A White House order claims to end ‘censorship.’ What does that mean?
Among the dozens of executive actions President Trump signed on his first day in office is one aimed at “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship.” Legal and political experts say it raises concerns about the new administration’s willingness to punish its perceived enemies, such as civil servants and researchers who study how propaganda and conspiracy theories travel online.
The order bars the government from “any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen” and directs the attorney general to investigate the Biden administration’s activities and recommend “remedial actions.”
“No longer will our government label the speech of our own citizens as misinformation or disinformation, which are the favorite words of censors and those who wish to stop the free exchange of ideas and, frankly, progress,” Trump said on Thursday during a speech to the World Economic Forum. “We have saved free speech in America, and we’ve saved it strongly with another historic executive order.”
The First Amendment already prohibits the government from restricting a wide range of speech. But in recent years, Republicans, including Trump and his allies, have accused federal officials of colluding with social media companies and disinformation researchers to unlawfully censor speech, especially around contentious issues, including elections and public health. Last year, the Supreme Court rejected claims that social media companies had been pressured by the government to take down posts about COVID-19 and the 2020 election.
Despite that ruling, the first section of the executive order accuses the Biden administration of having “trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies.”
The new executive order is “part of an argument that the right has been making for a long time about the government working against conservatives, social media working against conservatives,” said David Kaye, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.
There are no specifics of what the “remedial actions” the order refers to would look like. Kaye said that this vagueness can be useful.
“Once you have an executive order, it is a source of authority for individual policymakers to take action,” he said. “Maybe internally there will be debate over the meaning of the order. But whoever has control … will have the power to do that.”
The censorship order isn’t the only directive from Trump that could open the door for officials to punish civil servants. Another order titled “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government” directs the attorney general to “review the activities” of federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, for things like prosecuting people involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
Trump’s executive orders are similar to moves by those in power in Hungary and Poland said, Anna Grzymala-Busse, a political science professor at Stanford University who studies populism around the world.
“A favorite tactic is to purge state employees and then rehire political allies,” she said. “[It’s] a classic pattern that we see all over the world pursued by illiberal, autocratically minded, populist governments.”
In a statement, the White House told NPR that nothing in the orders should be “remotely objectionable to anyone who believes in the First Amendment and rule of law.” It did not specify a timeline for the reviews referred to in the orders or what “remedial actions” could look like.
The censorship narrative had an impact before the executive order
The censorship executive order also bars the use of “taxpayer resources” to carry out what it defines as censoring speech. That could put further pressure on researchers, who have also been targeted by the ongoing Republican legal and political campaign casting efforts to mitigate or track the spread of falsehoods online as “censorship.”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44339/443397ea3e59ba2331f9b9b5d1748b51ee789e33" alt="Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, attends the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20."
The House Judiciary Committee’s Weaponization of the Federal Government Subcommittee, chaired by Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and established in early 2023, has conducted investigations into government agencies, social media companies and researchers of false and harmful narratives online, driven by the idea that these organizations colluded to censor conservative speech.
The subcommittee produced reports alleging that the Biden administration worked with tech platforms, nonprofits and academic researchers to build a “censorship-industrial complex” that colluded to stifle conservative viewpoints online.
Research does not support those claims. Top conservative influencers have bigger followings than top liberal influencers, and far-right accounts get more engagement on Facebook than accounts of other political persuasion. While conservatives are more likely to spread information that fact-checkers deem inaccurate, there’s no available data to substantiate the allegation that conservatives are unfairly targeted by fact-checkers.
Still, following the subpoenas by the subcommittee and multiple lawsuits from conservative groups, the Stanford Internet Observatory, one prominent research group tracking abusive online speech, lost its leadership and much of its staff and stopped studying election-related false narratives.
“What we [are seeing] is right-wing efforts to disrupt research that the right sees as challenging its dominance on social media, reframed as being somehow anti-disinformation research. It’s really anti-criticism,” said Renée DiResta, who previously worked as a research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory and was cast as a censorship figurehead by right-wing media. She now studies adversarial online abuse at Georgetown University.
For Darren Linvill, who co-leads Clemson University’s Media Forensics Hub, concerns about partisan pressure on research have been growing for years. When the COVID-19 pandemic and the conspiracy theories that came with it swept the United States, he said, researchers in the field started to worry about the field being politicized. Three years later, he was called in front of Jordan’s subcommittee to testify.
“A lot of the funding agencies have already responded to the partisan battle by backing off from funding this kind of work,” Linvill said.
He said he’s no longer pursuing government funding that’s traditionally used for academic research. When he did apply for government funding, Linvill avoided ideas that he thought carried too much political risk.
“I would bet a lot of money we’re not the only organization that has engaged in some self-censorship. … People understand the reality that they’re dealing with, just like the funding agencies understand the reality,” he said.
Social media companies have also responded to the pressure. Many have laid off staff working on trust and safety. In January, Facebook and Instagram owner Meta stopped fact-checking in the U.S. and said it would dial back filtering out content its own policies deem harmful.
Transcript:
JUANA SUMMERS, HOST:
Among the new executive orders signed by President Trump is one titled Restoring Freedom Of Speech And Ending Federal Censorship. Here’s Trump speaking Thursday to the World Economic Forum.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have saved free speech in America, and we’ve saved it strongly with another historic executive order.
SUMMERS: Free speech is already protected by the First Amendment, so what does the order actually do? NPR’s Lisa Hagen looked into it.
LISA HAGEN, BYLINE: President Trump and his supporters have long told a story that they’ve been censored by a government colluding with social media companies and disinformation researchers. Here he is in 2022.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
TRUMP: We need to break up the entire toxic censorship industry that has arisen under the false guise of tackling so-called mis- and disinformation.
HAGEN: Trump has objected to government efforts to monitor foreign propaganda and promote trustworthy information about things like elections and public health. And the president has framed those objections as defending free speech, but Trump has also consistently referred to the press as the enemy of the people. He’s said he wants to make it easier to sue journalists and other critics. That context is not included in the executive order.
DAVID KAYE: It’s a rhetorical framing that is really kind of cynical because it is at odds with the actual policies that this administration, I think, wants to pursue.
HAGEN: David Kaye is a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. He says there is a legitimate debate to be had about how governments engage with social media platforms, about what they allow users to say. But that’s not how Kaye reads this order.
KAYE: Our version of free speech is the only version of free speech. That’s what Trump is essentially saying.
HAGEN: The new directive reinforces a narrative Republicans in Congress have used to pressure social media platforms and academics who work on these issues. Darren Linvill of Clemson University is one of many disinformation researchers who’ve had to appear before Congress about accusations of censoring speech. He says partisan scrutiny has already had a chilling effect on government funding and the work itself.
DARREN LINVILL: I think there has been a lot of self-censorship within academia because they live within a political reality that is always changing, and they have to position themselves to still function regardless of who’s in charge.
HAGEN: For Kaye, there’s a much more alarming part of Trump’s new order. It calls on the attorney general to investigate and prepare a report on the federal government’s past actions for what the order describes as violations of citizens’ free speech and then recommend, quote, “remedial action.”
KAYE: What that means, we don’t know.
HAGEN: That vagueness can be useful, Kaye says.
KAYE: Political appointees who will be coming in will understand this as a call by the president to tamp down on efforts to identify disinformation and to identify online threats.
HAGEN: The censorship directive isn’t the only one that authorizes officials to potentially punish civil servants. Another executive order Trump signed directs the attorney general to investigate federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, for, quote, “weaponization of law enforcement.” It mentions examples like prosecuting people involved in January 6.
ANNA GRZYMALA-BUSSE: These are all examples of a rule by law rather than a rule of law.
HAGEN: Anna Grzymala-Busse is a political science professor at Stanford University, who studies global populism. She says she’s seen similar moves in Hungary and Poland.
GRZYMALA-BUSSE: The classic claim of these politicians is that institutions have been corrupted by the previous elites, by previous political parties. You know, a favorite tactic is to purge state employees and then rehire political allies.
HAGEN: In a statement, the White House told NPR, nothing in the order should be remotely objectionable to anyone who believes in the First Amendment and rule of law. Lisa Hagen, NPR News.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
Alzheimer’s was taking her memory, so she started taking a new drug
Myra Solano Garcia, who has Alzheimer's, says the drug Kisunla may be one reason she can still drive, cook, and sing.
Court considers halting Trump’s mass firings of federal employees
A federal judge in San Francisco hears arguments in a case challenging the Trump administration's firings of thousands of probationary employees — those in their first year or so on the job.
ICE will reopen a major detention center in New Jersey as it eyes a broader expansion
The Trump administration is expanding its immigration detention capacity, reopening a 1,000-bed detention center in New Jersey and adding beds at other privately owned facilities around the country.
Martin Marty, leading scholar of American religion, dies at 97
Martin Marty, one of the foremost interpreters of religion in American public life, died on Tuesday. He was 97 years old.
2 years after Greece’s deadliest train crash, victims and families await answers
On Feb. 28, 2023, a passenger train and freight train collided, leaving 57 dead. New evidence suggests many may not have been killed by the crash itself, but by a fire that followed.
Trump says he doesn’t see need for U.S. security guarantees to end Ukraine-Russia war
In a meeting with the British Prime Minister, Trump said reaching a peace deal would be the "difficult part." He said security would be made easier by a U.S. deal with Ukraine on critical minerals.