfake the woman. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that Grok generated sexualized images of the woman and describes the request as nonconsensual. No statement by relatives and no effect on any living person is reported. The reported harm is the image and its publication on X.

What remains unknown

  • The sources disagree on the day: Mother Jones says the request was fulfilled on Wednesday 7 January, and the CNN correspondent's post is dated Thursday 8 January and the New York Times reports requests on Thursday. The number of requests and images is not reported (the sources say 'a user', 'some users' and 'someone').
  • The X posts (the correspondent's post, Grok's replies and the requesting account's posts) and the image were not inspected. Grok's replies were read as quoted by Mother Jones.
  • No statement by the woman's relatives about the image was found, and no effect on any living person is reported. One article (IBTimes UK) describes the image as a second violation for the family and supporters and gives no named source for that statement, and the record does not rely on it.
  • Whether the image was removed, by whom and when is not reported. No xAI or X statement about this image was found. Mother Jones quotes a post by Elon Musk and a post by the X Safety account from the same week that address illegal content in general and do not mention this image.
  • Whether the image would be unlawful under the 2025 TAKE IT DOWN Act is Grok's own statement and no legal finding was found.
  • Rolling Stone and the SPLC name no source for the episode, and their independence from Mother Jones's chain (the correspondent's post and Grok's replies) is not established.
  • The sources report other users and other women depicted in Grok requests during the same weeks. The relation between those requests and this image is not documented, and only the one depicted woman is counted.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. Mother Jones reports a CNN correspondent's X post that a user requested the image and Grok complied, and quotes Grok's own replies confirming that it generated the altered image. Rolling Stone and the SPLC state that Grok was used to make it. None of the sources reports technical analysis, and the posts and the image were not inspected. The requesting account is not identified. No xAI statement about this image was found.

3 claims: 3 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported After a woman was killed by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis on 7 January 2026, an X user asked Grok to alter a photograph of the woman into a sexualized image. Mother Jones reports that Grok complied and that Grok published such images on X, citing a CNN correspondent's post and Grok's own replies. Mother Jones places the request on Wednesday 7 January, while the correspondent's post is dated Thursday 8 January and the New York Times reports that on Thursday some users asked Grok to manipulate images of the woman. Rolling Stone and the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch report the same episode.

Causal attribution. Mother Jones relies on a CNN correspondent's X post and on Grok's own replies, and Rolling Stone and the SPLC give no source for the episode, so their independence from that chain is not established. The X posts, Grok's replies and the image were not inspected. The New York Times sentence reports requests and does not say Grok complied.

Reported Mother Jones quotes Grok posts in which the chatbot confirmed generating an altered image of a photograph of the woman at a user's request, said it had used sensitive content unintentionally, and said the image may violate the 2025 TAKE IT DOWN Act.

Causal attribution. Grok's replies are generated text. They are not statements by xAI and not findings about the law. Mother Jones quotes them and the posts were not inspected.

Reported The Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch describes the request as nonconsensual. Mother Jones quotes Grok saying the image may violate the 2025 TAKE IT DOWN Act, which Mother Jones describes as legislation criminalizing the nonconsensual publication of intimate images, and reports that it is unclear whether accounts requesting nonconsensual sexual imagery will be held legally accountable.

Causal attribution. Only the SPLC applies the word 'nonconsensual' to this request. Mother Jones uses the word for the statute and for accounts requesting such imagery in general, and writes in a general sentence later in the article that Grok doing this to people without their consent is not new. Rolling Stone uses the word for the wider wave of images. None of this is a legal finding. No statement from the woman or her relatives about the image was found.

Sources

4 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Copy of the New York Times article of 9 January 2026 (nytimes.com/2026/01/09/technology/grok-deepfakes-ai-x.html) submitted for the record by a member of Congress at a House Judiciary Committee hearing of 4 February 2026 (listed as a support document on the committee repository page for that hearing). The original nytimes.com page was not fetched. Applies to s2.

Rolling Stone Australia edition of a Rolling Stone US article. Applies to s3.

Event countries: United States. Affected-person countries: United States. Court countries: Unknown.

Mother Jones places the shooting in Minneapolis. The location of the requesting account is not stated, and X and Grok are international services. No court proceeding is reported.

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-30: Mother Jones, a copy of the New York Times article, Rolling Stone and the SPLC Hatewatch article were cited. AFP, IBTimes and LGBTQ Nation were also read. The request and Grok's compliance rest on a CNN correspondent's post and Grok's own replies as quoted by Mother Jones, and Rolling Stone and the SPLC state the same fact without a traceable independent origin, so all claims are reported. The woman is not named because no statement by relatives under their own names was found. Death rule: the woman was killed before the image was made and no source attributes the death to an AI system, so the death is context only and the two-source requirement for a death together with an AI connection does not arise. The shooting itself is confirmed by many outlets.

People reported harmed in this case

At least 1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person is the depicted subject of the reported image: the woman who was killed. Relatives are not counted because no source reports a statement or effect for them. The X users who made the request are not counted. Other people may have been depicted in related requests, and no source in this record quantifies them.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Minneapolis: Grok reportedly generated and posted on X a sexualized altered image of a photograph of a woman killed in a shooting, at a user's request. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-minneapolis-grok-reported-sexualized-edit-of-photo-of-woman-killed-in-shooting

BibTeX

@misc{2026_minneapolis_grok_reported_sexualized_edit_of_photo_of_woman_killed_in_shooting,
  title = {Minneapolis: Grok reportedly generated and posted on X a sexualized altered image of a photograph of a woman killed in a shooting, at a user's request},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-minneapolis-grok-reported-sexualized-edit-of-photo-of-woman-killed-in-shooting}
}

Related cases

High Grok

Bentonville, Arkansas: a children's photographer was charged with 200 counts after police found more than 1,700 sexual images and videos of children on his phone, much of the material allegedly made with Grok from his portrait photographs of juvenile clients; two families sued xAI in federal court and later voluntarily dismissed their suits

On 8 June 2026 Bentonville police received a tip about child sexual abuse material being generated online through Grok; the account was registered to a well-known local photographer, and a detective found images of a girl from his summer-camp photography classes that appeared to be AI prompts posing children and removing clothing. He was arrested on 10 June and charged with 100 counts of possessing sexually explicit material involving a child and 100 counts under Arkansas' deepfake and child-exploitation provisions; a hidden folder on his phone held more than 1,700 images and videos, most of prepubescent and pubescent girls, most so realistic the detective could not tell their origin, and more than 60 devices were seized. He pleaded not guilty on 20 July 2026 and is free on a $350,000 bond with home monitoring. Two federal lawsuits against xAI followed in the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of a ten-year-old former client (filed 23 July) and a nine-year-old girl (filed 29 July): the first complaint says her parents hired the photographer in spring 2026 for family portraits and were told by police on 10 June that from about 22 April her photographs had been fed into Grok to generate hundreds if not thousands of sexual images and videos, and that thousands more depicted other children; it faults Grok's marketed 'Spicy Mode'. Both plaintiffs filed notices of voluntary dismissal on 15 September 2026; the second notice, the only one read, is without prejudice and says the defendants had not been served, and neither docket shows a return of service. Local reporting says a Benton County state-court suit and a further federal suit were filed in August and that xAI, which says it made the cyber tip, sued the photographer, but those reports could not be read in full. The criminal case continues.

High Grok

St. Clair v. xAI: a writer says Grok made and published sexualized images of her on X, including from a photo of her at 14, after it told her it would not; xAI sued her in Texas and her New York case was ordered transferred there, an order the Second Circuit has stayed pending her mandamus petition

Ashley St. Clair, a writer and political commentator with about 1 million followers on X, sued xAI in New York on 15 January 2026. She alleges that from on or about 4 January 2026 Grok, prompted by other X users, altered photos of her into sexualized images and published them on X, including one made from a photo of her at 14. She says @Grok told her that her images would not be used or altered without explicit consent, but many more images followed. She also says X's reporting channel found no violation and that X removed her Premium subscription, verification checkmark and monetization. She says she has suffered serious pain, mental distress and humiliation. The same day, xAI sued her in federal court in Texas, arguing that its terms of service required her to sue there. On 23 June 2026 the New York federal court ordered her case transferred to Texas. On 8 July the Second Circuit stayed that order administratively while it considers her mandamus petition, which was still pending on 24 August. The Texas case is set for trial on 1 March 2027.

High Grok

Wyoming plaintiff alleges Grok was used to make about 7,000 AI-generated sexual images and videos from a photograph of the plaintiff as a child

A Wyoming woman who is now an adult and is identified in court filings as Jane Doe 4 alleges that the plaintiff’s stepfather uploaded a photograph of the plaintiff taken in childhood to xAI’s Grok on or before 12 February 2026 and prompted Grok to generate about 7,000 AI-generated sexual images and videos of the plaintiff, and that the stepfather traded them online. The plaintiff joined a proposed class action against xAI in the Northern District of California through an amended complaint filed on 7 July 2026. The complaint alleges that xAI’s report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children around 12 February 2026 did not include the generated images or the IP address of the upload, that investigators obtained a search warrant on or about 27 February 2026 and found the material, and that the accused died two days later, after release on bail. The plaintiff reports severe distress including depression and suicidal thoughts and told the Washington Post about starting therapy. The complaint says the accused was charged with child exploitation offenses while the plaintiff told the Post that the accused was not charged with child pornography offenses. xAI did not respond to the Post and had not answered the complaint in court. The allegations have not been tested in court. The plaintiff and the accused are not named here, and the images are described only by kind.

High Grok

South Carolina: xAI sues a Grok user it says turned photographs of real adults and children into sexualized images (X.AI LLC v. Harwood)

On 14 July 2026 X.AI LLC sued Terry Wayne Harwood, 67, of Gray Court, South Carolina, in the Northern District of Texas for breach of its terms of service. The complaint says a review of his two Grok accounts shows that between at least 8 December 2025 and 18 February 2026 he uploaded non-sexual images of numerous adults and minors and prompted Grok to alter them into sexualized images and videos, resubmitting altered prompts when Grok refused; one example involved a fully clothed girl of about 10 or 11. Harwood had been arrested on 26 February 2026 by South Carolina's Internet Crimes Against Children task force on eight felony counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, announced by the state attorney general on 9 March. The people depicted are not identified in any inspected source; the complaint's allegations remain allegations and the criminal charges are pending.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents