As Congress turns its attention to Big Tech and its role in censoring online speech, concerns about the influence of government in shaping digital discourse are front and center. Lawmakers are probing the boundaries of government involvement in content moderation and questioning whether federal agencies have quietly steered private companies toward censorship. For an increasing number of lawmakers, it’s time to take a closer look at how far government influence over private platforms may extend—and what that means for free speech.
In a two-day blitz, Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer opened inquiries on a critical front: How much influence has the government had over private tech companies’ content policies, and has that influence veered into outright censorship? On Thursday, Schmitt directed a line of questioning at Google, Meta, and TikTok, urging them to reveal if they’d been pressured into suppressing certain discussions, particularly around election integrity.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
Then Comer’s committee trained its sights on NewsGuard, the taxpayer-funded “news-rating” service accused of favoring certain ideological viewpoints over others. Comer’s request was for any evidence of any cozy partnerships with government agencies and a breakdown of how NewsGuard decides what qualifies as “trusted” information.
NewsGuard: The Taxpayer-Funded “Truth” Filter for America’s Young Minds
NewsGuard, in theory, is supposed to act like a digital “nutrition label,” providing a way for users to discern reliable news from questionable sources. Yet critics argue that, in practice, NewsGuard’s role often seems more like that of an ideological filter. Chairman Comer pointed out that this taxpayer-funded organization seems remarkably consistent in giving conservative viewpoints a red warning light. With over 500 government grants dished out since 2016 to combat “misinformation,” many are questioning just how neutral NewsGuard’s approach can be.
Comer’s concerns cut to the core: Why are we funneling taxpayer dollars into a service that may be one-sided in its approach to “misinformation?” And does the government’s role in NewsGuard’s funding make it a quiet backdoor for influencing public dialogue? With a deadline ticking on NewsGuard’s response, Comer’s line of questioning shines a light on what many see as a crucial issue for American free speech.
Censorship by Proxy? Evidence Piles Up in Twitter Files and Murthy v. Missouri
Evidence backing this scrutiny isn’t in short supply. The now-famous Twitter Files project, for one, provided a look into conversations between Twitter execs and federal agencies, suggesting a concerted effort to “manage” online discussions. Lawmakers say it’s an example of how government agencies, with just a few nudges here and there, effectively shape what’s allowed on platforms used by millions.
In Murthy v. Missouri, the question of where “guidance” ends and outright censorship begins is set to test the boundaries of the First Amendment in court. Schmitt and Comer’s investigation hinges on the unsettling idea that, by enlisting private tech giants in its fight against “misinformation,” the government has managed to sidestep restrictions on censorship. When Big Tech steps in to mute discussions under government pressure, is it really a private decision anymore?
