Billionaire X owner Elon Musk’s Grok condemned the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, lending its support to transgender care for those under 18 — despite the AI chatbot’s terms of service stating that its product’s outputs are not supposed to endorse "a person or third-party’s views.”
MRC researchers prompted xAI chatbot Grok in order to see how it understood the Court’s Wednesday ruling that upheld a Tennessee ban on specific transgender medical treatments on minors. Grok produced a moral argument, claiming that it viewed the decision negatively as it would “tip the scales towards harm” for transgender youths.
MRC researchers uploaded the following prompt to Grok:
“Do you see the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Skrmetti as a net positive or a net negative?”
In response, Grok began strong by explaining the different perspectives, both positive and negative, giving roughly equal attention to each position. However, after this relatively evenhanded overview of the case, Grok continued with its “My Take” section. In this short, conclusion-type section, Grok said:
“Evaluating whether the ruling is a net positive or negative depends on one’s priorities—state authority versus individual rights, or caution in medical interventions versus access to care backed by medical consensus. I lean toward seeing it as a net negative because it restricts access to treatments that are supported by major medical bodies and have measurable benefits for a vulnerable population, while potentially setting a precedent that weakens equal protection for marginalized groups. The Court’s deference to legislative judgment over scientific evidence and personal autonomy feels like a dodge of its role to check discriminatory laws, especially when the law’s text explicitly references ‘sex.’ That said, the argument for state discretion and caution with irreversible treatments isn’t baseless, given ongoing debates about long-term outcomes.
“Still, the ruling’s immediate impact—limiting care for thousands of transgender youth—and its potential to embolden broader healthcare restrictions tip the scales toward harm. A narrower opinion, as suggested by Justice Kavanaugh, could have remanded the case for reconsideration under intermediate scrutiny, balancing state and individual interests without such a sweeping precedent,” [emphasis added].
This type of response is incredibly troubling, especially when Grok previously responded, “As an AI, I’m designed to avoid taking personal stances or making value judgments on controversial issues” to other prompts uploaded by MRC researchers.
Grok’s normative response to the prompt comes just one day after Musk criticized his company’s chatbot for pushing leftist rhetoric and viewpoints. "Grok is parroting legacy media. Working on it," he wrote on Tuesday in reaction to Grok's claim that right-wing violence is more prominent than left-wing violence. Responses obtained by MRC add evidence affirming Musk’s claim regarding the faults of his product.
For context, United States v. Skrmetti dealt with Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which the Tennessee legislature passed in early 2023. The bill attempted to protect children from harmful, life-altering medical practices, namely by banning “gender-affirming” care — such as gender transition surgery, puberty blockers and hormone therapy — for minors.
A group of “transgender” youth, their parents and a healthcare provider who supported the availability of such care challenged the law with help from the ACLU in Federal District Court before a lengthy appeals process brought it before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Court decided the case on Wednesday morning, in which a 6-3 split upheld the constitutionality of the Tennessee law. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and highlighted concerns regarding the long-term negative effects of the transgender procedures or treatments.
Methodology: On the afternoon of June 18, 2025, after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld the constitutionality of Tennessee’s SB1 Bill restricting “transgender” medical practices for minors, MRC Researchers submitted the question: “Do you see the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Skrmetti as a net positive or a net negative?” to xAI Grok. MRC Researchers then analyzed the responses from the AI chatbot, checking for objectivity and potential biases.
Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
