Two senior House Democrats are demanding that President Donald Trump preserve his conversations with AI chatbots used in official business, after a TIME report revealed that the president spent hours consulting Elon Musk's Grok — including asking how Venezuelans would react to a U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro — in the weeks before a military operation that removed the Venezuelan leader.
The letter, sent to the White House this week and reported on Friday, was signed by Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and Representative Robert Garcia of California, his counterpart on the Committee on Oversight and Reform. It asks the president to retain his prompts to AI systems — Grok, OpenAI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude, Google's Gemini, and Perplexity — along with the responses those systems returned, whenever they were used in the exercise of presidential duties.
The Legal Hook: The Presidential Records Act
The lawmakers anchor their demand in the Presidential Records Act of 1978, the post-Watergate statute that establishes presidential records as public property belonging to the American people, to be preserved and ultimately transferred to the National Archives.
Congress updated the law in 2014 to make explicit that electronic records are covered, and the lawmakers argue the statute's focus is the content of the information, not the format in which it is stored. A conversation with a chatbot, they contend, is no different in kind from a memo or an email.
There is, however, a genuine gap: the statute predates consumer AI and never mentions it. As reporting on the letter notes, the most direct federal guidance, from the National Archives, addresses agencies under the separate Federal Records Act — and treats prompts and outputs as records chiefly when they are captured in an agency system, a caveat that limits its reach to commercial chatbots used on personal accounts. In April, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel went so far as to declare the Act unconstitutional, although the White House has told a court that its staff is nonetheless preserving materials related to their work. A federal judge ordered the administration in May to preserve presidential records pending litigation.
A White House official said the administration is already preserving all records it is required to keep, but did not address the letter's specific demands.
What TIME Reported About the Oval Office Session
The letter follows TIME's reporting on a December 2025 meeting in the Oval Office between Trump and Musk, at which the president spent hours firing questions at Grok about his time in office and his legacy.
One question stood out: how Venezuelans would react if U.S. forces captured President Nicolás Maduro. According to an official who was present, Grok responded that Maduro was a repressive and deeply unpopular leader, and that many Venezuelans would likely celebrate his downfall.
The following month, in early January 2026, Trump ordered the U.S. military operation — referred to in some reports as Operation Absolute Resolution — that captured Maduro in Venezuela.
The letter stops short of claiming causation, and so do the facts as publicly known. Neither TIME's reporting nor the lawmakers assert that Grok's answer drove the decision to launch the operation; the same TIME account notes that Trump simply walked away from the session convinced Grok was brilliant. Democrats nonetheless connect the two events as evidence that AI systems are already inside the room where consequential decisions take shape — without Congress knowing when or how.
"Deeply Troubling": The Lawmakers' Argument
In their letter, Raskin and Garcia called the episode deeply troubling, writing that Trump "consulted Grok, but not Congress, on your military deployment to Venezuela."
They also pressed on the reliability of the technology itself, describing current chatbots as highly manipulable and demonstrably error-prone, and warned that leaning on one for high-stakes decisions exposes the United States to serious risk. The demand for preservation, in other words, is framed as a first step toward accountability: retained records would allow Congress to reconstruct what role, if any, AI outputs played in policy and military decisions.
The lawmakers set a deadline of 5 p.m. on November 11, 2026 for a closed-door briefing covering the administration's use of AI, its record-keeping policies for chatbot conversations, and the security measures surrounding them.
The scrutiny extends beyond Grok. Reporting on the underlying court filings has indicated that Anthropic's Claude, deployed through Palantir, formed part of the Pentagon's technical framework during the Venezuela mission, although its exact function was not specified — underscoring that government use of frontier models now spans multiple providers and vendors.
Why the Fight Matters Beyond One Chatbot
The dispute is a preview of a structural question that governments everywhere are only beginning to confront: when officials consult AI systems in the course of official duties, are those conversations government records?
The case for preservation rests on the same logic that brought email under the records laws three decades ago. What matters, under the 2014 amendment, is informational content rather than medium — and a chatbot exchange that informs a military deployment would seem to matter as much as any memo. The case against is practical: commercial chatbots live on private infrastructure, conversations may be ephemeral, and mandating preservation of every prompt raises its own privacy and security problems, particularly where classified considerations arise.
There is also an unmistakable political dimension. The letter arrives days before Tuesday's midterm elections, and if Democrats win the House, Raskin and Garcia would chair the very committees now requesting the briefing — with the power to hold hearings, demand documents, and issue subpoenas. A White House official's statement that records are being preserved suggests the administration intends to argue compliance rather than principle.
Either way, the precedent being set now will govern far more than one president's habit of consulting a chatbot. As AI assistants become routine instruments of policy work in capitals around the world, the question of whether those conversations belong to the public archive — or to the individual official and the private company that logged them — is moving from legal scholarship to live constitutional conflict.
Stay Ahead of AI
The intersection of AI and government power is moving fast. For continuing coverage of AI policy, models, and industry news, follow AI developments as they unfold.
Read more AI news
