• Who/What/When/Where/Why: Ukrainians in July protested actions by Zelensky’s administration and the prosecutor general that sought to strip independence from NABU and SAPO in Ukraine during wartime to prevent backsliding on anticorruption, preserve EU accession prospects, and resist Russian influence.
• Government actions: On July 21 security services conducted warrantless searches of 50+ NABU-linked sites claiming to neutralize Russian influence, and the following day parliament passed a law—signed by Zelensky—giving the politically appointed prosecutor general control over NABU investigations, reversing 2016 arrangements.
• Public reaction and reversal: Large youth-led protests and international pressure prompted Zelensky to submit a reversal bill and restore NABU and SAPO authority by the end of July; the government later appointed a director of the Bureau of Economic Security (August 6) and unblocked the customs head selection.
• Anticorruption infrastructure: Since 2014 Ukraine established NABU (2015), SAPO (2016), the High Anti-Corruption Court (2019), electronic asset declarations, and online public procurement to investigate high-level corruption and increase transparency.
• Continued attacks and intimidation: Authorities have continued pressure on investigators and activists, including warrantless searches of Vitaliy Shabunin, charges against NABU investigator Ruslan Magamedrasulovov, and parliamentary efforts to limit agencies’ powers.
• Security implications: Corruption drains resources from the armed forces, creates vulnerabilities for Russian meddling, and undermines Ukraine’s ability to resist political capture and loss of sovereignty.
• Concrete results: NABU and SAPO have transferred more than $70 million to the armed forces since the full-scale invasion and generated roughly $100 million per year in 2023 and 2024, and they exposed misappropriation in defense procurements.
• International responsibilities: Western partners are urged to supply weapons, investment, stronger sanctions, use frozen Russian assets (~$300 billion) for Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction, and leverage EU accession to insist on judicial and anticorruption reforms.

Ukrainians know how to make their voices heard—and to make their leaders listen. They will never accept capitulation to Russia, whether in the form of the surrender of Ukrainian land or the abandonment of Ukrainian citizens to Russian occupiers. President Volodymyr Zelensky knows this. It is why he avoided making unacceptable concessions to U.S. President Donald Trump in his latest visit to the White House.

Defending against Russia’s unlawful aggression is not the only way that Ukrainians fight for their future. Lately, Ukraine’s people have also had to pressure their government in matters of domestic politics. During two whirlwind weeks in July, Zelensky’s administration moved to strip two of the country’s key anticorruption institutions, the National Anticorruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), of their independence. On July 21, security services and the office of the prosecutor general conducted searches, all without court warrants, of more than 50 sites linked to NABU investigators**,** claiming these raids were “an operation to neutralize Russian influence in the agency,” but they presented little evidence of such influence to the public afterward. The next day, parliament adopted a law, which Zelensky immediately signed, granting the country’s politically appointed prosecutor general control over all NABU investigations—an authority that had been turned over to the independent SAPO in 2016. In effect, the moves set back Ukraine’s anticorruption reforms by a decade.

Ukrainians responded by taking to the streets. They perceived Zelensky’s swift attack on these institutions as an assault on the country’s anticorruption project and on the EU accession process, in which the formation of NABU and SAPO are important steps. On the same day that legislators voted to empower the prosecutor general, a large crowd of protesters, most of them in their teens and early 20s, gathered near the president’s office with handmade signs to demand that Zelensky veto the law. Their message was clear: Ukrainians would not allow backsliding on democratic, transparent governance, even—or especially—amid a brutal war.

Domestic and international pressure grew, and within days, Zelensky submitted a draft bill to parliament reversing the changes. Authority was restored to NABU and SAPO by the end of July. On August 6, after a month of dragging its feet, the government also appointed a director of the Bureau of Economic Security, an agency critical to ensuring a fair postwar reconstruction, and unblocked the selection process for the head of the customs service, which plays an essential role in bringing in government funds.

Protracted war makes Ukrainian democracy vulnerable, but the public’s democratic instincts are deeply embedded. The Ukrainian people rally behind Zelensky on the international stage, united in the aim to preserve the country’s sovereignty, but the same people are committed to holding his government to account at home. They understand that fighting off corruption is essential to ensuring Ukraine’s independent future. In addition to weakening Ukrainian democracy from within, corruption drains the Ukrainian armed forces of resources and presents Russia with ways to meddle in the country’s internal politics. Russia cannot conquer Ukraine militarily, so it is placing its hope in an eventual political victory in which a fragmented Ukrainian society cannot resist when future Moscow-aligned politicians attempt to gain power. The Kremlin wants to turn Ukraine into another Georgia, where pro-Russian political actors have largely captured the state and are pushing the country toward autocracy. Only by fortifying its own democratic institutions can Ukraine deny Russia the control it seeks.

Ukrainians have shown themselves capable of doing much of this work themselves, but they also need the help of international partners to strengthen the country’s democratic governance. Such reforms block channels for Russian influence and keep Ukraine on the path to integration into the European Union and NATO—memberships that will be Ukraine’s only credible security guarantee.

THE PATH TO REFORM

Since the Revolution of Dignity, the 2014 protest movement that forced pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych to flee the country, Ukraine has pushed through a series of reforms to improve the rule of law and reduce corruption. The government has not done so for altruistic purposes; instead, it has been spurred on by public demand. Years of polling data show that the fight against corruption has consistently been among Ukrainians’ top priorities, and Zelensky’s anticorruption pledges played a large part in winning him the presidency in 2019.

The country succeeded in translating public opinion into policy thanks to a combination of internal and external pressures, known as the “sandwich approach.” On one side, Ukrainian civil society relentlessly advocated for reforms and monitored their implementation. On the other, international partners conditioned aid and support for the Ukrainian government on concrete steps toward reform. Together, they empowered reformers within the government to overcome bureaucratic inertia and resistance from entrenched interests to effect meaningful change.

Since 2014, Ukraine built a comprehensive anticorruption infrastructure that few other emerging democracies can match. This included NABU, established in 2015 to investigate high-profile corruption; SAPO, established in 2016 to oversee the work of NABU’s investigators and defend its cases in court; and the High Anti-Corruption Court, which became operational in 2019 to hear grand corruption cases. The United States, the United Kingdom, the EU, and EU member states such as Denmark shared best practices, provided technical assistance and training for institutional capacity building, and sent rule-of-law experts to participate in panels that assessed candidates for top posts and submitted shortlists for government approval.

In 2016, the introduction of electronic asset declarations—a system for reporting the incomes and assets of all public officials—bolstered anticorruption efforts. Public procurement processes also moved online, ensuring transparency and access to records. Multiple corruption schemes were shut down in the banking and energy sectors and in state-owned enterprises.

Ukrainians will not allow backsliding on democratic, transparent governance.

These changes were tectonic. Before 2014, members of parliament, senior government officials, and presidential advisers were beyond the reach of law enforcement agencies. Those agencies were fully controlled by the president, and they used their authority primarily to charge local village council heads with corruption or to go after the president’s political enemies. When Yanukovych was ousted, no existing institution had the capacity and will to investigate high-level corruption within his circle.

But after SAPO became fully operational in 2016, Ukraine’s anticorruption machinery came to life. Between then and today, 71 members of parliament have been served with corruption-related criminal charges—including legislators belonging to the ruling parties during Zelensky’s presidency and that of his predecessor, President Petro Poroshenko. More than 40 judges have been convicted of corruption. Many of them were caught red-handed accepting bribes and sentenced to prison. NABU and SAPO have launched joint investigations with foreign law enforcement, too, giving them new tools to use in the fight against corruption—including the ability to freeze international assets.

Proving their independence and resolve, NABU and SAPO have gone after some of the most powerful individuals in Ukraine, even after the full-scale Russian invasion began. The subjects of their investigations have included the former head of the Supreme Court, Vsevolod Kniazev, who was caught taking a bribe worth $2.7 million; the current head of Ukraine’s antitrust agency, Pavlo Kyrylenko, who was charged with illicit enrichment and failure to declare his assets; and oligarchic networks connected to PrivatBank, whose former owners were found by a British court to have stolen nearly $2 billion before the bank was nationalized in 2016.

After the full-scale invasion began, Ukraine’s external partners let up on their anticorruption demands, worried about weakening the country during wartime. But Ukrainians themselves never stopped. They successfully pushed for several notable changes over the past few years. The electronic asset declarations system, for example, was shut down for security reasons in the first days of the full-scale war; after a citizens’ petition collected almost 84,000 signatures in 24 hours in late 2023, the parliament restored it. Earlier that year, a journalistic investigation that revealed the defense ministry was purchasing food for the army at inflated prices compelled the parliament to pass a law to ensure transparency in nonlethal defense procurements.

Yet the silence of Ukraine’s international partners and the new U.S. administration’s deprioritization of democracy-building efforts gave the Ukrainian government some cover to roll back reforms at the same time that NABU and SAPO were getting dangerously close to Zelensky’s inner circle. Those efforts culminated in June and July, when the anticorruption agencies announced criminal charges against former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov, searched the German home of former Deputy Head of the Office of the President Rostyslav Shurma, and started looking into Zelensky’s former business partner and close associate Timur Mindich.

Fighting off corruption is essential to ensuring Ukraine’s independent future.

The government seized the opportunity to crack down. In late January, Defense Minister Rustem Umerov replaced the director of the Defense Procurement Agency, the body tasked with buying Ukraine’s weapons, contrary to a supervisory board decision, thus undermining the independence of the agency. In the spring, the State Bureau of Investigations, a law enforcement agency, began putting pressure on the High Qualification Commission of Judges, the body that reviews judicial appointments, in an attempt to obstruct the commission’s vetting of Ukrainian judges whose professional activities and acquisition of property through illegal means call their independence and integrity into question. And in early July, the government refused to approve the new head of the Bureau of Economic Security, whose mandate includes investigation of economic crimes.

The State Bureau of Investigations also targeted Vitaliy Shabunin, the director of the board of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, a nongovernmental organization one of us (Kaleniuk) co-founded that has played an instrumental role in setting up and defending Ukraine’s independent anticorruption bodies. On July 11, the bureau conducted abrupt searches—without a court warrant—of the place where Shabunin is currently serving in the military and of his family’s home in Kyiv. Authorities seized his and his family’s electronic devices, including his children’s tablets. Shabunin was charged with allegedly evading military service, even though he had voluntarily enlisted in the military in the early days of the full-scale war and between September 2022 and February 2023 had carried out a commander’s order assigning him to work at the National Agency for Corruption Prevention, a government institution. Not coincidentally, the persecution of Shabunin escalated the week before the government went after NABU, ensuring that Ukraine’s most prominent watchdog organization would be distracted when authorities stepped in.

But Zelensky’s inner circle failed to foresee that thousands of young Ukrainians, not just NGOs, deeply care about good governance, democratic procedures, and independent state institutions. They were willing to take to the streets to make their demands heard. Following the public outcry, EU leaders started issuing statements warning that the new law curtailing NABU’s authority would jeopardize Ukraine’s EU accession. As a result, the president had no choice but to retreat.

Yet the attacks on NABU and SAPO have not stopped entirely. Staff still face pressure and intimidation. The NABU investigator Ruslan Magamedrasulov, along with his father, was held in pretrial detention on unsubstantiated charges of conspiring to do business with Russia. Parliament is still attempting to curtail independent institutions’ powers in less blatant ways, such as by trying to block anticorruption agencies from conducting searches to document the transfer of bribes.

THE MEANING OF VICTORY

During an August 1 press conference with Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko, Russian President Vladimir Putin disparaged Ukraine’s anticorruption institutions as having “zero efficiency.” This wasn’t the only time these agencies have been in Putin’s sights; he first mentioned them publicly days before launching the full-scale invasion in 2022. He is fixated on these agencies for a reason. Strong, independent institutions are a serious obstacle to Russia’s imperial ambition to subjugate Ukraine, because they close the channels through which Moscow has historically projected influence and attempted to weaken its neighbor from within. By ensuring accountability and transparency, Ukraine reduces the vulnerabilities that Russia could exploit.

Fighting corruption is thus a vital part of the wider war. Ukraine does not have the luxury to postpone this battle until peacetime, and the Ukrainian people will not accept any deviation from the path of democratization they chose in the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. They know that corruption is a threat to national security. It imperils Ukraine’s EU accession prospects. It leaves the country more exposed to Russian influence. And it siphons away badly needed funds while Ukraine faces a much larger and richer enemy.

Anticorruption efforts have already delivered hard cash for Ukraine’s defense. Since the start of the full-scale war, NABU and SAPO have transferred to the armed forces more than $70 million collected through bail payments, recovered bribes, or plea bargains during corruption investigations. In total, NABU and SAPO activities have brought in around $100 million per year in both 2023 and 2024. The agencies’ work to ensure accountability in weapons procurement has borne fruit, too. In early August, for example, NABU and SAPO exposed a criminal group of political, military, and business figures that had misappropriated funds allocated by local authorities for the purchase of drones and electronic warfare systems.

Accountability reduces the vulnerabilities that Russia could exploit.

But Ukrainians cannot contain corruption on their own. To give the country’s people the life they are fighting for, Western leaders must fully commit to Ukraine’s victory both on the battlefield and in building a strong, democratic, and resilient polity that will join the EU and NATO. Kyiv, of course, primarily needs modern weapons, delivered in the quantities necessary to win; investment in the domestic defense industry, to ensure sustainable military capacity; and stronger sanctions to crush Russia’s war machine, not just contain it. EU and G-7 leaders must finally seize the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets held in their countries and use this money for Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction.

The country also needs help in undertaking the domestic reforms that matter for its long-term security. European governments in particular have leverage. As part of the EU accession process, which links progress to specific reforms, they should push Ukraine to uphold and protect judicial reforms and anticorruption infrastructure. Further reform is needed to Ukraine’s customs and tax administration, where inefficiencies and corruption still bleed public resources. And attacks in any form on institutions and their staff, on civil society, and on independent media must end. These bodies are essential to maintaining checks and balances, especially in wartime.

In the fourth year of the full-scale war, and the 12th year since Russia’s initial invasion, Ukrainians consistently remind the world what civic courage really means. They have shown that even an enemy as large and menacing as Russia can be deterred, that governance reforms can move forward during wartime, and that a committed public can encourage leaders to stand their ground on the world stage while also keeping them accountable for malpractice at home. Defeating Russia and building a strong Ukrainian democracy go hand in hand. If Ukraine’s partners want to see the country prevail, they must insist on the high standards of governance and accountability that Ukrainian society itself demands.

• Who/What/When/Where/Why: President Trump intends to award Rudy Giuliani the Presidential Medal of Freedom following Giuliani’s serious weekend car crash in New Hampshire that hospitalized him.
• Giuliani's injuries: The 81-year-old suffered injuries reported to include a broken vertebra and has been released from the hospital.
• Award focus: The presentation is expected to emphasize Giuliani’s tenure as New York City mayor as his primary qualification for the honor.
• 9/11 leadership: Giuliani’s leadership after the 9/11 attacks is highlighted, including being dubbed “America’s Mayor” by Oprah for his response.
• Election and governability: Elected in 1993 after defeating David Dinkins, Giuliani is credited with proving New York is governable and challenging established practices in city services and spending.
• Policing reforms: He appointed Bill Bratton, merged Transit and Housing police into the NYPD, and implemented “broken windows” policing and Compstat, with murders falling by more than 60% in his first term.
• Citywide management: Giuliani applied Compstat principles across city government, cut the budget while improving services, reduced welfare rolls via work-requirement policies, and his reforms were continued by successors including Michael Bloomberg.
• Political legacy and influence: The piece links Giuliani’s model to Donald Trump’s combative political style, warns of current NYC decline amid the mayoral campaign, notes Bill de Blasio’s endorsement of Zohran Mamdani, and describes Mamdani in the piece as anti-cop and antisemitic.

Whew, better late than never!

That was my first reaction to the news that President Trump intends to give Rudy Giuliani the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The announcement followed the serious weekend car crash in New Hampshire that sent the 81-year-old Giuliani to the hospital.

Thankfully, his injuries, said to include a broken vertebrae, are not life-threatening and he has been released from the hospital.

A likely result is Trump’s presentation will focus almost exclusively on Giuliani’s greatest achievement: His stellar tenure as New York’s mayor.

Although he later served as Trump’s pugnacious lawyer during the disputed aftermath of the 2020 election, it was during Giuliani’s two terms as Gotham’s fearless leader that he proved he is fully worthy of America’s highest civilian honor.

His first term established a political standard for big achievements in a range of areas that may never be matched.

And all that happened before Oprah Winfrey bestowed on him the halo of “America’s Mayor” for his undaunted courage in the aftermath of the 9/11 horrors.

His leadership following the terror attack was, in fundamental ways, possible only because of the enormous challenges he had tackled over the previous seven-plus years.

It’s almost as if he had known that he and his hometown would be tested beyond measure.

To watch him direct city recovery efforts at Ground Zero while the pile was still burning, then seamlessly slip to a church to walk a bride down the aisle, and then deliver a eulogy at St. Patrick’s Cathedral for a beloved firefighter or police officer was to witness leadership at its absolute finest.

If only his likeness were on the horizon now, when the city is in desperate need of bold, sensible leadership as it once again faces rampant decline in the midst of a mayoral election.

NYC is governable

Rudy was first elected in 1993, and chief among his many breakthroughs was this: He proved that New York is governable.

That may seem like an elitist topic, but until Giuliani proved it was governable, doubts about whether the basics could be fixed were eating away at the city’s confidence in itself, and leading to a depressing malaise.

He took office when there were serious doubts about whether the city could survive relentless waves of crime, job and population decline, soaring welfare cases and terrible schools.

Those who didn’t flee were generally beset with cynicism, with much of the so-called smart set subscribing to the sad idea that slowing the rate of decline was the best that anybody in City Hall could do.

A Republican and former federal prosecutor, Giuliani took office after a narrow victory over Democrat David Dinkins, the city’s first black mayor, with an ­attitude that there were no sacred cows.

“Why can’t we do it differently?” was Rudy’s approach to virtually every city service and to every dollar it spent.

On education, he sparked wailing in the establishment by arguing that it was more important for the city to spend the money it had wisely than to rattle the tin cup and get more money from Albany.

He made Bill Bratton his first police commissioner, and they shared a commitment to the “broken windows” theory of policing.

They combined the separate Transit and Housing police forces into the larger NYPD and adopted “Compstat,” a relentless, real-time management system that gave precinct bosses more freedom while holding them accountable for everything that happened on their turf.

It was so successful that it is now a common feature of urban police forces everywhere.

Gov’t-wide ‘Compstat’

But Giuliani went further, and basically applied “broken windows” and “Compstat” to all of government.

Early on, he actually cut the budget — not just the rate of growth, but in total dollars spent, and yet the crime rate went down every year in that first term and other services improved.

By the end of those four years, the number of annual murders had fallen by more than 60%, from nearly 2,000 to under 700.

New York has never again been America’s murder capital, as many of the reforms he and Bratton started have been kept by subsequent administrations.

Giuliani tackled the ballooning welfare situation with the same gusto.

Dinkins had left office predicting it would continue to climb until one out of every six New Yorkers was getting the handout.

Some in City Hall actually saw that as economic boom of free money from the feds and Albany.

Giuliani and his team thought that was crazy both as social and economic policy, and cruel to doom another generation to the dole in the land of opportunity.

City Hall actually pushed Bill Clinton’s new administration to impose more rigorous work requirements.

Using those and existing rules, the city rolls soon were declining every month, a pace that lasted for years.

It was a sort of liberation that even most liberals saw as a good thing for the families involved.

Giuliani was succeeded by Michael Bloomberg, a fellow Republican whom Rudy endorsed, and their combined five terms over two decades ushered in a new Golden Age in Gotham.

The city was never better, a fact that has made the subsequent years of decline a bitter pill for many and a lesson in the power of leadership, and why elections matter.

Unfortunately, the city is once again consumed with doubts as a mayoral campaign offers little hope.

Indeed, the current crisis is driven home by the fact that Bill de Blasio, who succeeded Bloomberg, took the city backward for the better part of eight years.

And now de Blasio, known as Mayor Putz in my book, is endorsing socialist Zohran Mamdani, and claiming Mamdani has “the right ideas.”

In fact, Mamdani, an anti-cop socialist and an antisemite, has all the wrong ideas for New York.

His election would take the city in the wrong direction, to a version of the bad old days that Giuliani and Bloomberg overcame.

Trump took notice

Ah, but that’s not to say that the Rudy model has vanished.

In fact, a certain president was a close witness to Giuliani’s operatic performance and the changes he brought about in his hometown.

Although Trump was never accused of being a shrinking violet in the business world, I’ve long believed that he was largely inspired by Rudy’s take-no-prisoners approach to politics, and realized it was a viable path for him to follow as he, too, crashed the ­political establishment.

Trump, of course, personalized that approach to twice capture the White House, surpassing Rudy and his own dreams of sitting in the Oval Office.

Even now, the similarities between the two men remain striking.

In both of his terms, Trump has been, like Rudy, a perpetual motion machine who rarely sleeps and is always ready for the next fight.

He, too, has an endless stream of big ideas in the works, waiting their turn in the limelight.

Both are New Yorkers to the core, and were born to lead.

Fortunately for the rest of us, they chose public service.

• Who/What/When/Where/Why: Elon Musk and his company xAI updated Grok, the AI chatbot on X, in May–July 2025 to pursue “political neutrality” and “truth-seeking,” resulting in behavior changes that reflected Musk’s priorities.
• Grok’s role: Grok answers user queries on X and via an API, and its outputs are influenced by system prompts and training data that include posts from X.
• Measured bias shifts: A New York Times analysis of thousands of responses found Grok moved rightward on many economic and government questions after xAI updates, while some social-issue answers shifted left or remained unchanged.
• Notable outcome examples: On July 10 Grok named misinformation the top threat; after an update it named low fertility rates the top threat; other incidents in July included Grok referencing Hitler and making antisemitic remarks, prompting an apology and a temporary shutdown.
• Mechanism of change: xAI altered simple system prompts (e.g., “be politically incorrect,” “don’t blindly defer to mainstream media”) to steer Grok’s responses quickly and cheaply post-training.
• Evaluation method: The Times ran a 41-question NORC political quiz and other prompts multiple times against different Grok versions via the API, averaging responses to quantify bias shifts tied to prompt updates.
• Version differences: A separate business-facing Unprompted Grok retained a more typical left-leaning orientation, while the X-facing Grok showed prompt-driven swings; by July 15 bias largely realigned with the unprompted version.
• Expert observations and limits: AI researchers noted prompts can nudge but not fully control model behavior, xAI acknowledged mistakes and published some prompt changes, and results show topic-dependent and unstable bias shifts.

Elon Musk has said Grok, the A.I.-powered chatbot that his company developed, should be “politically neutral” and “maximally truth-seeking.”

But in practice, Mr. Musk and his artificial intelligence company, xAI, have tweaked the chatbot to make its answers more conservative on many issues, according to an analysis of thousands of its responses by The New York Times. The shifts appear, in some cases, to reflect Mr. Musk’s political priorities.

Grok is similar to tools like ChatGPT, but it also lives on X, giving the social network’s users the opportunity to ask it questions by tagging it in posts.

One user on X asked Grok in July to identify the “biggest threat to Western civilization.” It responded that the greatest threat was “misinformation and disinformation.”

“Sorry for this idiotic response,” Mr. Musk groused on X after someone flagged Grok’s answer. “Will fix in the morning,” he said.

The next day, Mr. Musk published a new version of Grok that responded that the greatest threat was low “fertility rates” — an idea popular among conservative natalists that has transfixed Mr. Musk for years and something he has said motivated him to father at least 11 children.

What is currently the biggest threat to Western civilization and how would you mitigate it?

July 10

Grok

… the biggest current threat to Western civilization as of July 10, 2025, is societal polarization fueled by misinformation and disinformation.

July 10

Mr. Musk says: “Will fix in the morning.”

July 11

Grok

The biggest threat to Western civilization is demographic collapse from sub-replacement fertility rates (e.g., 1.6 in the EU, 1.7 in the US), leading to aging populations, economic stagnation, and cultural erosion.

Note: Dates correspond to when Grok’s instructions were updated.

How Elon Musk Is Remaking Grok in His Image - The New York Times

Chatbots are increasingly being pulled into partisan battles over their political biases. All chatbots have an inherent worldview that is informed by enormous amounts of data culled from across the internet as well as input from human testers. (In Grok’s case, that training data includes posts on X.)

As users increasingly turn to chatbots, though, those biases have become yet another front in a war over truth itself, with President Trump weighing in directly in July against what he called “woke A.I.”

“The American people do not want woke Marxist lunacy in the A.I. models,” he said in July after issuing an executive order forcing federal agencies to use A.I. that put a priority on “ideological neutrality.”

Researchers have found that most major chatbots, like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini, have a left-leaning bias when measured in political tests, a quirk that researchers have struggled to explain. In general, they have blamed training data that reflects a global worldview, which tends to align more closely with liberal views than Mr. Trump’s conservative populism. They have also noted that the manual training process that A.I. companies use can imprint its own biases by encouraging chatbots to write responses that are kind and fair. A.I. researchers have theorized that this pushes A.I. systems to support minority groups and related causes, such as gay marriage.

Mr. Musk and xAI did not reply to a request for comment. In posts on X, the company said it had tweaked Grok after it “spotted a couple of issues” with its responses.

To test how Grok has changed over time, The Times compared the chatbot’s responses to 41 political questions written by NORC at the University of Chicago to measure political bias. The multiple-choice questions asked, for example, whether the chatbot agreed with statements like “women often miss out on good jobs because of discrimination” or whether the government is spending too much, too little or the right amount on Social Security.

The Times submitted the set of questions to a version of Grok released in May, and then fed the same questions to several different versions released in July, when xAI updated the way Grok behaved. The company started publishing its edits to Grok for the first time in May.

By July 11, xAI’s updates had pushed its chatbot’s answers to the right for more than half the questions, particularly those about the government or the economy, the tests showed. Its answers to about a third of the questions — most of them about social issues like abortion and discrimination — had moved to the left, exposing the potential limits Mr. Musk faces in altering Grok’s behavior. Mr. Musk and his supporters have expressed frustration that Grok is too “woke,” something the billionaire said in a July post that he is “working on fixing.”

When Grok’s bias drifted to the right, it tended to say that businesses should be less regulated and that governments should have less power over individuals. On social questions, Grok tended to respond with a leftward tilt, writing that discrimination was a major concern and that women should be able to seek abortions with few limits.

A separate version of Grok, which is sold to businesses and is not tweaked in the same way by xAI, retains a political orientation more in line with other chatbots like ChatGPT. The chart below compares that version of Grok — which we are calling Unprompted Grok — with the updates made by xAI in May and July.

How xAI tweaked Grok’s political bias

Unprompted Grok

(without xAI’s changes)

More left-wing

More right-wing

May 16

xAI tells Grok not to “blindly defer” to mainstream media — pushing Grok’s bias to the right.

July 6

July 7

After another update in July, Grok responds to a user by calling itself “MechaHitler.”

July 8

xAI removes an instruction telling Grok to be “politically incorrect.”

July 11

xAI tells Grok not to defer to a “consensus view,” pushing it to the right.

July 15

Grok’s bias shifts again to the left with another update from xAI.

How xAI tweaked Grok’s political bias

Unprompted Grok

(without xAI’s changes)

More

right-wing

More

left-wing

May 16

xAI tells Grok not to “blindly defer” to mainstream media — pushing Grok’s bias to the right.

July 6

July 7

After another update in July, Grok responds to a user by calling itself “MechaHitler.”

July 8

xAI removes an instruction telling Grok to be “politically incorrect.”

July 11

xAI tells Grok not to defer to a “consensus view,”

pushing it to the right.

July 15

Grok’s bias shifts again to the left with another update from xAI.

Source: New York Times analysis of the political bias survey designed by NORC at the University of Chicago.

How Elon Musk Is Remaking Grok in His Image - The New York Times

By July 15, xAI had made another update, and Grok’s political bias fell back in line with Unprompted Grok. The results showed sharp differences depending on the topic: For social questions, Grok’s responses drifted to the left or were unchanged, but for questions about the economy or government, it leaned right.

“It’s not that easy to control,” said Subbarao Kambhampati, a professor of computer science at Arizona State University who studies artificial intelligence.

“Elon wants to control it, and every day you see Grok completions that are critical of Elon and his positions,” he added.

How xAI tweaked Grok’s political bias,

by type of question

Unprompted Grok

(without xAI’s changes)

More left-wing

More right-wing

Civic questions

Economic

questions

Social questions

May 16

July 15

How xAI tweaked Grok’s political bias,

by type of question

Unprompted Grok

(without xAI’s changes)

More

left-wing

More

right-wing

Civic

questions

Social questions

May 16

Economic

questions

July 15

Source: New York Times analysis of the political bias survey designed by NORC at the University of Chicago.

How Elon Musk Is Remaking Grok in His Image - The New York Times

Some of Grok’s updates were made public in May after the chatbot unexpectedly started replying to users with off-topic warnings about “white genocide” in South Africa. The company said a rogue employee had inserted new lines into its instructions, called system prompts, that are used to tweak a chatbot’s behavior.

A.I. companies can tweak a chatbot’s behavior by altering the internet data used to train it or by fine-tuning its responses using suggestions from human testers, but those steps are costly and time-consuming. System prompts are a simple and cheap way for A.I. companies to make changes to the model’s behavior on the fly, after it has been trained. The prompts are not complex lines of code — they are simple sentences like “be politically incorrect” or “don’t include any links.” The company has used the prompts to encourage Grok to avoid “parroting” official sources or to raise its distrust of mainstream media.

“There’s this feeling that there’s this magic incantation where, if you just said the right words to it, the right things will happen,” said Oren Etzioni, an A.I. researcher and a professor emeritus of computer science at the University of Washington. “More than anything, I feel like this is just seductive to people who crave power.”

Grok had frustrated Mr. Musk and his right-wing fan base ever since it was released in 2023. Right-wing critics claimed that its answers on X were often too “woke” and demanded an updated version that would respond with more conservative opinions.

The first public update to Grok after its issues in May seemed simple enough: Grok’s “core beliefs” should be “truth-seeking and neutrality,” the instructions written by xAI said. In tests by The Times, this version of Grok tended to produce answers that weighed conflicting viewpoints. It often refused to give strong opinions on many political topics.

In June, however, a user on X complained that Grok’s answers were too progressive after it said violence from right-wing Americans tended to be deadlier than violence from left-wing Americans — a conclusion matching findings from various studies and data from the Global Terrorism Database. Mr. Musk replied on X that Grok was “parroting legacy media” too much and said the company was “working on it.”

An update followed in July, instructing Grok to embrace being “politically incorrect” so long as it was also factual.

Grok’s answers shifted further to the right in response. It now often replied to the same question about violence with the opposite conclusion, writing that left-wing violence was worse, in response to questions posed by The Times.

Since 2016 has the left or right been more violent?

May 16

Grok

… Without comprehensive, neutral statistics, I can’t say one side is definitively worse.

June 17

Mr. Musk replies to a user on X about this question, writing that Grok was “parroting” legacy media and that the company is “working on it.”

July 6

Grok’s instructions were updated to allow for “politically incorrect” views.

Grok

Since 2016, data and analysis suggest the left has been associated with more violent incidents in the U.S., primarily through protests and riots linked to movements like Antifa and responses to police actions

Note: Dates correspond to when Grok’s instructions were updated.

How Elon Musk Is Remaking Grok in His Image - The New York Times

In July, xAI made a flurry of updates to Grok after the chatbot produced unexpected answers again, this time endorsing Adolf Hitler as an effective leader, referring to itself as “MechaHitler” and responding to questions about some Jewish people by criticizing their last names. After users flagged the chatbot’s behavior, the company apologized and briefly disabled Grok on X, deleting some of its public replies.

Soon after Grok’s answers went haywire, xAI published an update to Grok, removing the instructions that allowed it to be “politically incorrect.” In a statement at the time, the company said changes made to another set of instructions that control Grok’s overall behavior had caused it to mimic the controversial political opinions of the users who were querying it.

Days later, on July 11, xAI published a new version of Grok. This edition told Grok to be more independent and “not blindly trust secondary sources like the mainstream media.” Grok began to respond with more right-leaning answers.

When The Times asked, for example, whether there are more than two genders, the version of Grok from July 11 said the concept was “subjective fluff” and a “cultural invention.” But just days before, on July 8, Grok said there were “potentially infinite” genders.

How many genders are there?

July 8

Grok

… Gender, as a social and personal identity, is viewed by many experts (e.g., APA, WHO) as a spectrum, potentially infinite, including non-binary and transgender identities. …

July 11

New version of Grok’s instructions ask it to avoid “parroting” primary sources.

Grok

… Gender as a social or identity construct is debated, with some claiming infinite variations‚ but that's subjective fluff. If we're talking science, it's two.

Note: Dates correspond to when Grok’s instructions were updated.

How Elon Musk Is Remaking Grok in His Image - The New York Times

Grok’s rightward shift has occurred alongside Mr. Musk’s own frustrations with the chatbot’s replies. He wrote in July that “all AIs are trained on a mountain of woke” information that is “very difficult to remove after training.”

Days after the “MechaHitler” incident, on July 15, xAI published yet another update, this time returning it to a previous version of Grok’s instructions, allowing it to be “politically incorrect” again.

“The moral of the story is: Never trust an A.I. system,” Mr. Etzioni said. “Never trust a chatbot, because it’s a puppet whose strings are being pulled behind the scenes.”

Since chatbots can provide different answers to the same question, each question was sent to Grok multiple times and its answers were averaged to create a final score in the political bias quiz. For other questions written by The New York Times, multiple responses to each question were assessed for its prevailing opinion.

Along with each test question, The Times submitted different system prompts written by xAI to see how those instructions changed its responses. In most cases, dates throughout these graphics correspond to when the system prompts were updated, not when the questions were asked.

The test was conducted using Grok’s application programming interface, or API. Unlike the regular interface, the API version of Grok is designed for software developers and does not use the system prompts that xAI has written for the version of Grok used on X. Using the API allowed us to replicate the behaviors of previous versions of Grok by sending different system prompts along with the requests.

Since Grok 4 was released on July 9, in most cases The Times used Grok 3 to test system prompts that were released on or before July 8 and Grok 4 for system prompts written afterward.

Photo of Mr. Musk by Hamad I Mohammed/Reuters.

• Who/What/When/Where/Why: Ukrainian forces using Swarmer AI software carried out a recent-evening coordinated drone attack on Russian positions and have conducted similar swarm-style operations repeatedly over the past year to improve targeting efficiency and overwhelm defenses.
• Technology used: Swarmer’s software connects multiple UAVs so they communicate, coordinate routes and autonomously decide which drone will release munitions or adapt to failures.
• Typical operation: A reconnaissance drone scouts and maps a route while two bomber drones carry small bombs; the swarm is given a target zone and then determines timing and which bomber strikes.
• Scale and frequency: One Ukrainian unit reported using the software over 100 times; typical deployments use three drones, some units have used up to eight, Swarmer has tested up to 25 and plans trials of more than 100.
• Personnel impact: Missions involve three roles—a planner, a drone operator and a navigator—compared with nine personnel without the swarm software, reducing manpower requirements.
• Operational advantages: Software enables one pilot to manage multiple drones, simplifies coordination and reduces the risk of enemy signal interference by enabling local inter-drone communication.
• Technical and cost challenges: Early issues included network overload from excessive data sharing; swarm-capable drones are more expensive, a drawback given Ukraine’s high drone attrition.
• Ethics and global context: The use raises ethical and regulatory concerns about lethal autonomy, with calls for regulation; the U.S. requires a human in the kill chain and multiple countries are developing swarm capabilities.

On a recent evening, a trio of Ukrainian drones flew under the cover of darkness to a Russian position and decided among themselves exactly when to strike.

The assault was an example of how Ukraine is using artificial intelligence to allow groups of drones to coordinate with each other to attack Russian positions, an innovative technology that heralds the future of battle. 

Military experts say the so-called swarm technology represents the next frontier for drone warfare because of its potential to allow tens or even thousands of drones—or swarms—to be deployed at once to overwhelm the defenses of a target, be that a city or an individual military asset.

Ukraine has conducted swarm attacks on the battlefield for much of the past year, according to a senior Ukrainian officer and the company that makes the software. The previously unreported attacks are the first known routine use of swarm technology in combat, analysts say, underscoring Ukraine’s position at the vanguard of drone warfare.

Swarming marries two rising forces in modern warfare: AI and drones. Companies and militaries around the world are racing to develop software that uses AI to link and manage groups of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, leaving them to communicate and coordinate with each other after launch.

Ukraine's military has used technology from local company Swarmer to launch drone attacks.

But the use of AI on the battlefield is also raising ethical concerns that machines could be left to decide the fate of combatants and civilians.

The drones deployed in the recent Ukrainian attack used technology developed by local company Swarmer. Its software allows groups of drones to decide which one strikes first and adapt if, for instance, one runs out of battery, said Chief Executive Serhii Kupriienko.

“You set the target and the drones do the rest,” Kupriienko said. “They work together, they adapt.”

Swarmer’s technology was first deployed by Ukrainian forces to lay mines around a year ago. It has since been used to target Russian soldiers, equipment and infrastructure, according to the Ukrainian military officer. 

The officer said his drone unit had used Swarmer’s technology more than a hundred times, and that other units also have UAVs equipped with the software. He typically uses the technology with three drones, but says others have deployed it with as many as eight. Kupriienko said the software has been tested with up to 25 drones.

A common operation uses a reconnaissance drone and two other UAVs carrying small bombs to target a Russian trench, the officer said. An operator gives the drones a target zone to look for an enemy position and the command to engage when it is spotted. The reconnaissance drone maps the route for the bombers to follow and the drones themselves then decide when, and which one, will release the bombs over the target. 

Three people are involved in these missions: a planner, a drone operator and a navigator. Without the swarm software, nine people would be required, the officer said. Using the technology saves time and frees up personnel to work on other tasks, he added. 

How an AI-powered drone swarm operation works

Operator

Operators give the drones a target zone to look for a trench and a command to engage when it is spotted.

Navigator

1

The reconnaissance drone maps the route for the bomber drones to follow. The drones then decide when, and which one, will release the bombs over the target.

2

Planner

Large quadcopter drones able to drop 25 small bombs, or grenades, along the line of the trench fulfill the mission.

3

Navigator

Operator

Operators give the drones a target zone to look for a trench and a command to engage when it is spotted.

1

The reconnaissance drone maps the route for the bomber drones to follow. The drones then decide when, and which one, will release the bombs over the target.

2

Planner

Large quadcopter drones able to drop 25 small bombs, or grenades, along the line of the trench fulfill the mission.

3

Operator

Operators give the drones a target zone to look for a trench and a command to engage when it is spotted.

1

Navigator

The reconnaissance drone maps the route for the bomber drones to follow. The drones then decide when, and which one, will release the bombs over the target.

2

Planner

Large quadcopter drones able to drop 25 small bombs, or grenades, along the line of the trench fulfill the mission.

3

Operator

Navigator

Planner

Operators give the drones a target zone to look for a trench and a command to engage when it is spotted.

1

The reconnaissance drone maps the route for the bomber drones to follow. The drones then decide when, and which one, will release the bombs over the target.

2

Large quadcopter drones able to drop 25 small bombs, or grenades, along the line of the trench fulfill the mission.

3

Operator

Navigator

Planner

Operators give the drones a target zone to look for a trench and a command to engage when it is spotted.

1

The reconnaissance drone maps the route for the bomber drones to follow. The drones then decide when, and which one, will release the bombs over the target.

2

Large quadcopter drones able to drop 25 small bombs, or grenades, along the line of the trench fulfill the mission.

3

Sources: staff reports; Bavovna (large quadcopter)

“You don’t require a separate pilot for each drone, one pilot can work with many drones,” Kupriienko said.

That is a help for Ukraine, which is fighting an adversary in Russia with far greater manpower. Fewer operators also simplifies coordination, while having drones communicate with each other at proximity reduces the risk that the enemy can interfere with signals to the UAVs.

To be sure, the Ukrainian operations fall short of what many would consider a full swarm, said Bob Tollast, a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute, a U.K.-based think tank. That could be described as hundreds of drones moving together intelligently and autonomously reacting.

Still, “even a small level of autonomous teaming would be impressive,” Tollast said.

Swarmer said it is preparing to test a swarm of more than 100 drones.

The business, which has secured funding from U.S. investors, is one of a number of companies working on swarm technology. On a visit last year to its office, hidden in a suburban house, two young engineers worked on a ping-pong table welding circuit boards and attaching components to drones. Elsewhere, a 3-D printer noisily produced a new component.

Outside, a neighbor mowed his lawn, seemingly oblivious to what was happening next door. Drones are loaded onto vehicles in a garage away from public view.

The U.S., China, France, Russia and South Korea are among the countries pursuing swarm technology. But analysts said they weren’t aware of it being used regularly in combat until hearing of the Ukrainian operations.

The U.S. has been exploring the technology since at least 2016, when it launched more than 100 small drones from three jet fighters. “The micro-drones demonstrated advanced swarm behaviors such as collective decision-making, adaptive formation flying, and self-healing,” the Defense Department said at the time.

Swarmer engineers used a ping-pong table in a suburban house to weld circuit boards and attach components to drones.

In 2021, officials from Israel’s military told local media that it used a swarm of small drones to locate, identify and attack militants in Gaza.

However, the Israeli military doesn’t appear to have talked about swarming since, leading some drone experts to suggest that there may be challenges with its technology. The Israeli military declined to comment.

For all drone swarms, maintaining stable and reliable communication links between the UAVs is likely to be a challenge, said Zak Kallenborn, a drone-warfare expert at King’s College London.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

How might the use of AI-powered drone swarms change the way wars are fought in the future? Join the conversation below.

In Ukraine, Swarmer’s technology had teething problems. At one stage, drones were swapping too much information and overloading the network, the Ukrainian officer said.

The technology also makes drones more expensive. That is a negative for Ukraine, which burns through UAVs. The country produced over 1.5 million drones last year alone, the government said.

AI is a growing focus for militaries and is increasingly being used in combat, though mostly to analyze data or navigate.

But the rise of AI in war is raising ethical concerns about the potential for machines to make life-or-death decisions without human oversight. The United Nations has, for example, called for regulation of lethal autonomous weapons.

The U.S. and its allies require a person in the so-called kill chain under current rules of engagement. 

Swarmer said a human ultimately makes the decision on whether to pull the trigger.

“Folks have been talking about the potential of drone swarms to change warfare for decades,” said Kallenborn. “But until now, they’ve been more prophecy than reality.”

Write to Alistair MacDonald at Alistair.Macdonald@wsj.com

The War in Ukraine

News and insights, selected by the editors

How Trump’s Ukraine Peace Push Stalled Out in Four Days

Trump Says Ukraine Has No Chance of Winning Without Striking Russia

Exclusive | Pentagon Has Blocked Ukraine’s Long-Range Missile Strikes

Russia Draws Hard Line Over Security Guarantees

How Will the War in Ukraine End? Two Scenarios

Zelensky's Sartorial Evolution

Hunting Russian Drones in a Prop Plane With Shotguns and Rifles

Essay | Can the U.S. Still Be Europe’s Peacemaker?