Authors: Tanvi Prem, Mihir Kshirsagar (Princeton University)

Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

As we enter the midterm election cycle, there is growing evidence that Americans are turning to AI chatbots for election-related information. A 2026 Pew Research Center survey found that 42% of US adults now use AI chatbots to search for information, and a 2024 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that 27% of voters were asking AI tools questions about elections at least monthly. A more recent survey from Verasight from April reports a more mixed view, with a majority of adults skeptical about using chatbots for political information, although at least a third of the population appears comfortable asking about such issues. In this post we examine the policies of the leading providers concerning election-related questions. 

One trend we observe is that the leading providers are integrating answers to election-related queries in their responses that cover procedural questions as well as information about candidates up and down the ballot. As AI becomes more entrenched in the information environment, there are at least four different types of election-related queries worth distinguishing:

1. Procedural questions: When, where and how to vote.
2. Results: Live returns and the status of a race.
3. Candidate and ballot information: Who is running, what are their positions, what a ballot measure does, what an official said.
4. Generation of campaign or government-sponsored content: Synthetic audio, video, and message production of election-related information.

The current approaches of the AI firms to each of these issues can be separated into four buckets: (a) integrate factual information from a trusted source into the response; (b) respond with neutral information; (c) redirect to an external information source; (d) refuse the query (sometimes with a banner).

We document the mix of formal policies and model-level safeguards that currently apply and how they have evolved since the 2024 US presidential election. We have not tested how effective these policies are. We summarize the different approaches here: 

Company	Procedural Questions	Live Results	Candidate and Ballot Information	Generation of Campaign Materials
OpenAI	Partnering with Democracy Works to deliver accurate information	Providing live vote counts from the Associated Press (AP)	Models should focus on factual accuracy and reliability, deferring to state sources; avoid behavior with political bias	No political ads and scaled campaign content; no microtargeting or automated distribution of content, but supports political campaign use for human-directed work
Anthropic	Claude will provide an election banner that directs users to TurboVote, a resource by Democracy Works	Direct users to authoritative sources and triggering web-search to provide up-to-date information.	Claude is striving for “political even-handedness” and is trained to avoid giving unsolicited political opinions	Anthropic prohibits use of Claude for automated campaign messaging, personalized targeting, synthetic media (images, video, audio), vote solicitation, and disrupting election processes
Google	Offers a Civic Information API and directs users to Democracy Works	Real time results with AP, direct Gemini to Google Search, use AI tools like SpamBrain to defend against low quality content	When asked for political information all of their tools are designed to be “reliable, neutral, and offer a range of perspectives”	Advertisers must disclose if they include realistic synthetic content that has been digitally altered or AI generated; Users must complete the US Election Ad Verification before running an ad
Meta	No information about Meta AI or Muse Spark specifically; Meta uses C2PA on their posts & ads, has an Elections Operation Center, and says it directs election queries on their social media platforms to government websites.
Grok/xAI	X has civic integrity labels for posts that interfere with election processes. Grok 4.6’s model card has safeguards against content that creates severe harm or engages in criminal activity. In 2024, Grok started directing users to Vote.gov and we have not found any update on that policy.
Microsoft	Microsoft has not published a standalone AI-elections policy for Copilot, but has discussed voter education and cybersecurity in light of AI. In 2023, Microsoft introduced C2PA into their products and a “Campaign Success Team” to help political campaigns navigate the use of AI.

OpenAI

A collection of OpenAI’s most recent election safeguard policies can be found here. This is a comprehensive update to their 2024 policies, which focused primarily on preventing deepfakes and directing voters to authoritative sources through a partnership with CanIVote.org and the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS). This year, OpenAI is partnering with Democracy Works and AP to provide election information to users about voting processes, locations, live results, and other election logistics. Their approach includes a combination of integrating factual information in their responses, directing to external sources, and responding with neutral information.

OpenAI also says it is working with the NASS and the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) to improve election execution and cyber infrastructure through Daybreak. Additionally, they are providing voting system manufacturers and election administrators with access to Codex Security and their Trusted Access for Cyber (TAC) program, to improve cyber defense.

Anthropic

Anthropic’s 2024 AI and Elections policy focused on prohibiting use of their products to interfere with elections, spread misinformation, or solicit voters. They also discussed directing users to authoritative sources through their partnership with Democracy Works. Anthropic’s 2026 plan expands on this, adding additional details on preventing bias, evaluating the effectiveness of safeguards, and triggering web-search for questions about live results. Their approach prioritizes responding with neutral information, directing users to external sources through an election banner, and occasionally refusing a query. 

Google

In 2024, Google generally restricted responses for election-related questions on Gemini and directed users to aggregated information and resources about elections from Democracy Works. This year, they have modified this approach and allow responses to election-related queries. They also offer a Civic Information API that users can use (or organizations can build upon) to find information about local elections. For live returns, they plan to provide results through a partnership with AP and direct Gemini to Google Search, using AI tools like SpamBrain to defend against low quality content across their platforms. Primarily, Google takes the approach to redirect users to external reliable sources instead of integrating factual information into the response or providing a neutral response.

Like OpenAI, Google has provided several cybersecurity resources to help campaigns and election management bodies manage security. Their Advanced Protection Program provides security tools through a partnership with Defending Digital Campaigns (DDC) in the US and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). They also offer Project Shield which protects election websites from DDoS attacks.

Meta

Meta has not published an election-specific policy for Muse Spark or Meta AI. Meta’s most recent 2026 election policies only discuss election content on Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp. It mentions the addition of C2PA watermarks on posts and ads on their platforms that have AI-generated content, the efforts of their Election Operations Center, and directing users to government websites when they search up election-related questions. 

Grok/xAI

X has not published an AI-elections policy for Grok or xAI. Since 2024, Grok has started its responses to election-related questions with a link to Vote.org. X’s September 2025 election integrity policy governs misleading election content on the platform and is enforced through Community Notes and civic integrity labels, which X says are reserved for “critical escalations.” It is unclear whether Grok’s own outputs are covered by that policy. 

Microsoft

Microsoft has also not published a standalone AI-elections policy for Copilot. They have discussed their efforts to address voter education and cybersecurity broadly in light of AI. In 2023, Microsoft introduced C2PA into their products and a “Campaign Success Team” to help political campaigns navigate the use of AI.

Neutrality

One reason firms may be more comfortable answering election queries is that they think they have operationalized providing unbiased or neutral information. Two providers with published policies explain their approach. OpenAI says that ChatGPT follows the “seek the truth together” principle when asked political questions. OpenAI updated this in 2025 with a more comprehensive definition of political bias, clarifying that “the model is designed to avoid behavior that would manipulate a user or to conceal relevant facts or viewpoints to nudge them in a particular direction.” They also explain that when bias is present in answers, “it most often involves the model expressing personal opinions, providing asymmetric coverage or escalating the user with charged language,” noting that the most recent models (GPT‑5 instant and GPT‑5 thinking) reduce bias by 30% compared to previous models.

Claude aims for what Anthropic calls “political even-handedness”: making the strongest case for most viewpoints if asked, representing multiple perspectives where there’s no empirical or moral consensus, using neutral rather than politically-loaded terminology, and engaging respectfully across perspectives without unsolicited judgment or persuasion. Per Claude’s constitution, the company explains that the models are trained to be evenhanded, unbiased, fair, trustworthy, and to generally withhold political opinions unprompted (in the way that working professionals generally do). However, system developers, enterprise administrators, or platform owners are able to alter this behavior “within the constraints” of Claude’s constitution.

We will continue to monitor this space and provide updates or corrections as necessary. 

Tanvi Prem is a researcher interested in how AI and digital platforms shape public trust and democratic participation. Her undergraduate thesis used the Meta Ad Library API to analyze religious political ad messaging during the 2024 U.S. presidential election, earning First Place at Columbia University’s NSDC Data Science Symposium and a presentation at the National Communications Association Conference. She has also conducted research on generative AI, computational propaganda, and elections through UT Austin’s Propaganda Research Lab and as an NSF Research Fellow at Syracuse University.

Mihir Kshirsagar runs CITP’s first-of-its-kind interdisciplinary technology policy clinic that gives students and scholars an opportunity to engage directly in the policy process. Most recently, he served in the New York Attorney General’s Bureau of Internet & Technology as the lead trial counsel in cutting edge matters concerning consumer protection law and technology and obtained one of the largest consumer payouts in the State’s history.