Government’s Growing Power to Shape Online Speech Raises Alarm

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently raised concerns over alleged “lies, smears and AI deepfakes” designed to mislead Americans about President Trump’s immigration agenda. When questioned about potential coordination with social media platforms to counter this perceived misinformation, a DHS spokesperson confirmed, “Yes and we are also putting resources forward to ensure DHS combats this.”

The irony is striking. During the Biden administration, Trump and his Republican allies vehemently opposed government efforts to pressure platforms to police misinformation. Now in power, the Trump administration appears to have embraced the same tactics it once condemned.

This policy reversal has created an unexpected role reversal as well. Many liberals who previously supported government intervention against misinformation now find themselves alarmed at the prospect of the Trump administration wielding such power to potentially suppress speech it disagrees with.

At stake is a fundamental question: Should any administration, regardless of political affiliation, have the authority to determine what constitutes permissible speech online?

Constitutional scholars point to a practice known as “jawboning” – when government officials pressure private companies to censor content without explicitly ordering them to do so. Since the First Amendment prohibits direct government censorship, officials often resort to behind-closed-doors demands backed by implicit threats of regulatory consequences for non-compliance.

“Because the government wields so much power over businesses, these companies understand they are in a weak position to resist,” explains one digital rights advocate familiar with the situation.

The Biden administration’s efforts to combat COVID-19 “misinformation” eventually led to the Supreme Court case Murthy v. Missouri. While the Court ruled that individual social media users lacked standing to sue, internal communications from tech companies revealed executives felt pressured to comply with administration requests. Meta leaders privately acknowledged they needed to change policies because they had “bigger fish to fry with the Administration,” while YouTube executives noted they needed to keep Biden officials happy to “work closely with the administration on multiple policy fronts.”

The Supreme Court did, however, affirm in NRA v. Vullo that government jawboning is unconstitutional – a principle the Trump administration now appears to be testing.

Recent actions suggest a concerning pattern. Apple removed an app allowing users to report ICE officer sightings in real-time. Following complaints from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Meta deleted a Facebook group sharing information about ICE agents, citing violations of its “policies against coordinated harm.” Now, DHS openly admits to communicating with social media companies about immigration “misinformation.”

“It would be naive to suppose it hasn’t applied any pressure during those talks,” notes a civil liberties attorney who requested anonymity to speak freely.

The secretive nature of these communications makes accountability difficult. Unlike FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s public threats against Jimmy Kimmel following comments about Charlie Kirk – which prompted widespread backlash – most government-platform interactions happen away from public scrutiny.

Transparency advocates propose requiring all government officials to report any requests or suggestions related to content moderation. Such communications could be compiled in a public database maintained by the Office of Management and Budget, with provisions for protecting genuinely sensitive information.

“Such a requirement would immediately discourage jawboning by forcing officials to operate in the open,” argues a digital rights researcher. “And when they step over the line, there would finally be a public record to support legal action.”

The immigration debate highlights how the definition of “misinformation” often splits along partisan lines – similar to COVID-19 discussions, where conservatives raised concerns about vaccine safety while progressives sometimes exaggerated virus threats to justify restrictions.

The lesson is becoming increasingly clear: when government gains power to police information, perspectives that challenge official narratives risk being silenced – regardless of which party holds power.

“Those on the left are alarmed to see those same powers invoked by a president they oppose,” observes a political analyst. “Transparency about government contacts with platforms is essential to prevent secret censorship, and more speech—not enforced silence—is how we resolve disagreements in a free society.”