GPT-4o, Grok, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini (sort of): Yes, according to Surveillance in Trump’s America by Torin Monahan, we have a serious problem.

Asking AI services: Please read the paper “Surveillance in Trump’s America” and answer the very simple question: “Do we have a problem”? And if so, “How should we be fixing this?”

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
Yes, according to Surveillance in Trump’s America by Torin Monahan, we have a serious problem.

The paper outlines the increasing use of surveillance as a tool for oppression and control under Trump's second presidency. Key issues include:

1. Censorship and Media Suppression – Journalists face threats and violence, and media outlets engage in self-censorship.

2. Surveillance and Punishment of Immigrants – Mass deportations are being enforced through extensive surveillance, including monitoring healthcare, schools, workplaces, and places of worship.

3. Attacks on Higher Education – Universities are becoming surveillance zones where dissent is criminalized, international students are targeted, and DEI programs are dismantled.

4. War on Gender and Reproductive Rights – Anti-trans and anti-abortion policies rely on extensive tracking of individuals, criminalizing access to healthcare and identity recognition.

5. Dismantling Government and Public Services – Surveillance is being used to purge government workers, silence opposition, and enforce ideological compliance.

6. Private Surveillance by Elon Musk’s DOGE – A new, unregulated agency has access to sensitive government and personal data, violating privacy laws and posing risks to national security.

7. Anticipatory Compliance by Tech Companies – Major corporations are preemptively aligning with Trump's policies by dismantling DEI programs and rolling back protections against hate speech and disinformation.

8. Threats to International Security – US intelligence cooperation with allies is being undermined, creating vulnerabilities in global stability.

How Should We Be Fixing This?

Monahan suggests that confronting and disarming these dynamics is urgent. Potential solutions include:

• Legal and Constitutional Challenges – Lawsuits and legal challenges must be used to counter unconstitutional surveillance and government overreach.

• Whistleblowing and Transparency Initiatives – Exposing surveillance abuses through investigative journalism, academic research, and internal leaks can create public pressure.

• Strengthening Civil Rights Protections – Advocacy organizations should push for stronger laws protecting immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and marginalized groups.

• International Collaboration – Allies should rethink intelligence-sharing agreements and seek alternative strategies to counter authoritarian drift in the US.

• Technological Resistance – The development of privacy-enhancing technologies, encrypted communications, and decentralized platforms can limit surveillance reach.

• Grassroots Mobilization – Civic engagement, protests, and coalition-building between affected communities can push back against authoritarian policies.

• Corporate Accountability – Public and shareholder pressure can be applied to tech companies and media platforms that comply with oppressive government policies.

The paper warns that surveillance in this era is not just about monitoring—it is about reshaping society through fear, instability, and oppression. Combating it requires a multi-pronged effort across legal, technological, academic, and activist spheres.

Grok’s answer:
Based on the arguments and evidence presented in Torin Monahan’s paper “Surveillance in Trump’s America,” yes, there appears to be a significant problem. The paper outlines a range of surveillance-related issues emerging in the early months of Trump’s second presidency (as of March 2025), which Monahan frames as threats to democracy, individual rights, and social equity. These problems include intensified surveillance and punishment of immigrant communities, attacks on academic freedom and research, a war on gender identity, the dismantling of government oversight through initiatives like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and broader societal shifts toward censorship, disinformation, and far-right extremism. Monahan argues that these developments are mainstreaming authoritarian tendencies, eroding checks on power, and fostering instability through hate-driven governance.

Do We Have a Problem?

Yes, according to the paper, the problem is multifaceted:

1. Immigrant Surveillance: Mass deportation plans and border militarization, coupled with vigilante actions and symbolic violence (e.g., challenging birthright citizenship), disproportionately target vulnerable populations, creating a climate of fear and exclusion.

2. Academic and Scientific Suppression: Surveillance of universities, funding cuts to research, and censorship of curricula stifle intellectual freedom and evidence-based knowledge production.

3. Gender Policing: Policies targeting women’s reproductive rights and transgender individuals’ existence rely on invasive surveillance (e.g., tracking abortion-related data or enforcing binary gender norms), undermining bodily autonomy and identity.

4. Government Evisceration: DOGE’s unauthorized access to sensitive data and Musk’s influence over federal operations signal a breakdown of accountability, risking national security and public trust.

5. Cultural Shifts: Media self-censorship, corporate anticipatory compliance, and unchecked disinformation amplify far-right narratives, normalizing surveillance and punishment of dissenters or minorities.

Monahan suggests these issues are interconnected, reflecting a governance model that uses surveillance to consolidate power, suppress opposition, and reshape society along exclusionary lines. If left unchecked, this could lead to a more authoritarian state, with diminished rights and increased societal division.

How Should We Be Fixing This?

Monahan doesn’t provide a detailed blueprint for solutions, as his aim is to highlight the dangers and call for scholarly and activist attention. However, based on the paper’s critique, several strategies emerge implicitly or could be reasonably inferred:

1. Strengthen Legal and Institutional Checks:

   • Judicial Resistance: The paper notes instances where federal judges blocked illegal actions (e.g., funding freezes). Supporting litigation to enforce constitutional protections—like the Privacy Act or the Fourteenth Amendment—could curb overreach.

   • Congressional Oversight: Restoring legislative authority over agencies and funding (e.g., challenging DOGE’s legality) could rein in executive excesses.

2. Protect Vulnerable Communities:

   • Sanctuary Policies: Universities and local governments could expand protections for undocumented students and residents, resisting ICE raids and data-sharing demands.

   • Advocacy Networks: Grassroots efforts to support immigrants, transgender individuals, and others targeted by surveillance could provide practical aid and amplify their voices.

3. Preserve Academic and Scientific Integrity:

   • Institutional Defiance: Universities could resist censorship by maintaining DEI programs and critical curricula under alternative frameworks, as some are already doing covertly.

   • Alternative Funding: Seeking private or international support for research could mitigate federal cuts, though this risks new dependencies.

4. Counter Disinformation and Cultural Shifts:

   • Media Accountability: Encouraging independent journalism to resist self-censorship and name abuses of power (e.g., Musk’s actions) could sustain public awareness.

   • Public Education: Grassroots campaigns to debunk far-right narratives and promote evidence-based discourse might counteract the normalization of hate speech.

5. Global Realignment:

   • Allied Pressure: International partners in the Five Eyes or NATO could push back against U.S. intelligence vulnerabilities, limiting data sharing until trust is restored.

   • Support for Ukraine: Independent coalitions could fill gaps left by U.S. withdrawal, reducing Russia’s strategic gains.

6. Resistance and Solidarity:

   • Monahan emphasizes dissent as central to surveillance studies. Broad-based resistance—through protests, civil disobedience, or coalition-building—could challenge the “instability and chaos” he attributes to Trump’s governance. This might involve amplifying marginalized voices and documenting abuses for future accountability.

Practical Challenges

Fixing these issues faces hurdles: political polarization, a weakened bureaucracy, and public apathy or complicity (e.g., corporate compliance). The paper hints at a tension between immediate resistance and long-term structural change, suggesting that while activism can slow the tide, dismantling this surveillance apparatus requires reclaiming democratic institutions—a daunting task in the described climate.

In short, yes, there’s a problem—surveillance is being weaponized to entrench power and division. Fixing it demands a mix of legal, institutional, and societal pushback, rooted in protecting rights and fostering resistance, though the path forward is complex and uncertain.


Claude’s answer:
Based on the academic article "Surveillance in Trump's America" by Torin Monahan, we are indeed facing significant problems related to surveillance, civil liberties, and democratic norms in America following the 2024 election.

Do we have a problem?

Yes, the paper outlines several deeply concerning developments that constitute serious problems:

1. Expanding surveillance infrastructure targeting immigrants, students, activists, and marginalized groups with increasingly sophisticated tools and data collection methods.

2. Weaponization of government data through entities like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has obtained unprecedented access to sensitive databases containing personal information on citizens, government employees, and financial systems.

3. Erosion of academic freedom and free speech through surveillance of campus activities, monitoring of professors, banning of diversity courses, and targeting of protesters.

4. Targeting of vulnerable populations through surveillance mechanisms that specifically track immigrants, transgender individuals, women seeking reproductive care, and other marginalized groups.

5. Dismantling of scientific research and evidence-based government by purging researchers, defunding studies on topics like climate change and public health, and creating knowledge vacuums.

6. Media self-censorship and control leading to reduced checks on government power and disinformation.

7. Corporate anticipatory compliance where private companies proactively align with government priorities by stripping protections against disinformation and hate speech.

How should we be fixing this?

The article suggests several approaches to addressing these problems:

1. Scholarly and activist attention to surveillance threats. The academic community needs to document, analyze, and critique these systems to raise awareness.

2. Legal challenges to unconstitutional surveillance practices and government overreach. The paper notes that some funding freezes and policy changes have already been temporarily blocked by federal judges.

3. Strengthening institutional resistance within government agencies and universities to protect both people and data from overreach and misuse.

4. Building cross-coalition solidarity between different groups targeted by surveillance - immigrants, academics, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others.

5. International coordination with allies to address intelligence and security concerns raised by new alignments between the US and authoritarian regimes.

6. Public education about surveillance threats and their connections to white Christian nationalism, anti-science agendas, and threats to democratic processes.

7. Supporting independent journalism that can continue to document and expose surveillance abuses when mainstream outlets self-censor.

The author's conclusion emphasizes that addressing these problems requires recognizing how surveillance technologies are being woven into a state/media/militia policing apparatus that targets those outside a narrowing definition of acceptable identity and expression. The fundamental challenge is confronting and disarming a governance model that "builds on hate to breed instability and chaos."


Perplexity’s answer:
Yes, we have a significant problem. The paper "Surveillance in Trump's America" outlines numerous alarming developments that pose serious threats to civil liberties, democratic norms, and marginalized communities in the United States.

Key Issues

1. Media suppression and attacks on journalists

2. Aggressive surveillance and deportation of immigrant communities

3. Erosion of constitutional rights, including attempts to revoke birthright citizenship

4. Increased border militarization and inhumane treatment of migrants

5. Surveillance and targeting of university students and faculty

6. Attacks on academic freedom and diversity programs in higher education

Potential Solutions

To address these issues, a multi-faceted approach is necessary:

1. Legal challenges: Vigorously contest unconstitutional executive orders and policies through the court system.

2. Civil society mobilization: Strengthen grassroots organizations, advocacy groups, and watchdog institutions to monitor and resist rights violations.

3. Media resilience: Support independent journalism and develop strategies to combat censorship and self-censorship.

4. Academic solidarity: Universities should collaborate to protect academic freedom, support targeted faculty and students, and resist political interference in curricula.

5. Digital privacy measures: Implement stronger data protection policies and educate the public on digital security to mitigate surveillance risks.

6. International pressure: Engage with international human rights organizations and allies to exert diplomatic pressure against rights violations.

7. Voter education and engagement: Increase public awareness of these issues and encourage civic participation to effect change through democratic processes.

8. Sanctuary policies: Support and expand local and state-level sanctuary policies to protect vulnerable communities from federal overreach.

Addressing these challenges will require sustained effort, collaboration across various sectors of society, and a commitment to upholding democratic values and human rights.

Gemini’s typical subpar answer:
Based on the reference text, here are answers to your questions:

Do we have a problem?

Yes, the author indicates that we do have a problem.

The author states that the second Trump presidency presents key dangers and that we are witnessing a mainstreaming of far-right positions with profound implications for both government and the constitution of society.

The author highlights several areas of concern:

• Censorship and self-censorship of the media.

• Surveillance and punishment of immigrant communities.

• Attacks on higher education.

• Throttled scientific research.

• A war on gender.

• The evisceration of government agencies.

• Reduced checks on disinformation or hate speech.

• Threats to international security.

The author argues that the Trump model of governance builds on hate to breed instability and chaos, and these dynamics must be confronted and disarmed.

How should we be fixing this?

The text does not provide direct solutions in the form of bulleted steps or recommendations. Instead, it calls for scholarly and activist attention to areas in need of critical attention and emphasizes the importance of dissent in addressing injustices.