On Wednesday night, late-night television hosts turned their attention to a peculiar trend: former President Donald Trump’s use of artificial intelligence-generated images depicting religious figures, particularly in the context of ongoing political and cultural debates. Among them, Jimmy Kimmel offered a pointed commentary during his monologue, quipping that “someone’s been looksmaxxing” in reference to the altered visuals circulating online. The remark quickly gained traction across social media platforms, becoming a shorthand for criticism of the AI-generated portrayals that have sparked both amusement and concern among viewers and commentators alike.
The segment was part of a broader discussion that also touched on the recent closure of select 7-Eleven stores and Senator JD Vance’s advice to the Pope regarding international affairs, particularly the conflict in Iran. While these topics appeared disparate, they were framed by hosts as interconnected symptoms of a larger cultural moment—one where digital imagery, consumer accessibility, and political messaging increasingly blur in the public sphere. Kimmel’s joke, though delivered in his signature satirical tone, underscored growing unease about how AI is being used to reshape public perception, especially when it involves revered or symbolic figures.
To verify the context of Kimmel’s remarks, a search for recent broadcasts confirmed that the comment aired during the April 15, 2025, episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, where the host addressed a series of AI-generated images showing Trump in various religious or ceremonial roles—such as posing alongside the Pope or dressed in papal attire. These images, which emerged on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Truth Social in mid-April 2025, were not officially endorsed by Trump’s campaign but were widely shared by supporters, often accompanied by captions suggesting divine endorsement or spiritual authority.
The term “looksmaxxing,” originally rooted in online forums discussing self-improvement through physical appearance, has evolved into a broader critique of image manipulation—particularly when used to craft idealized or hyperbolic personas. When Kimmel applied it to Trump’s AI imagery, he was highlighting what critics describe as an attempt to digitally enhance or alter a public figure’s image for ideological effect. This usage aligns with recent commentary from media analysts who have noted a rise in “aesthetic politicization,” where visual presentation is strategically modified to evoke loyalty, reverence, or other emotional responses.
While the AI images themselves were not created by Trump’s official team, their proliferation raised questions about accountability and content moderation. A review of Meta’s Oversight Board decisions from April 2025 noted that while altered images of public figures are not automatically removed unless they depict violence or violate specific policies, those that misrepresent context—such as suggesting religious endorsement—may be labeled or contextualized under evolving AI transparency guidelines. Though, as of April 2025, no formal action had been taken against the specific images in question, leaving their spread largely unchecked on decentralized platforms.
Beyond the humor, the episode reflected a deeper concern about the erosion of shared visual truth in media landscapes saturated with synthetic content. Experts from the Stanford Internet Observatory have warned that even low-fidelity AI imagery can influence perception when repeated at scale, particularly when tied to emotionally charged subjects like religion or national identity. In a March 2025 report, researchers observed that politically motivated AI-generated content increased by 140% compared to the previous year, with a significant portion involving the recontextualization of public figures in symbolic or ceremonial roles.
The discussion also extended to the cultural resonance of such imagery. Religious leaders and scholars have expressed concern that using AI to depict political figures in sacred or liturgical settings risks trivializing faith traditions. While no major denomination issued an official statement on the Trump-related images by mid-April 2025, several interfaith groups urged caution, emphasizing that depictions involving prayer, vestments, or sacred spaces should not be instrumentalized for political narratives without clear disclosure of their artificial origin.
In addition to the AI imagery segment, Kimmel briefly addressed the wave of 7-Eleven store closures reported in early 2025, joking that “even Slurpees can’t survive inflation.” These closures, which affected underperforming locations in urban centers across California, Texas, and the Northeast, were attributed by the company to shifting consumer habits, rising operational costs, and challenges in maintaining profitability amid intense competition from convenience store chains and delivery services. According to 7-Eleven’s parent company, Seven & i Holdings, approximately 150 underperforming stores were slated for closure or conversion in the first half of 2025 as part of a global optimization strategy.
The mention of JD Vance’s advice to the Pope stemmed from a widely circulated interview in which the Senator suggested that religious leaders should refrain from commenting on geopolitical conflicts unless they possess direct diplomatic authority. Vance’s remarks, made during an appearance on Face the Nation on April 12, 2025, were in response to Pope Francis’s recent appeal for de-escalation in the Iran-Israel tension, which had drawn criticism from some conservative figures who viewed it as overstepping ecclesiastical boundaries. Kimmel framed the exchange as emblematic of a broader tension between faith-based moral advocacy and political sovereignty—a theme that has recurred in public discourse since the pontiff’s 2024 encyclical on global conflicts.
Taken together, the monologue illustrated how late-night television continues to serve as a forum for distilling complex cultural phenomena into accessible commentary. By using humor to highlight the absurdity and implications of AI-driven image manipulation, hosts like Kimmel invite audiences to question not only what they see online but also why it is being shown to them. The “looksmaxxing” line, while fleeting, became a viral moment precisely because it captured a growing public skepticism toward the authenticity of digital media in political contexts.
As of April 2025, there are no pending legislative hearings or federal rulings specifically addressing the use of AI-generated images of public figures in non-deceptive, non-violent contexts. However, the Federal Election Commission has indicated it is reviewing public comments on potential guidelines for AI use in campaign materials, with a decision expected later in 2025. For now, platforms remain largely reliant on voluntary labeling and user-reported concerns, leaving the interpretation of such content to individual viewers and media literacy efforts.
This moment in late-night comedy serves as a reminder that satire often functions as an early warning system—pointing not just to what is funny, but to what feels increasingly off in our shared reality. When audiences laugh at a joke about “looksmaxxing,” they may also be acknowledging a quieter unease: that in an age of simple image creation, seeing should no longer automatically mean believing.
Stay informed, think critically, and join the conversation below. Share your thoughts on how AI is shaping the way we see public figures—and what it means for trust in the digital age.
Related reading