Staff Reports
A federal judge has put Montana’s new AI “deepfake” campaign law on ice — but only for one political committee and its leader. The preliminary injunction stops state officials from enforcing the law against Accountability in State Government and former state legislator Dan Bartel while the court considers whether the statute violates the First Amendment. In plain English: the judge found the law likely picks winners and losers in political speech, and that’s a no-go.
What the judge actually ruled
U.S. District Judge Susan P. Watters concluded the plaintiffs probably will win on their free-speech claim. The problem, she wrote, is that Montana’s law singles out AI-made content that is meant to “injure” a candidate while leaving flattering or “uplifting” synthetic content alone. That makes the rule content- and viewpoint-based. The injunction bars Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and other named officials from enforcing the law against Bartel and his PAC while the case moves forward.
What the law tried to do — and where it went wrong
SB 25 (2025) aimed to force disclosure on so-called deepfakes in campaign ads within the run-up to elections. It included exemptions for bona fide news and satire and spelled out fines and criminal penalties that could climb to felony charges after repeated violations. The law was triggered by mailers that altered photos of candidates — adding pride flags and pronoun pins — which led to complaints and an administrative review. The Commissioner of Political Practices dismissed some complaints as satire, but the PAC sued to block enforcement entirely.
Why conservatives should care
This isn’t just legal nitpicking. The core issue is whether the government gets to decide which political attacks are “injurious” enough to be punished. If that power stands, it will be wielded against grassroots critics and political operatives who don’t toe the establishment line. We should want clear rules against fraud and deliberate deception. We should not want laws that let regulators censor speech because they dislike the message. The judge did the right thing by saying the First Amendment still means something, even in the age of AI. And yes, satire — even the ugly kind — is still satire.
What happens next
The injunction is narrow: it protects only the named plaintiffs for now. The state can appeal, and the case will go on to decides the law’s fate on the merits. Courts across the country are split on how to handle synthetic media rules, so this fight is far from over. Conservatives who care about free speech should watch this one. If Montana or other states get to criminalize “injurious” political AI, it won’t be just the mailers that are at risk — it will be anyone who dares to criticize the powerful.
