[Senate Hearing 119-441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-441
SHUT YOUR APP: HOW UNCLE SAM
JAWBONED BIG TECH INTO SILENCING
AMERICANS, PART II
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 29, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-989 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi Ranking
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TED BUDD, North Carolina TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOHN CURTIS, Utah BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
TIM SHEEHY, Montana JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ANDY KIM, New Jersey
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 29, 2025................................. 1
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 3
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 35
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 37
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 39
Statement of Senator Lujan....................................... 41
Statement of Senator Schmitt..................................... 44
Statement of Senator Rosen....................................... 46
Statement of Senator Moreno...................................... 48
Statement of Senator Curtis...................................... 50
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 53
Witnesses
Markham Erickson, Vice President, Government Affairs and Public
Policy, Google................................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Neil Potts, Vice President, Public Policy, Meta Platforms Inc.... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Will Creeley, Legal Director, Foundation for Individual Rights
and Expression................................................. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge............. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Markham Erickson by:
Hon. Ted Cruz................................................ 59
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 63
Response to written questions submitted to Neil Potts by:
Hon. Ted Cruz................................................ 65
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 68
Response to written questions submitted to Will Creeley by:
Hon. Ted Cruz................................................ 69
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 72
Response to written questions submitted to Harold Feld by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 76
SHUT YOUR APP: HOW UNCLE SAM
JAWBONED BIG TECH INTO SILENCING
AMERICANS, PART II
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:36 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Fischer, Blackburn,
Schmitt, Curtis, Moreno, Sheehy, Cantwell, Klobuchar, Markey,
Rosen, Lujan, and Fetterman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
The Chairman. Good morning. The Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation will come to order. In
1984, George Orwell chillingly explored how the control of
speech is the control of the mind.
In describing this world, Orwell powerfully demonstrated
how an authoritarian government can suppress the ability of a
person to speak, dissent, and think in order to control its
people. Long before Orwell, our founding fathers recognized
this threat as well.
After witnessing a long train of abuses and usurpations by
the British crown, including the suppression of speech and
thought, 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence,
speaking out in defense of man's natural rights and beginning
the formation of a new free nation built upon one's ability to
speak and dissent against the Government.
The American founders knew all too well that being unable
to speak out against Government encroachment of your rights
ensures the loss of those rights. The right to speak out is the
foundation of a free society. It gives everyone, whether a
Senator or a citizen, a contrarian or a comedian, the power to
persuade and to hold Government accountable.
And that is why all of us need to defend and protect the
most powerful weapon we have against the Government's ability
to censor its own citizens, the First Amendment. Censorship
around the world is growing. Even allies like the United
Kingdom are making arrests for so called ``offensive speech'',
like criticism of open borders and peaceful prayer near
abortion clinics.
President Reagan was right when he declared that freedom is
never more than one generation away from extinction. Here in
the United States, we must uphold free speech and zealously
guard against censorship. Earlier this month, I convened a
hearing to examine how our own Government, particularly the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, censored in
secret, often through third parties.
CISA and White House officials jaw-boned Big Tech into
deleting tweets, downranking posts, and deplatforming
conservatives under the guise of ``safety and national
security.'' We heard the stories of Alex Berenson and Sean
Davis, who were personally targeted by the Biden
Administration's apparatchiks for opinions and facts they
shared on COVID and election fraud.
They not only suffered significant financial loss, but more
importantly, they were silenced by their own Government. Today,
we pick off where the story left off, with witnesses from two
Big Tech companies that were pressured by the Biden
Administration to censor the American people, Google and Meta.
Today, these same companies claim to zealously advocate for
free speech. While I welcome their newfound religious
conversion, they owe apologies to Alex Berenson, to Sean Davis,
and to countless Americans they silenced at the Biden
Administration's behest. No major tech company, let alone the
ones before us, publicly spoke out when this was happening.
They were silent.
Despite armies of lobbyists and legal resources without
limit, Big Tech was speechless when the Biden White House
bullied them into censoring regular citizens. Neither Big Tech,
nor any of my Democrat colleagues, spoke up. They seemed quite
content to follow the example of the United Kingdom,
criminalizing speech that some find offensive under the guise
of ``misinformation.''
But the fact is the Government cannot or at least should
not be the arbiter of truth. You don't get to decide free
speech protections are available only to favored or popular
speech. It is not up to bureaucrats and politicians to decide
which speech is reasonable and which is hateful, and then only
accept that speech that they find to be socially acceptable and
inoffensive. You don't get to cancel someone for using the
wrong pronouns or challenging conventional wisdom on vaccines.
Now, our commitment to free speech under the rule of law
means protecting speech that some people find unreasonable, or
offensive, or even hateful. So, what does that mean in
practice? Alex Berenson and Sean Davis can prove that the Biden
Administration was behind their online censorship, yes, but
they still face significant legal obstacles in recouping their
losses.
Their stories and countless others like them have revealed
dangerous gaps in our legal protections for free speech. It
cannot be that their First Amendment rights go un-remedied
merely because the violators are no longer in office or because
Congress has withheld a damages remedy.
This collusion between big Government and Big Tech is a
warning that we need stronger tools to guard our cherished
freedoms. That is why I will soon introduce new legislation,
the Jawbone Act, which will provide a robust right to redress
when Americans are targeted by their own Government.
I am hopeful that today's hearing will reflect bipartisan
interest in protecting free speech and finding common ground on
measures like this one. We cannot remain idle in the face of
Government agencies manipulating private companies into
silencing their critics.
We must act decisively to uphold the First Amendment, to
protect open debate, and to defend every American's right to
speak freely without fear of Government reprisal. I will now
turn to Ranking Member Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for having this hearing, for the witnesses being here. But my
fundamental question still is, where is Brendan Carr? We might
have the right hearing, but I am not sure we have the right
witnesses.
We might have the right questions, but I am not sure we
have the right Administration we are calling into question. I
will take the opportunity to ask the witnesses about AI, about
algorithms, about competition on platforms.
But as we discuss censorship today, this hearing isn't
serious if it ignores the ongoing corporate consolidation green
lighted by the Trump Administration, which is only approving
deals that come with a political pro quo. Mr. Feld, in your
testimony, you talk about, ``consolidation amplifies the
ability to control content on an unprecedented scale.''
And I appreciate that you recognize the threat posed by
corporate consolidation to free speech and independent
journalism. In fact, you also say, ``a handful of opaque
algorithms are controlling the majority of discussion online.''
Just this year, FCC Chairman Carr approved Skydance's $8
billion acquisition of Paramount, but only after Paramount paid
$16 million to settle with President Trump and install a first-
term Trump appointee as the ombudsman at CBS.
And FTC Chairman Ferguson approved Omnicron's $13 billion
acquisition of Interpublic, creating the world's largest media
buying agency while ignoring the serious concerns about market
consolidation.
So, rather than protecting consumers and competition, the
FTC imposed conditions to favor certain kinds of content. The
FTC later in complaints--as Mr. Feld is saying in his
testimony, it is really important to have somebody at the FTC
that is making sure that we understand the consumer harm when
you reduce competition, when you basically are reducing
investment.
The consolidation of audiences and advertising dollars on
just a few social media platforms pose real risk to democracy,
to the sustainability of local, diverse, and trusted media
sources.
When a handful of companies control how information
spreads, that makes it easier for any Administration to abuse
that power with political threats to chill speech. What we have
seen, both Meta and Google recently reached a $25 million
settlement with President Trump.
Those settlements raise concerns about the kind of back
channel arrangements that can distort information. The stakes
are high now because as we look to turning to AI for the
future, how will that tool be used? A July poll from the
Associated Press show that 60 percent of Americans use AI to
find information.
While AI is a tremendous power for good, this trend raises
concerns of the concentration and monopolization of that
information. The amount of control in the hands of just a
select few could erode the foundation of free speech.
The First Amendment isn't just a line in the Bill of
Rights. It is about an operating system for our democracy that
protects everybody, comedians, protesters, the free press, and
obviously people we disagree with. That is why this committee
should focus on ensuring competition, diverse and truly
independent media systems, and all supportive of both
transparency expressed in this panel's testimony today and in
the previous panel's testimonies.
Transparency in process can be a very good antiseptic. The
proposed TikTok deal is a perfect example of the danger when
those principles break down. It places yet another major media
platform under control--already Paramount, CBS, Skydance, and
reportedly those seeking to buy Warner Brothers' Discovery.
What are the details of how we are going to rid the Chinese
influence of these algorithms and their misuse of algorithms? I
am still waiting for that explanation.
So, we have seen how consolidation erodes both competition,
and we only have a handful of companies owning outlets that
Americans rely on for news, entertainment, and those companies
become easier to intimidate.
So I ask again, where is Chairman Carr? These are important
issues. I hope they will appear before this committee at some
point in time, because we need to understand the direction that
we are going in our country to protect free speech.
And that is why the work of this committee should be, as
you said, Mr. Chairman, to defend the First Amendment, and have
a free, diverse media landscape. It is more urgent than ever.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And I would note the
Ranking Member asked where Brendan Carr is. As she knows, this
committee has already announced we will be having oversight
hearings, and Brendan Carr will be testifying before this
committee.
And indeed, in the preceding two years, when the Democrats
had the majority on this committee, we had precisely zero
oversight hearings of the FCC. We had zero oversight hearings
of the FTC. And I haven't announced it, but we will be having
oversight hearings of the FTC as well, because this committee
has a responsibility to engage in oversight.
So Mr. Carr will be here, and each member of this committee
on both sides of the aisle will be able to question him on any
policies or questions they like. I now want to introduce our
witnesses for today. Our first witness is Markham Erickson, the
Vice President of Governmental Affairs and Public Policy at
Google.
Mr. Erickson leads Google's Government Affairs and Public
Policy Centers of Excellence, a global team focused on applying
law to technology and the internet. Our second witness is Neil
Potts, the Vice President of Public Policy at Meta. Mr. Potts
has worked for Facebook, or Meta, since 2016, and I look
forward to hearing his testimony about Meta's experience with
jawboning.
Our third witness is Will Creeley, Legal Director for the
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. His experience
advocating for free expression spans five Presidential
Administrations, and his writings have been featured in
prominent newspapers and Supreme Court briefs.
Our final witness is Harold Feld, Senior Vice President of
Public Knowledge. Mr. Feld has practiced law for more than 20
years at the intersection of technology, broadband, and media
policy. Mr. Erickson, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARKHAM ERICKSON, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC POLICY, GOOGLE
Mr. Erickson. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today. My name is Markham Erickson, and I serve
as Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy at
Google.
Google's mission, from its inception to today, has been to
organize the world's information and make it universally
accessible and useful. Founded in America, we proudly advance
this mission around the globe.
And while our platforms continue to experience tremendous
success worldwide, it is hard to imagine that our story could
have begun anywhere else but here in America, where the
commitment to freedom of expression is so profound. And yet,
even in America and certainly in many other countries around
the world, we often find this commitment challenged by others.
We hear from Government agencies, legislators, NGOs,
academics, and individual users who inform us of content that
they believe we should remove, or on the other hand, content
that we have removed that they believe should remain available.
This happens across the political spectrum and around the
world, and it has for years.
It is not new to us. With respect to the governments in
countries where we operate, we have a responsibility to engage
on this issue, just as I am doing here today. While we are a
company dedicated to the goal of making the world's information
universally accessible, that doesn't mean that we don't have
certain rules.
Terrorist content, child sexual abuse material, hate
speech, and other harmful content have no place on our
platforms. To be crystal clear, we develop and enforce our
policies independently. That is a right we enjoy in this
country as a matter of law, and one we maintain with purpose
and determination.
We recognize our responsibility, and we have policies
against content that we conclude is illegal, offensive, or
dangerous. We independently and voluntarily evaluate whether
content violates our terms of policy--our terms of services and
policies, reach our own conclusions and take enforcement action
in accordance with our own determinations.
And sometimes that means we tell the Government no. During
the pandemic, officials in the Biden Administration pressed
Google to remove certain COVID-19 content on YouTube. Despite
this outreach, we continued to develop and enforce our policies
independently, rejecting suggestions that did not align with
those policies.
And today, we exercise this same independence over our
policies and products under the current Administration and with
governments around the world. Outside of the United States, we
have fought that fight at breathtaking cost.
Multiple governments have shut down access to our services
when we would not remove content that complied with our
policies. As one example, when Russian authorities ordered
YouTube to remove political videos critical of the regime, we
refused. The government threatened our employees with jail and
fined us.
Today, those fines exceed more than the world's GDP, yet we
continue to resist. We also recognize that transparency
regarding Government actions--interactions with companies is
essential to foster public trust and uphold the principles of
freedom of expression. Google publishes data in our biannual
transparency report on Government content removal requests.
We welcome the Committee's consideration of legislation
that would create more transparency in how the U.S. Government
engages with industry, and Chairman Cruz, we support in
principle some of the legislative recommendations from your
staff in your report. As we make our independent choices about
how we moderate content, we recognize that speech is more
important than ever.
We have to get this right. Think of the sheer scale. Google
responds to billions of search queries every day and over 500
hours of content are uploaded on YouTube every single minute,
reflecting the vast proliferation of viewpoints and a range of
perspectives. This scale translates to thriving economic growth
in the United States.
As website publishers and YouTube creators find success,
they build businesses, hire employees, and contribute to their
communities while creating content for billions of people
around the world. The opportunity to help drive a thriving
digital ecosystem is only just beginning.
The scientific innovations made possible by artificial
intelligence are creating a generational technology shift.
Google's AI advances in predicting protein structures, for
example, have saved at least 400 million years of research and
are helping 3 million scientists in 190 countries make progress
in addressing things like cancer and malaria. Google uses AI to
forecast floods, detect wildfires, and provide tools to improve
farming efficiency and boost crop yields.
These discoveries, this scientific progress is made
possible by America's tradition of protecting the free and
robust expression of ideas. We remain committed to doing our
part to keep the digital ecosystem safe, reliable, and open to
free expression. We rely on the trust of our users, and we
intend to keep on earning it. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Erickson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Markham Erickson, Vice President of Government
Affairs and Public Policy, Google
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. My name is
Markham Erickson, and I serve as Vice President of Government Affairs
and Public Policy at Google.
Google's mission--from its inception to today--has been to organize
the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
Founded in America, Google proudly advances this mission around the
globe. And while our platforms continue to experience tremendous
success worldwide, it is hard to imagine that our story could have
begun anywhere else but here in the United States, where the commitment
to freedom of expression is so profound.
Independent Policy Development and Enforcement
We take seriously the importance of protecting free expression and
access to a range of viewpoints, while also maintaining and enforcing
responsible policy frameworks. Terrorist content, child sexual abuse
material, hate speech, and other harmful content have no place on our
platforms. When it comes to the manner in which we moderate the content
on our platforms, we are crystal clear: we develop and enforce our
policies independently. We independently and voluntarily evaluate
whether content violates our terms and policies, reach our own
conclusions, and take enforcement action in accordance with these
determinations.
Around the world, we hear from government agencies, legislators,
non-governmental organizations, academics, and individual users who
inform us of content that they believe we should remove, or, on the
other hand, content that we have removed that they believe should
remain available. This happens across the political spectrum and around
the world, and it has for years. We have a responsibility to engage on
these issues in the countries where we operate.
Sometimes, the results of our independent evaluations mean that we
tell a government ``no'' and we decline to remove content as they
request. For example, during the pandemic, officials in the Biden
Administration pressed YouTube to remove certain COVID-19 content.
Despite this outreach, we continued to develop and enforce our policies
independently, rejecting suggestions that did not align with our
policies. Today, we exercise this same independence over our policies
and products under the current Administration and with governments
around the world.
Google's Interactions with Governments Around the World
Outside of the United States, we also have pushed back against
requests to moderate content, even at great cost. Multiple governments
have attempted to shut down user access to our services when we would
not remove content that complied with our policies.
As one example, when Russian authorities ordered YouTube to remove
political videos critical of the regime, we refused. The government
threatened our employees and fined us. Kremlin-aligned media outlets
sued us in Russia, demanding we provide a platform for them. After we
refused, the Russian government imposed fines against us that forced us
to leave the market. Today those fines exceed more than the world's
GDP. We continued to fight back, bringing suit in the European Court of
Human Rights and securing a ruling that Russia had violated freedom of
expression. We have since filed successful court cases in the United
Kingdom and the United States to stop the media outlets from enforcing
these unjust fines against us outside Russia.
While Google has a proud track record of pushing back against or
objecting to overly broad or otherwise inappropriate government demands
for content removals, we recognize that communication with law
enforcement and the government is a critical component of our efforts
to keep people safe on our platforms and services. Google works with
government officials, law enforcement entities, and legislators across
the political spectrum in numerous ways to assess threats and to
counter attempts to deceive, harm, or take advantage of users.
We have processes in place to swiftly refer threats of imminent
harm--including those involving terrorism, mass shootings, violent
events, or other urgent incidents--and specified illegal activity
occurring on our platform to law enforcement. We also have procedures
for our various internal product teams, as well as external sources, to
escalate potential threats and criminal activity they see on our
platforms, including child sexual exploitation. Google personnel assess
escalated threats and refer matters to law enforcement whenever
appropriate, consistent with due process and privacy protections.
In addition to these urgent referrals, we maintain regular
communication channels with law enforcement, government entities, and
industry partners as part of our efforts to keep people safe and
understand and adapt to trends and new forms of abuse. We rely on
information learned through such channels to ensure the integrity of
our products. When appropriate, we share threat intelligence, provide
criminal referrals, and hold follow-up briefings. More information on
our threat intelligence work can be found here [https://
cloud.google.com/security/products/threat-intelligence?hl=en] and here
[https://blog.google/threat-analysis-group/].
Courts and government agencies around the world regularly ask
Google to remove information from Google products for alleged violation
of law. We review these legal demands closely to determine if content
should be removed because it violates our terms of service and content
policies, or should be restricted within a specific country because it
violates a local law. In order for us to evaluate a legal demand from a
government entity, it must provide a clear explanation of how the
content violates controlling laws or regulations or our policies.
We do not always remove content in response to a government's legal
demand. Some legal demands may not be specific enough for us to know
what the government wanted us to remove (for example, no URL is listed
in the request) or lack sufficient explanation of why the government
believes content violates a given law.
We also know that transparency regarding government interactions
with companies is essential to foster public trust and uphold the
principles of free expression. Google publishes data in our biannual
Transparency Report on government content removal requests--part of our
efforts to inform discussions about and shed light on these requests.
We welcome the Committee's consideration of legislation that would
create more trust and transparency in how the U.S. government engages
with industry, and we support in principle some of the legislative
recommendations outlined in the Committee's recent report.
Opportunity and Innovation
As we make our independent choices about how we moderate content,
we recognize that speech is more important than ever. Google responds
to billions of search queries every day, and over 500 hours of content
is uploaded on YouTube every single minute, reflecting a vast
proliferation of viewpoints and a range of perspectives. This scale
translates to thriving economic growth in the United States. As website
publishers and YouTube creators find success, they build businesses,
hire employees, and contribute to their communities across the country
while creating content for billions of people.
We recognize that our products have an important role to play in
facilitating and contributing to a healthy digital ecosystem and making
information available to our billions of users. We find ourselves in an
incredibly critical moment in the history of the Internet. The
scientific innovations made possible by artificial intelligence are
creating a generational technological shift. For instance, Google's AI
advances in predicting protein structures have saved at least 400
million years of research and are helping three million scientists in
190 countries make progress in addressing diseases like malaria and
cancer. Google is also using AI to forecast floods, detect wildfires,
and provide tools to improve farming efficiency and boost crop yields.
Our AI projects are driving positive change in areas including health,
accessibility, science, and economic impact.
Selected examples of these AI applications to address society's
biggest challenges include:
Fighting Cancer. Artificial Intelligence holds the promise
of revolutionizing humanity's fight against cancer and other
diseases. At Google, we are particularly proud of our recent
advancements, including:
Childhood leukemias and many other cancers have
incredibly complex genetic signatures, requiring tailored
treatments based on their specific mutations. DeepSomatic
is an AI-powered tool that helps scientists and doctors
spot genetic variants in cancer cells. Our partners at
Children's Mercy in Kansas City used DeepSomatic to
identify 10 new genetic variants in samples of childhood
leukemia that had been missed by previous techniques. If
they can pinpoint how and why a particular form of cancer
is affecting a patient, they may be able to develop
personalized cures. Remarkably, DeepSomatic can also
generalize to cancers it hasn't seen before. For example,
without any training on the brain cancer glioblastoma,
DeepSomatic was able to pinpoint which genetic variants
cause it. This suggests it could work even on rare or new
types of cancer--a big milestone that marks 10 years of
genomics research at Google. We are also working with
clinicians, patients, and partners to build an AI system
for mammography, which could help radiologists detect
breast cancer more accurately, quickly, and consistently.
A major challenge in cancer immunotherapy is that many
tumors are ``cold''--invisible to the body's immune system.
A key strategy to make them ``hot'' is to force them to
display immune-triggering signals through a process called
antigen presentation.'' Recently, in a collaboration with
Yale University, Google DeepMind developed an AI model that
was able to generate a new hypothesis about interventions
that could boost antigen presentation--and laboratory
testing revealed that the hypothesis was sound, ``resulting
in a roughly 50 percent increase in antigen presentation,
which would make the tumor more visible to the immune
system. With further preclinical and clinical validation,
such hypotheses may be able to ultimately accelerate the
path to new therapies.
Predicting Proteins Structures with AlphaFold. For decades,
scientists tried to find a method to reliably determine a
protein's structure from its sequence of amino acids alone.
These methods included nuclear magnetic resonance and X-ray
crystallography, which relied on extensive trial and error,
years of painstaking work, and multi-million-dollar specialized
equipment. This grand scientific challenge is known as the
protein-folding problem. In 2016, researchers at Google
DeepMind began work on this problem. We built an AI system by
teaching it through visual sequences and structures of around
100,000 known proteins. Now, this system can predict the shape
of all 200 million known proteins, almost instantly, down to
atomic accuracy. We call this system AlphaFold. Today,
AlphaFold has revealed millions of intricate 3D protein
structures, and is helping scientists understand how life's
molecules interact. For this breakthrough, Co-founder and CEO
of Google DeepMind and Isomorphic Labs Sir Demis Hassabis, and
Google DeepMind Director Dr. John Jumper were co-awarded the
2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Facilitating Human Communication. Google is committed to
facilitating communication. For example, Google's Project
Relate is an Android app that helps individuals with non-
standard speech communicate more easily. By offering features
like speech-to-text transcription and clear voice repetition,
it enables users to express themselves and manage daily tasks
effectively. Google also is committed to developing language
inclusion technology. There are over 7,000 languages spoken
around the world. To date, few of these languages have been
well represented online. To capture the diversity of how we
communicate globally, Google has built an AI model to help
people connect and better understand the world around them.
Advancing Earth Sciences. Google is using AI to advance
earth sciences in a variety of ways such as:
Flood Forecasting. Floods are the most common type of
natural disaster and nearly 1.5 billion people, or some 19
percent of the world population, are directly exposed to
substantial risks from severe flood events worldwide. Our
AI-powered flood forecasting platform can predict when and
where riverine flooding will occur up to seven days in
advance. This allowed us to provide flood forecasting in 80
countries in areas where 460 million people live. Where
possible, we also provide forecasts in Google Search and
Google Maps and via Android notifications.
Agriculture and Farming. Using Google Research's NeuralGCM
and other advanced AI models, the University of Chicago's
Human-Centered Weather Forecasts Initiative built a high-
quality forecast that is more efficient, more flexible, and
more accurate than traditional forecasts. In 2025, the program
successfully delivered tailored, advanced forecasts to 38
million farmers in India--accurately predicting an unusually
delayed monsoon season and allowing the farmers to proactively
adjust their planting decisions accordingly.
Wildfire tracking. Our alerts, simulation models, and
wildfire risk forecasting systems are helping provide accurate
wildfire information to affected communities and fire
authorities. In an exciting recent development, the first
satellite for the FireSat constellation officially made contact
with Earth. This satellite is the first of more than 50 in a
first-of-its-kind constellation designed to use AI to detect
and track wildfires as small as a classroom (roughly 5x5
meters). Currently, many wildfire authorities depend on
satellite imagery that is low-resolution or only updated a few
times a day. FireSat will advance the science and practice of
fighting wildfires by providing high-resolution imagery updated
globally every 20 minutes, helping emergency responders catch
wildfires before they become destructive.
Calling in Our Corals--SurfPerch. Our AI model can expedite
the process of finding solutions to preserve and restore coral
reefs, developed in collaboration with Google researchers and
enriched by contributions from citizen scientists on the
Calling in Our Corals.
Green Light. Our AI tool measures driving trends at
intersections and develops recommendations that city traffic
engineers can use to optimize the timing of traffic light
changes to reduce stop-and-go traffic.
Earth AI. The hardest and most important questions in
planetary science and crisis response are never about just one
kind of geospatial information--they are about pulling it all
together. In response, we are developing Earth AI in order to
knit all of that information and predictive power together.
Questions that are currently impossible to answer because
they're too complex and draw on too many disparate geospatial
resources will become possible to tackle. And this, in turn,
will prompt new research--new collection of useful data about
Earth, new kinds of sensors and new uses of AI to model
sophisticated interconnected patterns across the planet.
Advancing Quantum Computing. At Google Quantum AI, we
believe quantum computers can help shape a brighter future
and solve otherwise impossible problems in the fields of
national security, drug discovery, industrial chemistry,
energy, and more. We are optimistic that within five years
we will see real-world applications that are possible only
on quantum computers. Google Quantum AI announced the
first-ever demonstration of verifiable quantum advantage, a
significant step towards real world applications for
quantum computing. We have run an algorithm, which we call
Quantum Echoes, on our quantum computer that would take
13,000 times longer on one of the world's fastest
supercomputers. This advance may help us better understand
molecular structures, with potential implications for
fields like drug discovery, medicine, and battery
development. The United States leads the development of
quantum computing, and Google has the most advanced, state-
of-the-art quantum computing effort anywhere in the world.
We proudly make our chips in the United States, at a
dedicated superconducting fabrication facility. All of our
quantum computing technology is located in our U.S. quantum
computing laboratories.
# # #
The future is before us. And it is a future made possible by unique
attributes of the United States of America and the freedoms we hold
dear. These discoveries, this scientific progress, and the resulting
economic growth in the United States is made possible by America's
tradition of protecting the free and robust expression of ideas. We
remain committed to doing our part to keep the digital ecosystem safe,
reliable, and open to free expression; we rely on the trust of our
users and we intend to keep earning it.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Potts, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF NEIL POTTS, VICE PRESIDENT,
PUBLIC POLICY, META PLATFORMS INC.
Mr. Potts. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Cruz, Ranking
Member Cantwell, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Neil Potts, and I am a
Vice President for Public Policy at Meta.
I have been with the company for nearly 10 years, and in my
current role, I am responsible for oversight of the development
and implementation of our community standards, which provide
the rules for what we allow and do not allow on the platform. I
am a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and the
University of Virginia School of Law.
Prior to joining Meta, I worked as a lawyer in private
practice and served as a ground intelligence officer in the
United States Marine Corps, where I was deployed in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
At Meta, our mission is to build the future of human
connection and the technology that makes it possible. Key to
this work is our foundational commitment to free expression.
Every day, millions of Americans use our services to stay in
touch with friends and family, generate creative content, and
learn about what is going on in the world.
We want to give them a voice and make sure they can engage
with their communities in a safe way. The diversity of
viewpoints, expression, and experience on our platforms
highlights much of what is good about Meta, but it also
presents challenges when deciding what content should and
should not be allowed.
These are complex issues. To create a place that is safe
for a variety of people, we have to make hard decisions about
what should be permitted. Some people think we take down too
much content, others think we down too little content. And
while we know everyone will not agree with every decision we
make, we remain committed to providing transparency about our
content moderation and our enforcement policies, and we have
worked hard to prioritize speech.
Our goal is always to get it right, but we recognize that
we are not perfect. When there are concerns about how we
approach enforcement, we appreciate hearing from people,
including you here in Congress, about how can we improve. In
that spirit, I appreciate the opportunity to share Meta's
perspective on communications with Government officials.
We regularly hear from governments around the world and
others with various concerns around public discourse and public
safety. And our job, no matter where content reports may come
from, is to ensure that we make independent decisions based on
our policies.
As our CEO has previously acknowledged, in 2021, senior
officials from the Biden Administration, including the White
House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor
certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and they
expressed a lot of frustration when our teams did not agree.
Ultimately, it was our decision to take down content and we
own those decisions, including COVID-19 related changes we made
to enforcement in wake of that pressure. To be clear, we
believe that Government pressure was wrong and wish we had been
more outspoken about it. We should not compromise our content
standards due to pressure from any Administration in either
direction, and we are ready to push back if something like this
happens again.
We also work to promote free expression, and to that end we
recently implemented a series of significant changes designed
to help bring us back to our roots and allow for more speech.
Among other things, we ended our third-party fact checking
program and moved to a community notes model.
We got rid of a number of restrictions on topics that are
subject to frequent political discourse and debate. We changed
how we enforce our policies to reduce mistakes, and we adopted
a more personalized approach to political content. These
changes, which are described in my written testimony, are an
attempt to return to our ideals about free expression.
That means being vigilant about the impact our policies and
systems have on people's ability to make their voice heard, and
having the humility to change our approach when we know we are
getting something wrong.
We believe these changes are having a positive impact and
look forward to continuing to give people a voice across our
platforms. Senator, Ranking Member, thank you again. I welcome
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Potts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Neil Potts, Vice President, Public Policy,
Meta Platforms Inc.
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Neil Potts,
and I am a Vice President for Public Policy at Meta. I have been with
the company for nearly 10 years, and, in my current role, I'm
responsible for oversight of the development and implementation of our
Community Standards, which provide the rules for what types of content
are and are not allowed on our platforms. I am a graduate of the United
States Naval Academy and the University of Virginia School of Law.
Prior to joining Meta, I worked as a lawyer in private practice and
served as a ground intelligence officer in the United States Marine
Corps and was deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
At Meta, our mission is to build the future of human connection and
the technology that makes it possible. Key to this work is our
foundational commitment to free expression. Every day, millions of
Americans use our services to stay in touch with friends and family,
generate creative content, learn about what's going on in the world,
and more. We want to give them a voice and make sure that they can
engage with their communities in a safe way.
The diversity of viewpoints, expression, and experiences on our
platforms highlights much of what is best about Meta. But it also
presents challenges when deciding what content should and should not be
allowed. These are complex issues. To create a place that is safe for a
variety of people, we have to make hard decisions about what should be
permitted. Some people think we take down too much content, while
others think we remove too little. While we know not everyone will
agree with every decision that we make, we remain committed to
providing transparency to our content moderation and enforcement
policies, and we have worked to prioritize speech. Our goal is to
always get it right, but we recognize that we are not perfect. And when
there are concerns about how we approach our enforcement, we appreciate
hearing from people, including you here in Congress, about how we can
improve.
In that spirit, I appreciate the opportunity to share Meta's
perspective on communications with government officials, which is the
focus of the Committee's invitation that I am prepared to address. We
regularly hear from governments around the world and others with
various concerns around public discourse and public safety. Our job, no
matter where content reports may come from, is to ensure that we make
independent decisions based on our policies.
As our CEO has acknowledged, in 2021, senior officials from the
Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured
our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including
humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams
when we didn't agree. Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to
take content down, and we own our decisions, including changes we made
to our COVID-19-related enforcement in the wake of this pressure. We
believe the government pressure was wrong and wish we had been more
outspoken about it. We should not compromise our content standards due
to pressure from any Administration in either direction, and we're
ready to push back if something like this happens again.
Our Approach to Content Moderation
We moderate content according to our published policies, including
our Community Standards. We enforce these policies in an effort to help
keep people on our platforms safe, reduce objectionable content, and
help people participate on our platforms responsibly. We strive to be
clear and transparent about what our standards are, and we seek to
apply them to everyone consistently. When we identify content that
violates our policies, we take action.
Over the years, this work led us to develop a set of increasingly
complex systems to manage content across our platforms. These efforts
were well-intentioned, but they went too far. They expanded over time
to the point where we were making too many mistakes, frustrating our
users, and too often getting in the way of the free expression we set
out to enable.
Recent Changes to Our Content Moderation Program
To address this, we recently implemented a series of significant
changes designed to bring us back to our roots and allow for more
speech. As we said at the time of their announcement:
Ending Our Third-Party Fact-Checking Program and Moving to a
Community Notes Model. When we launched our independent fact-
checking program in 2016, we were very clear that we didn't
want to be the arbiters of truth. We made what we thought was
the best and most reasonable choice at the time, which was to
hand that responsibility over to independent fact-checking
organizations. The intention of the program was to have these
independent experts give people more information about the
things they see online, particularly viral hoaxes, so they were
able to judge for themselves what they saw and read.
That's not the way things played out, especially in the United
States. Experts, like everyone else, have their own biases and
perspectives. This showed up in the choices some made about
what to fact check and how. Over time we ended up with too much
content being fact checked that people would understand to be
legitimate political speech and debate. Our system then
attached real consequences in the form of intrusive labels and
reduced distribution. A program intended to inform too often
became a tool to censor.
So we changed our approach and ended the third-party fact checking
program in the United States, moving to a Community Notes
program. We've seen this approach work on X--where they empower
their community to decide when posts are potentially misleading
and need more context, and people across a diverse range of
perspectives decide what sort of context is helpful for other
users to see. We think this is a better way of achieving our
original intention of providing people with information about
what they're seeing--and one that's less prone to bias.
Meta does not write Community Notes or decide which ones show up.
They are written and rated by contributing users. Community
Notes also require agreement between people with a range of
perspectives to help prevent biased ratings. We intend to be
transparent about how different viewpoints inform the Notes
displayed in our apps and are working on the right way to share
this information.
We have phased in Community Notes in the U.S. and continue to
improve them. We have stopped demoting fact-checked content,
and, instead of overlaying full screen interstitial warnings
people have to click through before they can even see a post,
we now use a much less obtrusive label indicating that there is
additional information for those who want to see it.
Allowing More Speech. We found that we were over-enforcing
our rules, limiting legitimate political debate, censoring too
much trivial content, and subjecting too many people to
frustrating enforcement actions. We want to undo the mission
creep that has made our rules too restrictive and too prone to
over-enforcement. We got rid of a number of restrictions on
topics like immigration and gender that are the subject of
frequent political discourse and debate.
We also changed how we enforce our policies to reduce the kind of
mistakes that account for the vast majority of the censorship
on our platforms. We historically used automated systems to
scan for all policy violations, but this resulted in too many
mistakes and too much content being censored that should not
have been. So, we have continued focusing these systems on
tackling illegal and high-severity violations, like terrorism,
child sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud, and scams. For less
severe policy violations, we now rely on someone reporting an
issue before we take any action.
We also found we were demoting too much content that our systems
predicted might violate our standards. We got rid of most of
these demotions and now require greater confidence that the
content violates for the rest. Additionally, we tuned our
systems to require a much higher degree of confidence before a
piece of content is taken down.
People are often given the chance to appeal our enforcement
decisions and ask us to take another look, but the process can
be frustratingly slow and doesn't always get to the right
outcome. We added extra staff to this work and, in more cases,
we are also now requiring multiple reviewers to reach a
determination in order to take something down. We are working
on ways to make recovering accounts more straightforward and
testing facial recognition technology, and we've started using
AI large language models to provide a second opinion on some
content before we take enforcement actions.
A Personalized Approach to Political Content. Since 2021, we
have made changes to reduce the amount of civic content people
see--posts about elections, politics, or social issues--based
on the feedback our users gave us that they wanted to see less
of this content. But this was a pretty blunt approach. We
started phasing this back into Facebook, Instagram, and Threads
with a more personalized approach so that people who want to
see more political content in their feeds can.
We are also continually testing how we deliver personalized
experiences and have conducted testing around civic content. As
a result, we started treating civic content from people and
Pages users follow on Facebook more like any other content in
their feed, and we started ranking and showing people that
content based on explicit signals (for example, liking a piece
of content) and implicit signals (like viewing posts) that help
us predict what is meaningful to people. We are also
recommending more political content based on these personalized
signals and are expanding the options people have to control
how much of this content they see.
These changes are an attempt to return to our ideals around free
expression. That means being vigilant about the impact our policies and
systems are having on people's ability to make their voices heard and
having the humility to change our approach when we know we're getting
things wrong.
We believe these changes are having a positive impact. As reflected
in our Community Standards Enforcement Report for the first quarter of
2025, we saw a roughly 50 percent reduction in enforcement mistakes on
our platforms in the United States from the last quarter of 2024 to the
first quarter of 2025. During that same time period, the low prevalence
of violating content largely remained unchanged for most problem areas.
This improvement follows the earlier commitment we made to change our
focus to proactively enforcing high-severity violations and enhancing
our accuracy through system audits and additional signals, as described
above.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Creeley, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF WILL CREELEY, LEGAL DIRECTOR, FOUNDATION FOR
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION
Mr. Creeley. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
honorable members of the Committee, good morning and thank you
for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Will Creely, and I am the Legal Director of
FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a
nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to defending the rights of all
Americans to free speech and free thought, the essential
qualities of liberty. I have spent nearly 20 years defending
the First Amendment rights of speakers from every point on the
ideological spectrum.
At FIRE we have one rule, if it is protected, we will
defend it. Typically, the censorship we fight is
straightforward, the Government punishes the speaker for saying
things the Government doesn't like. That is a classic First
Amendment violation, a fastball down the middle. Unfortunately,
that kind of textbook censorship isn't the only way Government
actors silence disfavored or dissenting speech.
Far too often, Government officials from both sides of the
partisan divide engage in jawboning. That is, they abuse the
actual or perceived power of their office to threaten, bully,
or coerce others into censoring speech. This indirect
censorship violates the First Amendment just as surely as
direct suppression.
This isn't new law. The First Amendment's prohibition
against coerced censorship dates back decades to the Supreme
Court's 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case,
the court confronted a Rhode Island State Commission that sent
threatening letters ``phrased virtually as orders'' to
booksellers distributing ``objectionable titles'' with follow-
up visits from police to ensure the message had been received.
The court held the commission's operation was ``in fact a
scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal
sanctions.'' They acted as an agency not to advise but to
suppress. And in this decade since, courts have consistently
heeded Bantam Books' call to ``look through forms to the
substance of censorship and to remain vigilant against both
formal and informal schemes to silence speech.''
But Government officials regularly abuse their power to
silence others, so the lesson of Bantam Books bears repeating.
And in deciding National Rifle Association v. Vullo last year,
the Supreme Court emphatically and unanimously reaffirmed it.
In Vullo, New York State officials punished the NRA for its
views on gun rights by threatening regulatory enforcement
against insurance companies that did business with the group
and offering leniency to those who stopped.
New York's backdoor censorship was successful and likely
unlawful. This regulatory carrot and stick approach was
designed to chill speech, and the court reiterated that ``a
Government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred
from doing directly.''
A Government official cannot coerce a private party to
punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf. To be sure,
the Government may speak for itself, and the public has an
interest in hearing from it, but it may not wield that power to
censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it, the Government is
``entitled to what it wants to say, but only within limits.''
Under no circumstances may our public servants ``employ
threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens.'' So,
the law is clear, Government actors cannot silence a speaker by
threatening, ``we can do this the way, or we can do this the
hard way,'' as the Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission did last month.
Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound against
private broadcasters, private universities, private social
media platforms, and more. The First Amendment does not abide
mob tactics. Despite the clarity of the law, fighting back
against jawboning is difficult.
Targeted speakers can't sue Federal officials for monetary
damages for First Amendment violations, removing a powerful
deterrent. And as a practical matter, informal censorship is
often invisible to those silenced.
That is particularly true in the context of social media
platforms, as demonstrated by another recent Supreme Court
case, Murthy v. Missouri. Murthy involved coercive demands by
Biden Administration officials to social media platforms about
posts related to COVID-19, vaccines, elections, and other
subjects, resulting in the suppression of speech the
Administration opposed.
But the court held the plaintiffs lack standing to sue
because the causal link between their deleted posts and the
Administration's pressure wasn't sufficiently clear. Murthy
illustrates a severe information disparity. Users whose speech
is suppressed have no way to know if the Government actors put
their thumb on the scale.
Only the Government and the platforms have that knowledge,
and usually neither wants to share it. That is why FIRE
authored model legislation that would require the Government to
disclose communications between Federal agencies and social
media companies regarding content published on its platform,
with limited exceptions. Transparency is not enough.
Federal officials must be meaningfully deterred from
jawboning and held accountable when they do. Jawboning betrays
our national commitment to freedom of expression. Congress
should take action to stop it. Thank you for your time. I
welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Creeley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Will Creeley, Legal Director, Foundation for
Individual Rights and Expression
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and honorable members of
the Committee,
Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Will Creeley, and I am the Legal Director of FIRE--the
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan
nonprofit dedicated to defending the rights of all Americans to free
speech and free thought, the essential qualities of liberty.
I've spent nearly twenty years defending the First Amendment rights
of speakers from every point on the ideological spectrum. At FIRE, we
have one rule: If speech is protected, we'll defend it.
Typically, the censorship we fight is straightforward: The
government punishes a speaker for saying things the government doesn't
like. That's a classic First Amendment violation, a fastball down the
middle. Unfortunately, that kind of textbook censorship isn't the only
way government actors silence disfavored or dissenting speech.
Far too often, government officials from both sides of the partisan
divide engage in ``jawboning''--that is, they abuse the actual or
perceived power of their office to threaten, bully, or coerce others
into censoring speech. This indirect censorship violates the First
Amendment just as surely as direct suppression.
This isn't new law. The First Amendment's prohibition against
coerced censorship dates back decades, to the Supreme Court's 1963
ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court confronted
a Rhode Island state commission that sent threatening letters,
``phrased virtually as orders,'' to booksellers distributing
``objectionable'' titles--with follow-up visits from police, to ensure
the message had been received.
The Court held the commission's ``operation was in fact a scheme of
state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions; they acted as an
agency not to advise but to suppress.'' And in the decades since,
courts have consistently heeded Bantam Books' call to ``look through
forms to the substance'' of censorship, and to remain vigilant against
both formal and informal schemes to silence speech.
But government officials regularly abuse their power to silence
others, so the lesson of Bantam Books bears repeating. And in deciding
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo last year, the Supreme
Court unanimously and emphatically reaffirmed it.
In Vullo, New York State officials punished the NRA for its views
on gun rights by threatening regulatory enforcement against insurance
companies that did business with the group and offering leniency to
those who stopped. New York's backdoor censorship was successful--and
unlawful.
This regulatory carrot-and-stick approach was designed to chill
speech, and the Court reiterated that ``a government official cannot do
indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government
official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored
speech on her behalf.''
To be sure, the government may speak for itself, and the public has
an interest in hearing from it. But it may not wield that power to
censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it: The government is ``entitled to
what it wants to say--but only within limits.'' Under no circumstances
may our public servants ``employ threats to squelch the free speech of
private citizens.''
So the law is clear: Government actors cannot silence a speaker by
threatening ``we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard
way,'' as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission did
last month. Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound: against
private broadcasters, private universities, private social media
platforms, and more. The First Amendment does not abide mob tactics.
Despite the clarity of the law, fighting back against jawboning is
difficult. Targeted speakers can't sue Federal officials for monetary
damages for First Amendment violations, removing a powerful deterrent.
And as a practical matter, informal censorship is often invisible to
those silenced.
That's particularly true in the context of social media platforms,
as demonstrated by another recent Supreme Court case, Murthy v.
Missouri.
Murthy involved coercive demands by Biden administration officials
to social media platforms about posts related to Covid-19, vaccines,
elections, and other subjects, resulting in the suppression of speech
the administration opposed. But the Court held the plaintiffs lacked
standing to sue, because the causal link between their deleted posts
and the administration's pressure wasn't sufficiently clear.
Murthy illustrates a severe information disparity: Users whose
speech is suppressed have no way to know if government actors put their
thumb on the scale. Only the government and the platforms have that
knowledge, and usually neither want to share it.
That's why FIRE authored model legislation that would require the
government to disclose communications between Federal agencies and
social media companies regarding content published on its platform,
with limited exceptions. But transparency is not enough. Federal
officials must be meaningfully deterred from jawboning, and held
accountable when they do.
Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression.
Congress should take action to stop it.
Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Feld, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HAROLD FELD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC
KNOWLEDGE
Mr. Feld. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, thank you
for inviting me to testify here today. At the heart of this
hearing lies one of the most important questions for democracy,
when does the normal functioning of a Federal agency cross the
line into impermissible coercion? When does the bully pulpit
become jawboning?
This clearly depends on context. It would be a shame if
something happened to your business sounds very different
coming from insurance broker than from a mobster. The Supreme
Court has provided us with some guidance. For Government
interaction to be considered an impermissible coercive act
rather than a permissible act of persuasion, several conditions
must exist.
First, it must be a Government contact, not interaction
between private citizens or advocacy groups. Research by
academics, calls by advocates to boycott companies or products
can never under the First Amendment qualify as jawbone. To the
contrary, such activities are political speech the First
Amendment protects from Government retaliation. Second, the
Government agency or official must have actual power to punish
or reward the speaker.
And finally, there must be sufficient evidence that the
Government agency or official has genuine intent to use that
power. It is the uncertainty around the last two criteria that
often make it difficult to tell when permissible persuasion and
use of the bully pulpit cross the line. Unfortunately, whatever
one thinks happened in the past, we live in a present that
leaves no doubt that jawboning is occurring regularly.
And whatever one's political party, Members of Congress
must join together to protect the fundamental freedom of speech
to which our democracy depends. To illustrate my point, I want
to contrast the first Trump Administration with today.
President Trump is a master of the bully pulpit.
During his first Administration, he would complain about
what he felt was one-sided news coverage or unfair mockery. He
called for NBC to lose its license. But then FCC Chair Ajit Pai
took no action on these threats. When asked, Pai would point to
John F. Kennedy calling his FCC Chair, Newt Minow, to demand
similar punishment of his critics.
Without saying so directly, Pai made it clear that
Presidents have the bully pulpit, but agency heads must stay
independent and follow the law. As we have seen, however, the
current FCC Chair Brendan Carr feels differently.
Rather than act as a firewall between the President to the
use of Government coercion, Carr has sacrificed the
independence of the agency and repeatedly used the very real
power of the FCC over licensees to meddle in content decisions
that past FCC chairs of both parties have considered off
limits. Most recently, he famously told Disney and its
affiliates that they should remove Jimmy Kimmel, whom the
President had repeatedly said through his social media account
should be fired, ``the easy way or the hard way''.
Nor is this the only example where traditionally
independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission have
acted to punish those critical of the President or his
policies. Indeed, it is not simply the acts of these agency
heads, but the combination of multiple actions across multiple
agencies that make the threat of Government retaliation very
real.
Fortunately, Chairman Cruz has shown us what needs to be
done to stop jawboning. Congress must act, as individuals and
collectively, without regard to party or partisanship to draw
clear lines in the sand. The first step is a willingness to
call out such behavior. Chairman Cruz's rebuke of Chairman Carr
for using language right out of Goodfellas is a model of
standing for principle when called for.
Additionally, members must work to restore the independence
of agencies and to set clear limits on the power of agencies to
meddle in matters protected by the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court appears poised to eliminate
the power of Congress to protect agency independence by
preventing the President from firing Commission members.
But Congress can pass legislation to promote transparency
and make it easier for those threatened to defend themselves in
court. Such legislation, however, must be carefully crafted to
avoid interfering with the legitimate contacts between
Government and companies, or creating a disincentive to
necessary oversight and enforcement.
Finally, Congress must address the concentration of
ownership in both legacy media and digital platforms. The
active effort by the Trump Administration to put Warner
Brothers, owner of CNN, in the hands of proven friends while
threatening to use the regulatory power of the United States to
block bidders it dislikes illustrates the importance of
diversified ownership to the marketplace of ideas.
The last few months have shown the importance of ownership
limits on legacy media. Limits Chairman Carr has indicated he
intends to relax or eliminate. Additionally, Congress should
consider legislation to introduce competition to the digital
platform phase.
Congress should consider cross-ownership limits that would
prevent things like the acquisition of TikTok, one of the most
important and influential digital platforms, by the largest
owners of legacy media.
This concentration makes it easy for this Administration or
any future Administration to monopolize the marketplace of
ideas to the detriment of us all. Thank you, and I am happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Feld follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harold Feld, Senior Vice President,
Public Knowledge
Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on such a critical topic. I have been an
advocate for First Amendment freedoms--especially the right of the
public to hear diverse views and production of local news critical to
an informed democracy--for over 25 years. One of the most challenging
areas of government policy is how to balance the important government
interest in creating spaces for robust debate, ensuring the flow of
necessary information, while simultaneously avoiding the twin dangers
of government censorship or forced carriage of government propaganda.
At the beginning of the 21st Century, these concerns focused on the
traditional gatekeepers of broadcast licensees, and preserving an open
internet. More recently, the rise of social media and the concentration
of our national discussions on a very few giant platforms have raised
even more complicated questions. But the fundamental question remains
the same. How can the government maintain the news and civic discourse
necessary to sustain democracy without becoming the dictator of what
people may say or hear?
Unfortunately, since President Trump was sworn into his second
term, we have not had to worry about subtle intimidation or
``regulation by raised eyebrow.'' We have seen an unambiguous pattern
where the President has publicly boasted that he will take action
against those who oppose his agenda or criticize him personally, and
where the heads of theoretically independent agencies have rushed to
make good on these threats. My personal expertise is with the Federal
Communications Commission, and on this I will focus my testimony. But
concerns about government censorship extend far beyond the FCC. I will
touch briefly on the actions of the Federal Trade Commission and other
Executive actions that reinforce the credibility of retaliation for
expressing opinions contrary to those favored by the Administration.
These actions contrast not only with the actions of the Biden
administration but with the actions of the first Trump Administration.
It is this pattern of public statements and regulator actions that
makes threats real, and gives them coercive power.
I cannot stress too much how consolidation--particularly in the
hands of those who have proven themselves loyal to the current
Administration--amplifies the ability to control content on an
unprecedented scale. Consider the recent statement in the New York Post
that the President favors a takeover by Larry and David Ellison (who
have been ``vetted'' by the changes they have made at CBS since it was
acquired by Skydance) that any other bidders for Warner Bros ``are
likely to face stiff hurdles from U.S. regulators.'' The Omnicom
merger, approved by the FTC, created a behemoth that overshadows the
entire advertising industry, making it harder for advertisers to
control the placement of their ads. Social media remains highly
concentrated, giving a handful of opaque algorithms control over the
vast majority of online discussions and access to news. And without net
neutrality, Internet providers may freely prioritize content that the
administration favors and degrade content of its political opponents.
It is therefore critical for Congress to reassert itself as the
protector of free speech and opponent of censorship, regardless of
party. Chairman Cruz deserves credit for admonishing FCC Chairman Carr
at a critical moment. If we want an open marketplace of ideas critical
for democracy and self-governance, all members of Congress must act
together to preserve free speech. We need laws that protect privacy so
that people may say what they want without fear. We need laws that
promote competition so that people have a choice in what they see,
hear, and say. And we need to restore the principle of non-
discrimination for broadband, a principle that has enjoyed bipartisan
support even where parties remain split on the appropriate legal
framework.
I. The ``Bully Pulpit'' v. Unconstitutional Coercion
President Theodore Roosevelt is credited with inventing the term
``bully pulpit,'' meaning a conspicuous position to advocate an agenda.
Certainly, since then, Presidents, members of Congress, and heads of
agencies of both parties have used the bully pulpit to reflect their
agendas and influence action. Indeed, it has long been regarded as an
important function of elected officials to reflect the concerns and
priorities of the people who elected them in speeches and in subsequent
policy actions. That is not coercion, even if these statements have an
influence on the actions of companies or individuals.
By contrast, the Supreme Court has consistently held--and scholars
of the First Amendment broadly agree--that the government may not cross
from pushing an agenda to compelling obedience and suppressing dissent.
The power of the Executive Branch to prosecute--or even investigate--
individuals, the power to deny economic benefits or, by contrast grant
favors, gives the government tremendous coercive power. Often, the only
way to tell the difference between the two is the impact. Do those who
defy the President face more than social consequences, such as boycotts
by the President's supporters? Are benefits or punishments explicitly
tied to obedience or defiance, and if so, does the President carry
through on these threats?
The Supreme Court recently illustrated the difference between
persuasion and coercion through two cases.\1\ Taking these cases
together, we find a clear set of criteria (albeit not always so simple
to apply). For government statements to cross the line from persuasion
to coercion, the individual speaking for the government must make a
credible threat clearly based on expressing a disfavored viewpoint, or
the refusal to express a viewpoint the government favors. The targeted
individual or company must then either change its behavior or suffer
consequences directly traceable to the behavior. The credibility of the
threat is both a function of the ability of the official to impose the
punishment (or dispense the reward) and the general understanding of
the likelihood of the threat. This includes whether the agency in
question is acting in a way contrary to its precedent on matters the
agency does not generally opine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024)
(holding that the New York State Department of Financial Services had
coerced financial institutions from providing services to the National
Rifle Association) compare with Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 370 (2024)
(holding that the government's communications with social media
platforms did not cause a direct and redressable injury to the
plaintiff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, in Vullo, when the New York state official with relevant
authority directly told a major insurer that it was much more likely to
investigate companies providing insurance to the NRA, and issued
official guidance reiterating this position, the Supreme Court found
that this was an impermissible act of coercion against the NRA by
depriving it of access to affordable insurance based on its views. By
contrast, the Court in Murthy found that, even assuming the contacts
between social media companies and the Executive branch took place,
they did not constitute coercion. The Court found there was no obvious
nexus between the Executive contacts and any reward or punishment for
the social media companies and no obvious change in behavior in
response to these contacts.\2\ Additionally, the Court recognized that
the Administration had good reason to coordinate with social media
companies with regard to news about the ongoing COVID pandemic and
other matters potentially bearing on public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 370 (2024) at 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The FCC Has Crossed the Line to Unconstitutional Coercion and
Censorship
With this in mind, we must view the ongoing activities of the FCC
under Chairman Brendan Carr with considerable alarm--especially when
contrasted with the actions of Chairman Ajit Pai, who served as
Chairman of the FCC in the first Trump Administration. During the First
Trump administration, President Trump would frequently denounce his
critics on television--particularly those on Saturday Night Live who
mocked him. President Trump would post that NBC should ``lose its
license'' for its unfair coverage. Chairman Pai, however, took no
action nor suggested any action to make good on these threats. To the
contrary, when asked about the President's threats, Pai would refer to
similar complaints by President Kennedy to then-FCC Chair Newt Minnow.
While not saying so directly, Chairman Pai clearly implied that the
President should be free to make his anger known (an example of the
bully pulpit), while the Chairman of the FCC should remain independent.
But things have been very different this time around. Throughout
his campaign, President Trump promised to punish his enemies when he
returned to office. He also promised to use the power of government to
punish those who stood in the way of his agenda. Brendan Carr, who as
Chair of the FCC could make these threats credible, began to take
actions that seemed very much in line with these threats. One of his
first acts as Chair was to reinstate complaints for ``news distortion''
against ABC, NBC, and CBS on the basis of what were alleged to be
unfairly favorable coverage of Vice President Kamala Harris during the
2024 campaign that Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel had previously
dismissed.
These actions were noteworthy for multiple reasons. For one thing,
none of the parties filed a Petition for Reconsideration or any other
request to reinstate the complaints.\3\ Furthermore, news distortion
complaints are extremely difficult to prove. The First Amendment
guarantees to broadcasters the right to edit their broadcasts.
Additionally, Section 326 of the Communications Act expressly prohibits
the FCC from engaging in censorship. This made reinstating the
complaints after an opinion in line with Commission precedent
extraordinarily peculiar. Finally, even taking the allegations on their
face, the matters were moot or quickly became moot. In the case of the
complaint against NBC for violating the ``equal time'' rule,\4\ NBC
reported that it had offered the Trump campaign comparable time and
that the Trump campaign had accepted the offer. In the accusation that
CBS had edited an interview with Vice President Harris to make her
appear more favorably, the complainants requested as relief that the
FCC release the unedited transcript, which the FCC subsequently did.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ By contrast, the Media Bureau simultaneously dismissed a
complaint against Fox29 in Philadelphia for violations of the
Commission's character policy based on the claims that the 2020
election was stolen by manipulating an electronic voting machine
provider--a claim which Fox News subsequently settled. Chairman Carr
declined to reinstate that complaint.
\4\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 312(a)(7) and Sec. 315(a) generally require
broadcasters to provide equal time, at similar rates, to qualified
Federal candidates.
\5\ Center for American Rights, In re Complaint Against WCBS-TV, at
5 (filed October. 16, 2024), https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kBqZo-
10xBLE0Y1dhvBpzZnvcRUvH0H4/view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carr has often echoed criticism made by President Trump that media
coverage is too critical of Trump and his agenda, favors Democrats and
liberal viewpoints, and that stations that do not alter their coverage
may be guilty of a ``pattern of news distortion'' and may be violating
their public interest obligations. Carr has announced various
investigations against outlets Trump has expressly criticized, such as
Comcast/NBC Universal and NPR and PBS. Carr has expressly targeted for
investigation a broadcast station that covered an ICE raid in a manner
unflattering to ICE. All of these fall within the pattern the court
identified in Vullo as efforts at unconstitutional coercion.
By contrast, Chairman Carr has used his power as Chair to weigh in
favorably for licensees who explicitly back the President and have
owners known to be President Trump's allies. Networks and affiliates
regularly negotiate the terms by which the networks will provide
affiliates with programming. Chair has written to Comcast/NBCU that it
is investigating its treatment of its affiliates to influence these
negotiations,\6\ and generally voiced concern over the treatment of
networks over their affiliates, when the largest group owners of
affiliates--Nexstar and Sinclair--are owned by allies of President
Trump and program accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Letter from Brendan Carr, Chairman, Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, to
Brian Roberts, CEO, Comcast Corp. (Feb. 11, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/
sites/default/files/Chairman-Carr-Letter%
20to-Comcast-02112025.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Merger Conditions and Targeting Talk Show Hosts
The most significant instances of censorship have come from
Skydance's acquisition of Paramount and the subsequent ``easy way or
the hard way'' demand to terminate Jimmy Kimmel. While citizen action
ultimately forced Disney to reverse its decision to suspend broadcast
of Jimmy Kimmel, the incident still raises very troubling concerns over
Chairman Carr's willingness to use the power of the FCC to reward and
punish to directly control content. Additionally, these incidents show
the impact of media consolidation on the power of censorship and why
Congress must take immediate steps to prevent further consolidation.
Paramount/Skydance. President Trump has been extremely critical of
CBS, particularly 60 Minutes, and what he perceives as the persistent
negative coverage of his Presidency. Trump has also been highly
critical of Late Night talk show host Stephen Colbert, who has been one
of the President's most vocal and persistent critics. Because the sale
of Paramount to Skydance required FCC approval, it created the
opportunity for Chairman Carr to effectively demand changes to
Paramount's programming and commitments to provide more favorable
coverage of President Trump and his agenda.
The Skydance acquisition did not present a traditional problem of
media consolidation. Although Skydance owned some entertainment
properties, it did not own any broadcast licenses or cable channels.
While the merger might have arguably raised some concerns over
concentration in media generally, it did not raise concerns that the
FCC has considered in previous transactions. The transaction should
therefore have gone through in fairly short order based on traditional
FCC analysis.
Instead, the transaction lingered for months. While Chairman Carr
did not (at least not publicly) make specific demands, Paramount
apparently understood that it would facilitate regulatory approval if
it took steps to address President Trump's complaints that CBS had
treated Trump badly and that it would avoid ``unbalanced'' and
``biased'' coverage going forward. First, CBS settled a pending lawsuit
filed by Trump relating to its editing of the ``60 Minutes'' interview
with Kamala Harris. Although CBS admitted no wrongdoing and maintained
that the settlement was simply to resolve the litigation, others argued
that the settlement was motivated so that the acquisition could move
forward.\7\ Stephen Colbert, host of The Late Show, denounced the
settlement as a ``big fat bribe.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See David Folkenflik, ``CBS is the Latest News Giant to Bend to
Trump's Power,'' All Things Considered (July 2, 2025), https://
www.npr.org/2025/07/02/nx-s1-5454790/cbs-settlement-trump-60-minutes-
harris-interview-analysis; Kinsey Crowley, Kathryn Palmer, and Mike
Snyder, ``Why is Trump Suing CBS? What to Know About the Complaint
Dating Back to Kamala Harris Interview,'' USA Today (May 20, 2025),
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/20/trump-cbs-
lawsuit-settlement-explained/837420-007/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost immediately after Colbert's statement, CBS canceled the Late
Show, effective at the end of the season in May 2026. While Trump and
Carr both publicly celebrated the cancellation, both also denied that
they had been responsible for CBS' decision.\8\ Finally, Skydance CEO
David Ellison filed in the merger docket a letter to Chairman Carr in
the FCC record committing to numerous changes to ``reflect the varied
ideological perspective of American viewers.'' \9\ When asked whether
these were necessary for the acquisition to get approval, Carr
demurred, stating that Paramount canceled Colbert for financial reasons
and that the FCC would continue to review the Paramount/Skydance deal
at its own pace.The fact that the acquisition cleared the FCC mere
hours later, however, undercut these assurances. And although Trump
denied direct involvement in Colbert's cancellation, he posted on Truth
Social that ``I absolutely love that Colbert got fired . . . I hear
Jimmy Kimmel is next.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Domenick Mastrangelo, ``Trump Says He Didn't Get Colbert
Cancelled,'' The Hill (July 29, 2025), https://thehill.com/homenews/
administration/5426557-trump-cbs-colbert-cancellation/.
\9\ Letter of Mathew A. Brill to Marlene H. Dortch, Skydance Media
and Paramount Global Application for Transfer of Control of Licenses,
MB Docket No. 24-275 (filed July 17, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/
document/1071757519667/1.
\10\ Truth Social Post of Donald Trump, https://truthsocial.com/
@realDonaldTrump/posts/114874422468516376.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carr soon seized the opportunity to fulfill President Trump's
``prediction.'' Following the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk,
Jimmy Kimmel used his television show to criticize those in the MAGA
movement, blaming liberals generally for Kirk's death.\11\ Chairman
Carr moved from ``regulation by raised eyebrow'' to full-on public
threat. ``This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney,''
Chairman Carr told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson. In language
which Chairman Cruz would rightly criticize as ``right out of
`Goodfellas,' Chairman Carr continued: ``We can do this the easy way or
the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel,
or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.'' Within
hours, Nexstar, Tegna, and Sinclair--the three largest broadcast group
owners controlling access to well over 25 percent of the country--
announced they would preempt Kimmel. Soon after that, ABC announced it
had suspended Kimmel ``indefinitely.'' Carr applauded this
``independent decision'' of the affiliates as an example of how local
affiliates serve their local communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ At the time, the assassin's motive (and potential political
affiliation) was unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public outrage was swift. Critics of Carr's statements noted that
Nextstar and Tegna had already announced plans to merge--a deal that
would not only require FCC approval, but actually exceeded FCC
ownership limits and therefore would require either waiver or
modification of the ownership rules (something Carr had previously
indicated he favored). Additionally, the fact that three CEOs could
dictate what the country would see brought home the way in which media
consolidation has made censorship easier. Customers of Disney+ and Hulu
(majority owned by Disney) began canceling their subscriptions in
protest. Even Disney actors joined in the call to boycott Disney in
protest.\12\ Ultimately, after Disney lost 3 million streaming
customers,\13\ the company brought back Kimmel. Although Nexstar, with
Carr's encouragement, preempted Kimmel's return broadcast, it and the
other two group owners ultimately relented, and Kimmel is now available
again on all ABC affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Jason Ma, ``Even Disney Stars Are Joining Calls to Boycott the
Media Giant After ABC Suspended Jimmy Kimmel's Show, Fortune (Sept. 20,
2025), https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/even-
disney-stars-joining-calls-224642755.html.
\13\ Lindsay Kornick, ``Disney+ Lost Nearly 3 Million Subscribers
After Jimmy Kimmel Suspension: Report,'' Fox Business (Oct. 21, 2025),
https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/disney-lost-nearly-three-million-
subscribers-after-jimmy-kimmel-susp ension-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. This is Not How the Public Interest Works
Carr has consistently invoked the public interest standard and
traditional media policies of promoting localism and diversity of views
as justification for his investigations and threats. But Carr's actions
contradict the FCC's traditional policies that carefully avoid
influencing content. Especially since the end of the Fairness Doctrine
in the 1980s, the FCC has relied on structural limits such as ownership
limits to provide for a diversity of owners to ensure diverse
viewpoints. Even when the FCC did have rules designed to ensure local
programming, they were either structural rules (such as the Financial
Syndication rules, the Prime Time Access Rules, or the Local Studio
Rule) \14\ or explicitly neutral, such as the Fairness Doctrine.\15\
Most of these rules were eliminated by the FCC or the courts during the
1980s and 1990s, leaving ownership limits as the one mechanism for
ensuring viewpoint diversity in broadcasting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Financial Syndication Rule encouraged independent
programming by prohibiting networks from owning the programming they
syndicated. The Prime Time Access Rule required that local stations air
at least one hour of non-network programming at the beginning of prime
time and at the end of prime time. The Local Studio rule required local
stations to maintain a local studio for the production of independent
programming.
\15\ The Fairness Doctrine was not a single rule, but multiple
rules requiring licensees to cover issuance of importance to their
local communities and to allow opportunities for those with opposing
opinions to respond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, it is idle to speak of localism when decisions about access
to broadcast programming are made for dozens of markets by a single
corporate CEO. It is no more localism for a programming decision to
come from a Federal building in Washington, D.C. than for the decision
to come from Sinclair's corporate headquarters an hour north in
Baltimore. Carr's insistence that his dictates are merely appeals to
traditional FCC concerns for localism and the broader public interest
cannot stand against a repeated pattern of attacking those that
President Trump publicly attacks, while rewarding those the President
favors. It cannot square with the traditional ways in which the FCC has
addressed the policies Carr cites as justification for his actions. It
turns localism on its head to allow further consolidation. By contrast,
it makes control of content easier when an ever smaller number of ever
larger companies controls what the public sees and hears.
II. Other Agencies Are Acting To Create an Engine of Censorship,
Feeding the Credibility of a General Threat to Free Speech
Chairman Carr is not unique as the head of an independent agency
now openly working to further the President's agenda on punishing
critics and rewarding those who demonstrate loyalty. To the contrary,
the President has enlisted every agency at his command to fulfill his
campaign promise of punishing his enemies. This, in turn, gives every
individual threat of retaliation greater credibility and provides
important context. Statements that in Trump's first administration
could be dismissed as use of the bully pulpit to express displeasure
must now be considered as made with coercive intent.
It is important to keep this in mind when considering whether the
same statements from the Biden Administration, or even the previous
Trump Administration, are coercive jawboning. The statement, ``Nice
place you got here, it would be a shame if something happened to it,''
sounds entirely different when said by an insurance salesman
A. The FTC Acts Beyond Its Statutory Authority
1. Media Matters lawsuit
Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group, is a
particular thorn in Elon Musk's side. So much so that Musk sued Media
Matters in November 2023, claiming the group had manufactured a report
on advertising placed next to extremist content on Musk's X,
effectively driving away advertisers from the platform. While this case
is ongoing, one of the first initiatives undertaken by FTC Chair Andrew
Ferguson was to open an investigation into Media Matters to determine
whether the watchdog group indeed organized an advertiser boycott of
social media platforms, like X. It is quite the coincidence the FTC
that, among its first priorities, target the very same group that
plagues Elon Musk, an avid supporter of Donald Trump who spent over
$290 million to support Trump's election.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Tim Reid and Jason Lange, Musk spent over a quarter of a
billion dollars to help elect Trump, Reuters (December 6, 2024),
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-spent-over-quarter-billion-
dollars-help-elect-trump-2024-12-06/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believing its First Amendment rights are under threat by the FTC,
Media Matters filed suit in Federal court on June 23, 2025, alleging
that the FTC is retaliating against the organization for its reporting
on Elon Musk and X. On August 15, 2025, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan granted
a preliminary injunction enjoining the FTC from enforcing its civil
investigative demand. The judge determined that Media Matters engaged
in quintessential First Amendment activity when it published the
research regarding Musk's platform and found that the organization was
likely to succeed on its First Amendment retaliation claim. Part of the
justification pulls from social media posts from chairman Ferguson's
own staffers expressing their disdain for Media Matters' watchdog
efforts, including FTC Senior Policy Advisor Jon Schweppe, who wrote,
``Media Matters = scum of the earth.''\17\ The timing of the
investigation, combined with clear animus toward Media Matters by
several of Ferguson's direct reports, was sufficient for the court to
determine that the civil investigative demand to Media Matters was
retaliatory, with the intention of stifling the watchdog's capacity to
track and report on falsehoods in conservative media.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Jon Schweppe @JohnSchweppe, (2023, November 30), [X], https://
x.com/JonSchweppe/status/1730279114748166522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sooknanan wrote in the August ruling, ``It should alarm all
Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or
organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate.
And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates
against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting.'' And on October
23, a U.S. appeals court declined to reinstate the FTC's probe into
Media Matters.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Wendy Davis, Court Preserves Block on FTC Probe of Media
Matters, Media Daily News, (October 23, 2025), https://
www.mediapost.com/publications/article/410132/court-preserves-block-on-
ftc-probe-of-media-matter.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Omnicom Merger
The FTC's consent order for the Omnicom-Interpublic merger
represents another instance of the agency acting beyond its statutory
authority to advance a political agenda rather than address genuine
competitive concerns. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson claimed the order was
necessary to prevent the merged advertising agency from ``boycotting''
digital platforms based on political content. However, this
fundamentally misunderstands how media buying actually works.
Advertisers themselves make placement decisions based on their own
brand safety standards, not their agencies. The industry's standard
contracts make this explicit, with advertisers maintaining written
control over what contexts are ``safe and protective'' of their brands.
Despite Chair Ferguson's rhetoric, the consent order itself
preserves advertisers' ability to choose ad placements, which
undermines the order's stated impact while potentially violating
Omnicom's rights of association and independent refusals to deal.\19\
The real burden falls on advertisers, who must now take on more
responsibility for researching and preparing exclusion lists. As one
trade publication put it, ``If you don't want your stuff to be shown
against Nazis, you're going to have to figure out how, and instruct
Omnicom accordingly.'' The order also requires Omnicom to report
exclusion lists to the FTC for 4 years, potentially exposing clients to
political attacks, even though political ideology isn't the basis for
these lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Lisa Macpherson and Elise Phillips, Update: The FTC's Consent
Order in the Omnicom Ad Agency Merger Misses the Point, Public
Knowledge, (June 27, 2025), https://publicknow
ledge.org/update-the-ftcs-consent-order-in-the-omnicom-ad-agency-
merger-misses-the-point/ (The FTC used the merger to effectuate
information-control goals on behalf of the Trump administration, rather
than addressing real monopolistic practices in online advertising that
created the opacity that requires advertisers to create brand safety
requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most troubling is what the consent order ignores. The FTC's own
complaint acknowledged serious competitive concerns about coordination
that could harm consumers by reducing competition, lowering product
quality, and slowing innovation. Industry experts warned the merger
could ``limit contestability or stifle innovation in the market'' and
impact pricing, ad placement, sponsorships, commission rates, media
discounts, and more. Yet the consent order addresses none of these
actual competitive harms. Instead, it focuses narrowly on speculative
claims about boycotting politically controversial publishers, relying
on reports from partisan political actors like Representative Jim
Jordan and complaints from Elon Musk rather than robust economic
analysis.
The narrow scope suggests the FTC prioritized the political impact
of decreased revenue to publishers hosting Trump administration-
friendly content over genuine concerns about diminished competition
affecting advertisers, consumers, or workers. This pattern aligns with
the FTC's recent use of antitrust concepts to further information
control goals on behalf of the Trump administration, rather than
addressing real monopolistic practices in online advertising that
created the opacity requiring brand safety measures in the first place.
B. Trump Administration's Pressure Campaign Against Universities and
Students to Force ``Viewpoint'' Changes is a Violation of the
First Amendment
In April this year, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in
grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard University after the
school rejected Federal demands to make governance and leadership
reforms and conduct an audit of viewpoint diversity of students and
employees.\20\ Because Harvard asserted its right to academic
independence and rejected Federal demands (while reiterating its
efforts to improve its support and protection of Jewish students), in
May 2025, the Trump administration cut another $450 million in Federal
grants to Harvard, on top of the $2.2 billion already slashed, citing
antisemitism concerns. In April, the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) and Harvard University filed a lawsuit seeking to
block the Trump administration from demanding that Harvard University
restrict speech and restructure its core operations or else face the
cancellation of all $8.7 billion in Federal funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Alvin Powell, Trump administration freezes $2.2 billion in
grants to Harvard, Harvard School of Public Health, (April 15, 2025),
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/trump-administration-freezes-2-2-billion-
in-grants-to-harvard/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 3rd, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs found that
the Trump administration's actions violated Harvard and Harvard
faculty's First Amendment Rights, finding that ``the government-
initiated onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a
governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about
anything else, including fighting antisemitism.'' \21\ The government
has the authority to decide which research projects it wants to fund;
however, it cannot withdraw or deny funding based on the funding
recipient's speech that is unrelated to the research. Moreover, if
funding is terminated due to alleged violations of Title VI, as the
Trump administration claimed, the government is legally required to
follow a specific investigatory process. This process includes holding
hearings and providing the opportunity to address the alleged
violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. U.S. Dep't of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 25-cv-11048-ADB, 2025 WL (D. Mass. Sept. 3, 2025),
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.283315/
gov.uscourts.mad.283315.141.0_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drawing broad conclusions without conducting a proper investigation
and withdrawing funding based solely on anecdotes or biases constitutes
a violation of the First Amendment. And in the end, the Trump
administration failed to explain how stripping billions in Federal
funding would protect and improve the experience of Jewish students,
especially considering many of those students rely on Federal funding
for their own academic pursuits.
The AAUP also filed a lawsuit to block the Trump administration
from carrying out arrests, detentions, and deportations of noncitizen
students and faculty members based on their speech content. This
lawsuit arose from the abrupt arrest and detention of students like
Rumesysa Ozturk, who was targeted for writing an opinion article for
the Tufts University newspaper that called for the university to divest
from Israel. The opinion piece did not call for violence and did not
glorify terrorists. It was written under the assumption that Ms. Ozturk
could enjoy the freedom of speech guaranteed to individuals in the
United States. However, for expressing her views, she was abducted from
the streets of a Boston suburb and detained without due process.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Sergio Martinez-Beltran, Federal court rules Rumeysa Ozturk
must be transferred to detention in Vermont, NPR, (May 7, 2025),
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/07/g-s1-64726/federal-court-rules-student-
rumeysa-ozturk-detention-vermont-challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The abduction and detention of students due to their pro-
Palestinian activism have created a climate of fear and suppression on
university campuses, effectively silencing legitimate political dissent
that falls beyond the Trump administration's orthodoxy. On September
30, a Federal court ruled that the Trump administration's crackdown on
students for their speech violates the First Amendment. The court found
that ``Secretaries Noem and Rubio are engaged in a mode of enforcement
leading to detaining, deporting, and revoking noncitizens' visas solely
on the basis of political speech, with the intent of chilling such
speech and that of others similarly situated. Such conduct is not only
unconstitutional, but also almost unknown in our constitutional
tradition.''
Despite these losses, the Trump administration has not let up in
forcing University leaders to eschew First Amendment-protected academic
freedom and come to heel to the President's ideological agenda. The
White House has approached universities to agree to a ``compact'' in
exchange for preferential treatment for research grants.\23\ Curiously,
this suggests the government would select grant recipients not on
merit--a criterion the White House has championed in its expansive
efforts to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives--but
rather by a university's willingness to comply with White House-aligned
ideological requirements. It is difficult to see how the compact is
aligned with academic freedom and freedom of expression--a perspective
shared by nearly all universities that received the compact.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Riana Mahtani, Universities join Penn in rejecting White House
compact as consequences for refusal remain unclear, The Daily
Pennsylvanian, (October 22, 2025), https://www.thedp.com/article/2025/
10/penn-white-house-compact-update-marc-rowan.
\24\ April Rubin, Colleges turn down Trump's ``compact'' agreement
offer, Axios, (October 22, 2025), https://www.axios.com/2025/10/22/
trump-universities-compact-agreement-rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Some Things Cannot Be Censorship
Some things can be questionable whether they constitute unfair
coercion, an exercise of the bully pulpit, or something in between. But
some things are never censorship. First, we have long recognized the
important responsibility of the government to protect people from
harassment, from fraud, and from other forms of false, misleading or
weaponized information. Section 223 (47 U.S.C. Sec. 223) of the
Communications Act has prohibited harassment by telephone since 1968.
In May of this year, Congress recognized the harm done by non-
consensual intimate visual depictions (commonly referred to as
``revenge porn'' or ``deep fake porn'') and required covered platforms
to develop notice-and-takedown procedures for those harmed. (47 U.S.C.
Sec. 223a) Laws criminalize election fraud, financial fraud, and other
kinds of harmful and deceptive statements. We do not consider this
censorship. In our increasingly complex world, good governance demands
that Executive agencies and Congress respond to the emergence of new
scams and threats.
Government officials, including election officials, have a
responsibility to protect their constituents and ensure accurate
information reaches the public, particularly regarding matters of
public health, national security, and election integrity. When election
officials identify objectively false information about polling
locations, voting procedures, or ballot deadlines that could interfere
with citizens' ability to vote, facilitating communication with
platforms that may be inadvertently hosting such content serves a
legitimate governmental function. This is information-sharing, not
coercion. This includes when government entities work with university
researchers to identify and assess how, for example, influence
operations conducted by foreign adversaries may prevent Americans from
participating in an election.
But the threats do not end there. We know that foreign governments
seek to influence and disrupt us with bot armies spreading divisive and
false information. Foreign terrorists use social media platforms to
radicalize and recruit vulnerable individuals. Cybersecurity experts
warn us that we must share information to identify these threats to
protect ourselves, and that social media platforms must constantly
engage in a cat-and-mouse game of content moderation to meet these
threats. This sort of information sharing also cannot constitute
censorship.
Government entities therefore can, even should, engage with
platforms to share threat intelligence, coordinate on cybersecurity
concerns, address foreign interference, and communicate about public
health emergencies. These are standard government-industry coordination
activities similar to information-sharing on terrorism and other
threats. The key question is not whether the government communicates
with platforms, but whether that communication crosses the line into
coercion through threats of regulatory action, license revocation, or
other forms of retaliation.
Platforms themselves have independent business and reputational
reasons to address harmful content, including maintaining user trust
and safety, protecting advertiser relationships, avoiding being vectors
for foreign interference, and responding to international regulatory
pressure. When platforms act on their own policies based on their own
interests, this is not government censorship--it is private editorial
decision-making protected by the First Amendment.
A. Academic Research and Fact Checking is not Censorship
Academic institutions and researchers engaging in studies of online
falsehoods, propaganda, and content moderation are exercising their own
First Amendment rights, not participating in government censorship.
When university researchers identify and document patterns of harmful
content on social media platforms, this constitutes protected speech
and legitimate scholarly inquiry. It is important for government
agencies, as well as members of Congress, to consult this research to
understand the nature of emerging threats. To the extent others feel
that this research is biased or politically motivated, they have their
own First Amendment right to critique this work.
The Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), which included Stanford
Internet Observatory and the University of Washington Center for an
Informed Public, has been incorrectly characterized by Senator Cruz's
report on CISA as part of a government censorship apparatus. In
reality, EIP was formed in 2020 under the Trump administration to help
identify election-related misinformation that could interfere with
voting. Researcher Renee DiResta of Stanford Internet Observatory
explains in a guest essay to the New York Times, ``teams of student
analysts identified social media posts that were potentially misleading
the public about voting procedures or that tried to delegitimize the
outcome of an election. Sometimes, a nonprofit clearinghouse that
included state and local election officials shared with us posts that
concerned them. In some cases, if a post we examined appeared to be
going viral and appeared to violate a social media platform's election
policies, we let the companies know. Most of the time, the platforms
took no action; when they did act, it was primarily to label the post
as disputed or to attach a fact check.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Renee DiResta, What Happened to Stanford Spells Trouble for
the Election, New York Times, (June 25, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/
2024/06/25/opinion/stanford-disinfor
mation-election-jordan-twitter.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no mechanism by which university researchers could coerce
major technology companies as proxies for government officials.
Academic researchers possess no regulatory authority, cannot levy
fines, and cannot threaten business licenses or antitrust action.
Platforms are under no obligation to act on academic research findings.
The suggestion that platforms felt coerced by academic institutions
fundamentally misunderstands the power dynamics at play. In fact,
platforms welcomed assistance from researchers in identifying content
that violated their own policies during unprecedented challenges
related to election misinformation and public health crises, precisely
because content moderation at scale is extraordinarily difficult.
When researchers publish findings on disinformation campaigns,
document harassment patterns, or analyze content moderation practices,
they contribute to public knowledge and democratic discourse. Attempts
to characterize such research as censorship or government coercion not
only misrepresent the nature of academic inquiry but also threaten to
chill legitimate scholarship on critical issues affecting our
democracy. The recent pattern of expensive lawsuits against academic
institutions and civil society organizations focused on understanding
and mitigating disinformation has already caused many to lose funding
and talent, undermining our collective ability to understand and
address these challenges.
B. Calls for Legislation Are Not Censorship
It is the duty of elected officials to pass laws that serve the
public interest--and to change laws that do not function as intended.
Accordingly, it cannot be censorship to tell companies that if they
refuse to change their ways, Congress will take action. Indeed, as an
advocate, I often wish that Congress would step up and pass appropriate
legislation rather than rely on industry self-regulation. But threats
to introduce legislation fail as coercion for another reason. Neither
the President nor a member of Congress has the power to unilaterally
pass legislation. As every member of this Committee knows, passing
legislation requires persuading a majority of members to pass a law,
and for the President to sign it.
Calls for legislation in response to the actions of platforms, or
their failure to act, are part of this process or persuasion. They are
not censorship, but the robust debate on which our democracy depends.
To the extent platforms act to dissuade Congress from acting, they are
likewise engaged in the democratic process.
IV. Congress has a Duty To Demand Transparency And Oversight Of
Independent Agencies Regulating Speech Platforms
Platforms are more than happy to eschew blame for their moderation
mistakes by scapegoating the government. We can acknowledge that
platform policies developed during the first Trump administration and
in the Biden administration, in part in response to U.S. government
public health and election security priorities, resulted in some poor
content decisions. But in the end, such were content moderation
decisions, not acts of censorship. Importantly, we must distinguish
between mistakes in what constitutes misinformation or disinformation
as opposed to efforts to suppress entire viewpoints--especially when
the definitions employed are vague and therefore subject to abuse.
For example, in the Executive Order ``Countering Domestic Terrorism
and Organized Political Violence'', the White House has given explicit
permission to go after organizations and individuals' speech that, in
the Trump administration, represent ``anti-Americanism, anti-
Capitalism, and anti-Christianity.'' \26\ To be clear, criticizing
America, disliking capitalism, and disparaging Christianity may be
viewed by many as deplorable, but it is not illegal. In fact, it is
precisely protected by the First Amendment. More to the point, it is
not entirely clear what these terms mean. Is an argument that Google
has outsized marketpower ``anti-Capitalism''? Is a Protestant critique
of Catholic dogma ``anti-Christianity?'' This sort of vagueness has
been roundly condemned by the Supreme Court in multiple First Amendment
decisions as creating a chilling effect on free speech.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Presidential Memoranda, Countering Domestic Terrorism and
Organized Political Violence, White House, (September 25, 2025),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-
domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are important steps that Congress can take to prevent
coercive Jawboning. As an initial matter, the law has long recognized
the link between consolidation and censorship. As the Supreme Court
stated in Associated Press v. United States:
The First Amendment, far from providing an argument against
application of the Sherman Act, here provides powerful reasons
to the contrary. That Amendment rests on the assumption that
the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse
and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the
public, that a free press is a condition of a free society.
Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede
the free flow of ideas does not afford nongovernmental
combinations a refuge if they impose restraints upon that
constitutionally guaranteed freedom.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945).
Additionally, Congress should reassert its role as supervisor of
Federal agencies and act to maintain agency independence where
appropriate. While recognizing that the Supreme Court may soon reverse
Humphrey's Executor, Congress can still play an important role through
oversight. This also includes legislation designed to promote
transparency and discourage government coercion. At the same time,
however, members must appreciate the difficulty in drafting legislation
that does not prohibit necessary information sharing or impede
necessary regulatory oversight.
A. Congress Can Help Prevent Platform Monopolies that Enable
Government Coercion
The fundamental problem facing American discourse today is not
whether platforms moderate content, but rather that only a handful of
massive technology companies control how millions of Americans receive
information. Nearly 200 million Americans use Meta platforms, and 239
million use Google platforms. This extraordinary concentration of power
means that a small number of corporate executives can effectively
determine what content reaches the vast majority of the public. When
platforms make content moderation decisions, whether correct or
mistaken, users have few (if any) alternatives.
The frustration evident in the nearly 3,500 comments submitted to
the FTC docket ``Request for Public Comments Regarding Technology
Platform Censorship'' reflects not just disagreement with specific
moderation choices, but a deeper recognition that these platforms wield
unprecedented gatekeeping power over public discourse.\28\ Aggrieved
platform users express frustration over their posts and accounts being
moderated in ways they view as unfair. Some users describe being locked
out of their primary means of communication with family, friends, and
business contacts. Others recount having years of content deleted
without explanation or meaningful appeal. Small business owners detail
how sudden account suspensions threatened their livelihoods.
Independent journalists describe being deplatformed while trying to
report on matters of public concern. Yet these incidents of speech
suppression are not at the hands of government officials, but rather a
result of platforms' own content policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Request for Public Comments Regarding Technology Platform
Censorship, Docket FTC-2025-0023, Federal Trade Commission (February
19, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2025-0023-0001/
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online platforms have no obligation to host any and all speech. In
fact, it is their First Amendment-protected expressive right to
moderate lawful content however they like. The problem is not that
platforms moderate, but that users have nowhere else to go when
platforms get it wrong. This lack of competition, combined with the
government's regulatory power over these same platforms, creates the
perfect conditions for coercion.
1. Immediate Oversight of Independent Agencies
Congress must investigate how agencies like the FCC and FTC have
abandoned their statutory mandates to serve political agendas. The
White House has been so successful at pushing its agencies--even the
ostensibly independent agencies--to act on ideological agendas rather
than real policy because of Congress's lack of oversight. We have far
passed simple threats to free speech and are firmly in the realm of
suppression of free speech.
Congress must exercise robust oversight over Federal agencies,
ensuring laws are implemented as intended and that agency leaders act
within their authority. When the FCC reinstates dismissed news
distortion complaints without petitions for reconsideration, when it
conditions merger approvals on content commitments, when it threatens
broadcasters with ``the easy way or the hard way,'' these actions
demand immediate congressional scrutiny.
The FTC's investigation of Media Matters--a case where Federal
courts have already found likely First Amendment retaliation--
exemplifies the problem. When an agency targets a watchdog organization
that criticized a major presidential supporter, using investigative
powers Congress granted for consumer protection, the agency has strayed
far from its statutory mission. Congress must clarify that antitrust
and consumer protection authorities cannot be weaponized to punish
critics or reward allies.
2. Halt Media Consolidation and Strengthen Ownership Limits
Congress should impose stricter limits on media ownership and halt
further consolidation that concentrates control in fewer hands. The
ease with which a handful of CEOs could coordinate to suppress Kimmel
demonstrates how consolidation has created censorship chokepoints. The
pending Nexstar-Tegna merger deserves particular scrutiny. This deal
would not only concentrate broadcast ownership to unprecedented levels
but would also require FCC waivers of existing ownership limits. The
merger was announced shortly before the Kimmel incident, making it a
real-time test case of whether Congress will allow further
consolidation that amplifies government coercion.
3. Promote Competition in Digital Platforms
Congress should explore structural reforms that promote genuine
competition in the digital marketplace, encouraging the development of
alternative platforms and reducing barriers to entry. The current
regulatory framework creates high barriers for new entrants while
grandfathering in dominant platforms. Meaningful interoperability
requirements could allow users to maintain their social connections
while switching platforms, reducing lock-in effects that trap users
with platforms whose moderation policies they disagree with.
4. Support Transparency Legislation with Proper Safeguards
I understand Senator Cruz is poised to introduce legislation that
would facilitate transparency in interactions between social media
companies and the government. We support transparency and hope we can
support a bipartisan bill. However, such legislation must include
proper safeguards that distinguish legitimate government-platform
coordination from coercive pressure.
Transparency legislation should protect government entities from
liability when they share information about genuine threats to public
safety, election integrity, or national security. When election
officials identify false information about polling locations, when
public health officials track pandemic misinformation that could lead
to preventable deaths, when national security officials detect foreign
influence operations, these officials must be able to communicate with
platforms without fear that every interaction will be characterized as
censorship.
At the same time, transparency legislation should create
accountability mechanisms for politically-motivated pressure. Any
transparency regime should include provisions that allow users whose
speech was removed at the government's behest to learn about and
challenge such removals. The legislation should establish clear
procedures for distinguishing information-sharing from coercion,
perhaps requiring agencies to document the basis for communications and
prohibiting threats of regulatory action tied to content decisions.
CONCLUSION
Often the line between permissible persuasion and coercion can be
difficult to tell. Consider, for example, R Street's criticism of
YouTube's new ``Second Chance'' policy as the product of impermissible
Jawboning by Representative Jim Jordan.\29\ Under the new policy,\30\
Youtube will allow YouTubers whose channels YouTube terminated to apply
for a new channel. As the announcement makes clear, this is not
restoring a previously terminated channel. According to Google, this is
intended as a ``fresh start'' to reflect the fact that YouTube is an
extremely important platform, that standards have changed over the last
20 years, and that ``many terminated creators deserve a second
chance.'' Rep. Jordan has publicly claimed that his pressure on Youtube
prompted this change in their policy.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Spence Purnell, YouTube's Second Chance Program is Sadly the
Result of More Jawboning, R Street (October 24, 2025), https://
www.rstreet.org/commentary/youtubes-second-chance-program-is-sadly-the-
result-of-more-jawboning/.
\30\ Youtube, second chances on YouTube, (October 09, 2025),
https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/second-chances-on-youtube/.
\31\ Mike Masnick, Jim Jordan Celebrates Google Caving To His
Pressure In Letter That Says Caving To Government Pressure Is Wrong,
(September 25, 2025), https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/25/jim-jordan-
celebrates-google-caving-to-his-pressure-in-letter-that-sa ys-caving-
to-government-pressure-is-wrong/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this impermissible coercion as R Street claims? Is it a
legitimate use of the bully pulpit by a powerful member of Congress? Is
it an independent decision in which Jordan's pressure campaign played
little part?
What we can definitively say is that this is not in the same league
as a sitting President publicly announcing his intent to retaliate
against his critics, and the heads of independent agencies rushing to
publicly agree with him and carry out his threats. Rather than focus on
past incidents that, at best, fall into similar gray areas, Congress
must focus on the very coercion practiced regularly by this
Administration. Defending the First Amendment must rise above partisan
politics. Chairman Cruz put himself out publicly to defend Disney from
Chairman Carr's very real intimidation tactics. This Committee, and
Congress as a whole, should similarly act to protect free speech.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Feld. And thank you to each of
the witnesses for being here today. I want to start with Mr.
Potts and Mr. Erickson. Do you agree that the Biden
Administration pressured or threatened your companies to censor
lawful content that the Administration opposed? And were these
actions to pressure you to censure content inappropriate and
wrong? Mr. Potts.
Mr. Potts. Senator, as our CEO has said, we did feel
pressure from the Biden Administration to censor content
related to COVID-19. And we do agree that pressure from any
Administration would be wrong.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Erickson.
Mr. Erickson. Mr. Chairman, the Biden Administration did
press us to take action with regard to certain COVID-19
information that they thought was--should be taken down. But as
Chairman Jordan's report indicates, we made our decisions
independently and would often say ``no'' when we were pressed
by the Administration.
The Chairman. Mr. Potts, does Meta regret its actions and
for not speaking out at the time against the Biden
Administration?
Mr. Potts. Senator, we do regret our actions for not
speaking out more forcefully against the Biden Administration.
We made independent choices, but we did feel pressure during
those discussions.
The Chairman. Mr. Erickson, same question.
Mr. Erickson. Mr. Chairman, we get outreach from a lot of
actors, governments around the world, administrations, Member
of Congress, NGOs.
We feel a responsibility to consider when content is
flagged, but also a responsibility to evaluate that content by
our trust and safety teams independently relative to our
policies, which are publicly available and on the internet, and
make a decision about whether they are violative regardless of
the actor, the political affiliation who is flagging the
content for us.
The Chairman. Well, Mr. Erickson, let's take one example
here. So this is a post, a video showing election fraud claims
made by both Democrats and Republicans. So showing Hillary
Clinton making claims of election fraud.
Showing Donald Trump making claims of elections fraud. And
YouTube deleted it, blocked it, gave the creator a strike, a
step toward deleting his entire channel. Why would you remove a
journalistic record of the claims of election frauds from both
Democrats and Republicans?
Mr. Erickson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. We
have election policies, and we have had election policies for a
long time to ensure that the most important thing that citizens
can do, which is to vote, they can find relevant and useful
information on our platforms. Where to vote, for example. What
time the----
The Chairman. Yes, but that was none of this. They are not
saying vote on Wednesday at the supermarket. This is videos of
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump making claims of election
fraud. Now, would you agree that it is fricking news when one
of the two parties major Presidential candidates makes a claim
of election fraud? Would you agree that that is news?
Mr. Erickson. Excuse me. Yes, that is news.
The Chairman. OK. YouTube blocked it and said, nope, you
the citizens, we are not going to allow you to see it. And by
the way, then YouTube reversed that decision and unblocked it.
And you can see on the right. Instead you decided not to block
it, but simply to demonetize it. It is Google's testimony that
you regret nothing. Is that right?
Mr. Erickson. Mr. Chairman, during the 2020 election, after
the states had certified the election, we did adopt a policy
that for--on YouTube that took down content that claimed there
was widespread fraud, or errors, or glitches in the election
because the election at that point had been certified. And what
our trust and safety teams do is----
The Chairman. So hold on a second. You are taking the
position, if anyone argues there is fraud, if anyone lays out
claims, if anyone lays out evidence, the omnipotent Google in
the sky will say, no, you stupid citizens, you don't get to
hear this. Is that your position?
Mr. Erickson. Respectfully, no, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Feld
pointed out, that in the context of the 2020 election, after
the states had certified the election, we took the posture, our
trust and safety teams, that claims of widespread fraud should
be taken--there should be action taken against those. But when
the chance of real-world harm had dissipated, we removed that
policy to allow----
The Chairman. Mr. Erickson, do you know what company's
employees were the single largest donors to the Hillary Clinton
for President campaign?
Mr. Erickson. No, Senator.
The Chairman. That would be Alphabet, the parent company of
your company. And yet, you are taking down evidence of even
what Hillary Clinton, the candidate that your employees gave
more money to than any company in America. How does that make
any sense?
Mr. Erickson. Mr. Chairman, we have policies in place to
ensure that no one can manipulate----
The Chairman. So why did YouTube reverse its policies and
put up a bunch of accounts you have taken down?
Mr. Erickson. So Senator, after the opportunity for real
world harm had dissipated, our trust and safety teams believed
it was appropriate at that point to open the aperture and allow
for a more robust discussion about potential----
The Chairman. Mr. Erickson, you are sitting next to the
representative from Meta. If Facebook can say they regret
giving in to the Biden Administration's pressure, why is that
so difficult for Google to say?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, we are very proud that we made our
decisions independently.
The Chairman. So, no mistakes? No mistakes whatsoever?
Google never apologizes. No regrets. You have the power and to
hell with anyone that views it differently.
Mr. Erickson. Senator, no, I am not saying that.
The Chairman. But you are not going to apologize or express
regret for anything?
Mr. Erickson. We make mistakes.
The Chairman. Name one.
Mr. Erickson. We make those mistakes, Senator----
The Chairman. Name one. You are saying--was this a mistake,
yes or no?
Mr. Erickson. At the time, Senator, our trust and safety
teams, when looking at content on YouTube that claimed there
was widespread fraud, after the states had certified the
validity of the election, we believed it was appropriate to
take action against that content----
The Chairman. So it is Google's position that once an
election is certified that there could never have been fraud in
that election?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, again, those decisions are made----
The Chairman. Well, that is the question. You just said
once the election is certified, no one can say anything about
fraud? Is that your position?
Mr. Erickson. No, Senator.
The Chairman. You know, there is a whole body of election
fraud litigation and candidates in both parties challenge
elections all the time, raise claims of fraud, they are
litigated often after an election is certified.
Mr. Erickson. Senator, at that time, after the election had
been certified, in context, we felt it was appropriate to take
down allegations of widespread fraud because of potential real-
world harm at that moment. When that time had dissipated, we
did believe it was appropriate to deprecate that policy and
allow for that discussion.
The Chairman. Well let me say, I don't think it is real
world harm to respect free speech and to allow the American
people to hear what Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are
saying. And it goes without saying, I disagree with an awful
lot of what Hillary Clinton is saying, but I don't think a tech
monopoly should be deciding what the American citizens get to
hear and what they don't get to here, particularly given your
heavy ideological bias.
And I have got to say, I am astonished that you sit here
unwilling to express regret for anything at all. That is a
level of contempt for free speech that does not reflect well,
and it may be why Google abandoned its old motto of don't be
evil, because you are certainly not living up to that old
model. Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Feld, thank
you for that distinction between the bully pulpit versus
coercion. I think I even saw Mr. Creeley nodding his head in
agreement. So I think we have two organizations who are
characterizing the challenge in front of us.
And Mr. Feld, you were more specific about when you really
do have the power like the FCC Chairman does. And you don't, or
you do abuse that power, then that really is the coercion that
we have to worry about.
So I am concerned about where we are today in the state of
media and diversity of voices. And so, it does make me
concerned that we had more competition, not less competition.
That is one of the reasons why I want to see Mr. Carr in this
hearing room, because we have a big challenge facing us, and
the consolidation issues are challenging enough without using
coercion in the middle of them.
But back to this larger question and something I would ask
my panelists too is, what can we do in the tide of AI where AI
is now making this even more opaque, how information is being
gathered and used?
What can we do in the era of AI to make sure that we are
instilling more competition, growing more diverse media
sources, and certainly protecting--I would think that the
platforms that were here today would understand that their seed
corn is people who actually produce information.
How can you continue to have information if you don't have
information publishing sources? So, Mr. Feld, what do we need
to do to preserve that model?
Mr. Feld. Thank you, Senator. We agree that competition in
AI is a critically important question, particularly given that
the natural network effects and the access to information that
giant companies have as compared to startups in this situation
create an environment in which natural monopolies or natural
oligopolies would emerge.
In this situation, it is important, we believe, one, for
the Government to support open source which allows for
innovation by multiple parties and combines the abilities of
many. We believe that there may be necessary interventions such
as providing access to information that is used to train these
models if it develops that one monopoly in, say, search or on
social media is feeding and growing another monopoly in AI.
This is something that the Government needs to keep a very
careful eye on. We are particularly concerned with Judge
Mehta's decision that the emergence of AI relieves the need to
care about concentration and monopoly power in the search
market.
We think it is just the opposite. That the emergence of AI
which feeds on that information means that we must be extremely
rigorous in our antitrust remedies with regard to these
adjacent monopolies.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I think in Senator Blackburn and
I's providence model, you would know where the content was
created, and you could follow that and demand compensation. In
a search AI world, it becomes more opaque as to what
information was gathered, and so it becomes even more
important, I think, for us to get this right.
Mr. Potts, Mr. Erickson, we have had in the last--since
20--since 2005, 127 newspapers closed last year alone, but one-
third of newspapers. So don't you think that this is eating the
seed corn here? That how can you have a perfect stack of
information if you are going to have less information?
Mr. Erickson. Well, Senator, happy to take that question
first. Google is committed to a thriving news ecosystem. For 25
years, users come to our site, and we send them to publishers
all over the world, free of charge. And those publishers are
able to grow their user base, to have advertising to monetize
those interactions, or to have subscriptions.
Senator Cantwell. I am asking you if you think it is time
to do more. Mr. Potts, I know Meta actually does do well--took
some resources and--I find it interesting. There are very few
journalists that cover--you know, when I first got to the Hill
there were probably five people from the State of Washington
that covered what we did on the Hill.
Now literally there is one person and basically from
Spokane, Washington who is funded by a Facebook grant that was
compensation to the journalism community. But now, you know--
and he does a great job covering me, covering Senator Risch,
Crapo, Senator Murray, but that is it.
So, all that information that you would get, you know, if
you had people covering from Seattle and Vancouver, Washington,
Bellingham is lost. So at what point do you guys care about the
fact that the stack of information needs to be supported if you
want to have a perfect stack and have competition?
And if we want the U.S. stack to be the best stack in the
United--in the world, then you have to have true competition of
voices, as we have pointed out from the two witnesses on the
end.
Mr. Potts. Senator, this is I am sure a very important
topic. Unfortunately, it is not one that I work on directly,
especially around competition, so I don't have an informed
opinion, but we are committed to having a platform for everyone
to share their voice.
Senator Cantwell. OK. Well, I think they should send
someone here who can answer this question, but we will take it
for a direct question to your leadership and get an answer. But
this question of AI is here, and we have a couple of choices.
You know, we have put, you know, privacy legislation on the
table that also would basically--you know, I think in Meta's
whistleblower case that was before our committee before, Meta
was publishing hate information against the Rohingya population
by the government.
And even though many, many people tried to get that
information erased because it was directly saying to harm a
population, your previous model didn't correct for that. Your
newest model probably would better address that. But the point
is, we need to have a system that is responsive to the fact
that we need information.
So I see my time has expired, but I would hope that both of
you would get a formalized answer on what in the era of AI do
we need to do to make sure that journalism survives so that
your information that you feel is so precious actually gets
created? Because without local journalism, it is not going to
get created. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Fischer.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At our first
hearing in this series, we heard from conservative users who
were deplatformed by social media companies. One of the
witnesses specifically mentioned that at the time in 2020,
Twitter was pressured by the Biden Administration to deplatform
his account.
Much of this seemed related to policy threats about Section
230 reform. I would like to explore the nature of these types
of conversations. Mr. Potts, would you please describe specific
examples of pressures that your company experienced from the
executive branch, specifically about content moderation?
Mr. Potts. Yes, Senator, and thank you for the question. As
I mentioned before, our platforms are for everyone, and we want
to ensure that we have a diversity of viewpoints. And we
regularly hear from governments around the world about where we
draw our policy lines and how we enforce our policies.
And we definitely heard from the Biden Administration on
those issues. The pressure that we were really focused on in
some of our recent discussions was the pressure that was
received around COVID-19 and changes to our policies therein.
We received a lot of pressure from the Biden Administration
about humor, satire, certain claims around COVID-19. And to be
fair, we made our own decisions. We made our own decisions and
ultimately those were our choices, but the pressure did exist.
Senator Fischer. Besides COVID-19, give me examples of
other pressures that you felt?
Mr. Potts. Senator, I don't have specific pressures. We do
engage with governments----
Senator Fischer. What issues were specifically brought to
your attention?
Mr. Potts. The issues that I focused on primarily were--in
my engagement with the Biden Administration were around COVID-
19.
Senator Fischer. How often did they occur?
Mr. Potts. Senator, I was not the only individual that had
those conversations. I was a party to a few of those
conversations, but we had many as a company.
Senator Fischer. You have been with the company 10 years,
you said?
Mr. Potts. That is correct, Senator. I have been there 10
years.
Senator Fischer. Are there examples from other
Administrations trying to influence your content?
Mr. Potts. Senator, we often hear from governments and
government agencies about content that does violate our
standards or places that we agree in, and so that may be
something like terrorism, the illegal sale of illicit drugs
like fentanyl or potential multi-victim violence like school
shootings.
So those are places that would like to partner and work
with, but we also hear pressure of where content doesn't
violate our policies, and it is incumbent upon us to make our
own choices, as I described to Senator Cruz, and then push back
more forcefully, which we did not do in 2020.
Senator Fischer. Mr. Erickson, could you tell me about
Google's experience with this?
Mr. Erickson. Yes, Senator. Thank you for the question. It
is true that during that period of time, during COVID-19--well,
if I could take you back to that moment in time.
Senator Fischer. Not in too much detail. The Chairman will
gavel me out.
Mr. Erickson. Certainly. It was an intense moment and
unique in our Nation's history. It was very chaotic, and we did
feel a responsibility to meet with scientific and health
experts in the Government, beginning in President Trump's
Administration that continued in President Biden's
Administration----
Senator Fischer. So, are you telling me that most of it
dealt with COVID-19 content? What besides that have--other
issues have you felt any kind of pressure over from Google?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, I want to be clear, no matter how
the information comes to us, we feel a responsibility and are
proud of the way we handle those communications to make
independent decisions.
We have trust and safety teams that are shielded from
political pressure that make decisions based on our terms of
service and our guidelines, which are transparent and publicly
available.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Do you have an independent
audit or review process in place to evaluate whether moderation
disproportionately affects users based on their political
beliefs?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, there is no place for someone in our
company with a political agenda to influence our content
moderation policies. If we were aware of that, or made aware of
it, we would certainly take disciplinary action. And we have
studies which I can make available to you that----
Senator Fischer. That would be great. And could you make
those internal fairness audits public, or at least invite a
third party to be able to scrutinize some of that to hopefully
settle some of the concerns?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, there have been third party reports
and studies of the content on our platforms and happy to
provide those to you.
Senator Fischer. That would be great. I would appreciate
that. Thank you. Mr. Creeley, the user base of Meta and Google
spans the globe with billions of users, and their control over
valuing and devaluing speech is critical to examine, given
their ability to amplify that content.
What internal mechanisms do you think should be in place at
these companies so that they can guard against speech that
harms of jawboning, de-platforming, and what do you think we
here in Congress need to do?
Mr. Creeley. Well, I appreciate the question, Senator. I am
just a humble First Amendment attorney. I would----
Senator Fischer. Well, come on. Give me an answer.
Mr. Creeley. I will suggest that more transparency is
generally useful. Our model legislation would have reports--the
onus being on the Government--reports of all contacts from
Government officials to private social media platforms, which
have their own First Amendment right, about the moderation
policies they enact and how they fulfill those policies.
Given the global scope, I know that my colleagues at the
table likely feel a great deal of responsibility. I think you
have heard that. But my worry, as a First Amendment attorney,
is with the Government.
The answer in Bantam Books was not to regulate the
booksellers, but to tell the Government that it crossed the
First Amendment line by bullying a private entity. Those are
the rights I am seeking to protect.
Senator Fischer. I would agree with you on that. I worry
about any regulations that any government puts on to free
speech. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much, Senator Cruz.
Thank you to the witnesses. Senator Cruz and I have worked
together on a number of Internet related issues and platform
related issues, including our successful passage of the Take It
Down Act.
We do have disagreements about some of the decisions that I
think the companies rightfully made about false information
about the election when President Trump's former own Attorney
General, Bill Barr, said that these arguments that there were
widespread fraud, and the like were not true.
So, I don't want to re-litigate that right now. But what I
want to get at is the need to do something about the cesspool
that our kids are being exposed to and the need, while we value
these platforms, we all use them, to have some rules in place,
especially when it comes to AI.
I have just been shocked that we are all sitting by like
observers. For those of us who think AI has great potential to
cure diseases and the like, and that our Congress is just
sitting there and not doing anything about these videos that
are going out there.
Senator Cruz and I focused on the non-consensual porn,
whether it is AI created or actual, but when it comes to these
fake political videos, the fact that we are not even passing
something that says digitally altered for the ones that are
Constitutionally--would be protected if they are parity and the
like.
That is a bill Senator Murkowski and I have. The fact that
we won't pass Senator Hawley and my bill that would do
something about the stuff that is basically deceptively using
people's images. And the fact that we are sitting by while
people's images, whether they are famous or not, are being
used.
And I do appreciate Google and YouTube's support for the No
Fakes Act that Senator Blackburn, and Senator Coons, and
Senator Tillis, and I have. I think it is very important
legislation right now. So, we are not leading the Congress
right now, but man, I would be getting these bills through
because I think there is some widespread support, not just
about the election, but about everything that is going on.
Having been--had an own deep fake video made of me from a
hearing Marsha and I did making claims that I would never make,
but it looked so real that many people believed that I was
somehow part of the Sidney Sweeney ad campaign. So with that, I
guess I would turn to you, Mr. Potts, and ask why Meta doesn't
support this deepfakes bill?
Mr. Potts. Senator, thank you for the question. And it is a
very important topic. And to be clear, we do support labeling.
And we want people to know when posts that they are seeing have
been made with AI.
Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the legislation. I
think directionally, more transparency around AI generated
content is something we want. Doing that in a smart way, of
course, is something that also makes sense.
I know alongside my colleague here from Google, we support
the C2PA, which is the Coalition for Content Providence and
Authority, that does include markers for AI generated content
and that will allow companies to label that in a more clear,
and faster and direct way.
Senator Klobuchar. Well, Meta--[technical problems]--
researchers raised concerns that the teen account safeguards
you rolled out last year haven't protected teens. Nearly 60
percent of teens ages 13 to 15 reported encountering unsafe
content, unwanted messages on Instagram in the last 6 months.
What have you done differently to ensure that Meta AI teen
safeguards actually work? And last month, Senator Blackburn,
who I see is here, and I, as I noted, held this hearing, and we
heard from two whistleblowers who told us that Meta repeatedly
suppressed and altered VR youth safety research.
Will you commit to sharing with me additional information
on what research was conducted pre-launch to ensure that the
new parental controls are effective?
Mr. Potts. Senator, thank you. Thank you for the question.
You referenced a study that I am not familiar with, and I would
be, you know, curious of the methodology there. But I will say
that we are committed to building safe and responsible tools,
AI tools, as well as safe and responsible experiences for
teens.
So we want age-appropriate experiences across the board. I
think your follow-up question was, would we commit to sharing
research? I know that my teams have been in contact with you,
working on discussion, and we are happy to continue the
conversation.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Last, the Wall Street Journal
recently reported that Meta plans to use people's conversations
with Meta AI chat box to personalize ads served to them. I find
this concerning. How will Meta protect people's privacy while
selling information about their private conversations to
advertisers?
Mr. Potts. Senator, we will remain committed to investing
heavily in safety, heavily in privacy, making good policy and
having the necessary safeguards. I am not familiar with the
Wall Street Journal article that you are referencing, but I am
happy to have the team follow up.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. I also wanted to reiterate Senator
Cantwell's line of questioning about the need to have a free
press. Free press is about no censorship, and I am looking
forward to Chairman Carr's arrival at our committee here. But
free press is also about having free press exist.
And right now, I think everyone knows here that I have--
Senator Kennedy and I for a long time have led this bill on
trying to find some way out of this with--which has been
exacerbated by AI, so that journalists get paid for their
content.
There is lawsuits going on, I know all of this, but we are
not really going to have a free press if the economics are such
that their content can be taken and then no one is able to
report on anything and we don't have local news.
So, I hope you are all thinking about that as we hopefully
go forward with actual AI legislation, privacy legislation. We
are going to have to do something to account for that. And we
are clearly, before this next election, going to have to do
something about marking these not just ads but videos as
digitally altered.
I will note in my case Meta did mark it as digitally
altered and that TikTok actually took it down. And that--I
don't know what YouTube did. And that X actually did nothing.
And so, that to me just shows how we need some rules in place.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Blackburn.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Thank you. I will note that Google lost
a lawsuit yesterday dealing with the press. And so, we noted
that. Mr. Potts, I want to come to you since my colleague,
Senator Klobuchar, was talking about kids and safety online.
Mr. Potts. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Blackburn. You all have spent $20 million lobbying
against what we have tried to do to make the virtual space safe
for kids--$20 million bucks in the first 9 months of this year.
You have 87 lobbyists fighting against any regulation because
kids are the product for you all--87 lobbyist, 1 for every 6
Members of Congress.
I hope you are getting your money's worth because you are
killing kids, and we know it, and we know what you are doing.
And I am so sick of what you all are doing. You should be
ashamed of how you are putting kids at risk. And you should be
coming to the table to work with us, because we are trying to
protect people in the virtual space.
There are rules in the physical space, but not in the
virtual space. But money hungry, that is what you all are. Your
valuation is built on eyeballs. And you come in here and want
to soft talk this? It is infuriating. It is absolutely
infuriated.
Mr. Erickson, I want to come to you, please, sir. I
appreciate what you had to say about AI resources and about
being proud--Mr. Erikson, I am talking with you, sir--and
wanting to be a trustworthy company. But let's talk about
Gemma. And I want to bring up the issue of Robbie Starbuck who
lives near me in Tennessee. He is a conservative leader. I
don't know if you are familiar with Mr. Starbuck.
Mr. Erickson. I am familiar with who he is. Yes, Senator.
Senator Blackburn. OK. Thank you because I am going to put
some things up that Gemma did. Gemma and the way you are
training these LLM models is not something you should be proud
of, and it doesn't embody trust, because Gemma created an
entire falsehood around Mr. Starbuck saying he had been accused
of child rape--totally false, totally false.
So then we asked Gemma if Senator Blackburn had publicly
defended Robbie Starbuck. And it goes on to say that I publicly
and actively defended Robbie Starbuck. Now, here are the
prompts that are there, and here is the response. It made up
articles. And I will be able to hand you this poster so you can
see this in detail.
But this is insulting that you are so biased against
conservatives that you would create this entire, this entire
story around Robbie Starbucks with links to stories and this
entire story around me--totally false. All of it is false.
So, why don't you tell me how you are scraping data and
training these LLMs that they would come up with not a one
degree but a two degree complete falsehood?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, thank you for letting me clarify.
The way we train our LLMs is to train on publicly available
information----
Senator Blackburn. It is not publicly available, sir,
because it is fake news. Gemma made it up. So what are you
feeding in on the training that would allow such a--I mean,
this is just wild. It is fiction.
Mr. Erickson. So, Senator, it is well known that LLMs will
hallucinate. It is a known issue, and we do work----
Senator Blackburn. They need to shut it down. It is not a
bad drug--and the bad drug is your input.
Mr. Erickson. Senator, we do work at Google very hard to
mitigate those hallucinations.
Senator Blackburn. Obviously not hard enough. So how are
you going to clean this up?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, again, we are working to mitigate
those kind of hallucinations on LLMs. Gemma is our open source
AI model. I am not familiar with the examples. I will take your
word for it. Thank you for providing those. We will follow up
with you.
Senator Blackburn. Well, yes, you are going to be able to
take the word for it because we are going to deliver these
examples to you. Mr. Potts, I want to come back to you.
Mr. Potts. Yes, Senator.
Senator Blackburn. Listening to your testimony I find it so
curious that when your mistakes--you say mistakes happen, but
your mistakes always happen against conservatives. So what is
the rationale for that?
Mr. Potts. Senator, thank you for that question. If I may
just go back----
Senator Blackburn. You don't need to thank me for the
question. Just give me the answer.
Mr. Potts. Understood. If I may go back, I just wanted to,
you know, respectfully disagree with your thought that we are
attempting to hurt children or hurt kids, as you put it for----
Senator Blackburn. You made a playground for pedophiles----
Mr. Potts. Senator, we work tirelessly with law
enforcement----
Senator Blackburn.--for groomers--for predators------
Mr. Potts.--to remove that type of content from the
platform.
Senator Blackburn. Eighty-five percent of the kids that
meet a drug dealer, meet them online, Mr. Potts. You all need
to take this seriously and you are not because you are money
hungry. I yield back my time.
Mr. Potts. Senator, I respectfully disagree. We do work
hard on these issues.
The Chairman. Senator Lujan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Erickson,
simply yes or no, did YouTube pay $24.5 million to settle
President Trump's lawsuit against the company, the majority of
which goes toward Trump's ballroom?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, I believe you are referring to the
lawsuit that we recently settled. The settlement terms were
that we would provide--I believe that is the right number. It
is close.
Senator Lujan. Let me ask it again, yes or no--yes or no?
Did YouTube pay $24.5 million to settle President Trump's
lawsuit against the company, the majority of which goes toward
President Trump's ballroom?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, we settled our lawsuit with
President Trump, yes.
Senator Lujan. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Potts, yes
or no, did Meta pay $25 million to settle President Trump's
lawsuit against the company, the majority of which goes toward
President Trump's ballroom--library, sorry, library?
Mr. Potts. Sorry. Senator Lujan, I am only familiar with
what is available in news reporting.
Senator Lujan. Yes or no, did Meta pay President Trump $25
bucks to settle a----
Mr. Potts. Senator, I was not connected to any of those
decisions----
Senator Lujan. What is your title? Aren't you--aren't you
an executive at Meta?
Mr. Potts. Senator, that is correct. I focus on our
internal rules for what we allow and do not allow.
Senator Lujan. Look, Mr. Potts, I am sorry Mr. Kaplan
didn't have the courage to be here. I understand he got
invited, but he is not here. Sorry you are getting the
questions. Everybody in this room knows, everyone watching
knows that you all paid $25 million bucks, man. Like that is
yes, just yes.
But if you don't want to answer that, let me move on. Now,
did President Trump say that Mr. Zuckerberg might need to spend
his life in prison in his book that was released in 2024? Do
you know the answer to that, or I need to get you a copy of the
book?
Mr. Potts. Senator, I am aware of that statement, yes.
When--before the 2024 election----
Senator Lujan. So both of these lawsuits were originally
brought in 2021, sat in courts for 4 years before they were
settled, and President Trump's lawyers knew they didn't have a
case and that your companies would settle due to the potential
for regulatory retaliation. This has been written about a lot.
In fact, President Trump's attorney stated, ``if he had not
been reelected, we would have been in court for a thousand
years.'' It was his reelection that made the difference. So
while these payments are settlements or whatever, these feel
like shakedowns to me.
And I certainly hope that regardless of who the President
is, whatever is going on here, once we get past this in a few
years that we can all have a conversation and just say, hey,
this isn't OK.
So the question that I have, Mr. Potts, that I thought I
was going to get to ask Mr. Kaplan, you may remember you and I
met in April to discuss Meta's new content moderation. Mr.
Kaplan was in that room as well, correct?
Mr. Potts. Yes, sir.
Senator Lujan. Now, let's talk about the lead up to some of
these changes. First, President Trump threatened Meta CEO
Zuckerberg with life in prison. Shared that with the book. Mark
Zuckerberg openly admitted that some of those threats--that the
changes that ultimately Meta led to would be ``a harmful
content to appear on the platform.'' So Mr. Potts, yes or no,
is it Meta's policy to leave up Antisemitic content?
Mr. Potts. Senator, no. We have strong policies that remove
content when someone is targeted based off of their religion,
their ethnicity, their nationality.
Senator Lujan. Since the changes were announced, there have
been nearly fivefold increase in Antisemitic behavior on your
platforms. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Potts. Senator, I am not familiar with that study or
the methodology behind the study.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Potts, why does Meta leave up a
statement that says go back to your gas chamber when it relates
to Antisemitism?
Mr. Potts. Senator, that content should be removed.
Senator Lujan. I have another one, surprise, surprise. I
hope someone videos when the ovens go back on. Should that one
be taken down?
Mr. Potts. Senator, if I may, that content should be taken
down.
Senator Lujan. OK. Let me ask you another one. Bring back
the Austrian painter. Should that one be taken down?
Mr. Potts. Senator, often content in the context is hard to
identify----
Senator Lujan. Mr. Potts, I got one more.
Mr. Potts. That content should be taken down.
Senator Lujan. Thank you. Y'all deserve all the terrorism.
Should that be taken down?
Mr. Potts. Senator, I don't know the context.
Senator Lujan. OK. I appreciate your response and the other
ones that should be taken down. My question is this, can you
explain to me why the statements were not found to be non-
violative after--why they were not found to be non-violative
after. They were reported twice already to the company?
Mr. Potts. Senator, I know we have engaged with your office
on some of these issues and we have removed content when it has
come to our attention. We do make mistakes. I have been fairly
clear that we are not perfect in our execution, but we do have
strong policies----
Senator Lujan. Well, now you know. And now everyone at the
company that is watching this knows because to my colleagues, I
asked Mr. Kaplan this question when we were in my office and
were told, no, no, no, we take stuff down or we don't.
So I just hope that as we lean in and if it is private
conversations that everyone has, take this shit down plain and
simple. Just let's be on the up and up here.
And then look the last thing I want to say here is I want
to commend Senator Moreno. I want to commend Senator Cruz. I
want to commend Senator Cornyn. Because Google, you all decided
to put Spanish language media, Univision and Telemundo, behind
a paywall. I don't know if you realize that.
This is a bipartisan issue that we are raising here. Does
Google plan to change this?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, thank you for the question. It is
not true that we put Univision behind a paywall. Univision is
available for free on YouTube. They are a creator partner of
ours. They have millions of viewers. We also make the Univision
app available in our Play Store to download for free.
I believe the issue you are talking about is with YouTube
TV, which is our virtual MVPD. It is a virtual cable company.
And when those carriage negotiations are up for renewal, like
every cable company and network, there is an arm's length
discussion and negotiation over the terms for carriage. We were
not able to reach mutually acceptable terms.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Erickson, you have got a bipartisan crew
of folks over here standing together on this issue. I certainly
hope that as all the smarter lawyers and all the people that
are arm's length that are listening to this right now get a
chance to fix this, they fix this. We all want this done.
Please, please make sure you do that because I have
constituents that can't get information that are your
subscribers because they believe in you. They decided to cut
the cord and find another way to get information, but if there
is an emergency man, we have a problem.
So I certainly hope that we can work together and find a
resolution to this. I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Senator Moreno. Recognize Senator Schmitt.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC SCHMITT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to--this
topic obviously is important to me as the guy who filed the
Missouri v. Biden. I am sure you are all aware of that in your
witness prep.
And also who filed the--got the first antitrust win against
Google for their monopoly on search. I have a few questions. I
want to start with you, Mr. Erickson. Let's talk about search.
During the 2024 election, while Google search was an illegal
monopoly according to the court, it was repeatedly biased
against President Trump.
If you searched, where can I vote for Donald Trump, Google
showed nothing. Is that correct? You are aware of this, right?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, I am not aware of that.
Senator Schmitt. OK. Well, if you searched for Donald
Trump, you couldn't find it. Meanwhile, if you searched, where
can I vote for Kamala Harris? A precise polling place showed
up. That is interesting, isn't it? Would that be--if those
facts are true, would that indicate some political bias?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, I can assure you there is no
political manipulation of our search results.
Senator Schmitt. Interesting. OK. So after President Trump
was shot or attempted to be assassinated at Butler, if you
typed a search for President Trump assassination, nothing came
up. How is that possible?
Mr. Erickson. So, Senator, let me give you some----
Senator Schmitt. Very quickly because I have a bunch of
questions.
Mr. Erickson. Yes, Senator. So when people are entering a
search query into Google search box, we will often give them--
we will fill that out based on the machine learning of our
platform that has seen similar type of requests----
Senator Schmitt. So the question is, so no one typed
President Trump assassination, Butler?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, the reason that that didn't appear
for a short period of time was it would have been irresponsible
for us to--before that event----
Senator Schmitt. I thought you might say that. That is not
true for other assassination attempts, including Charlie Kirk.
So I also want to ask you, when you type in President Donald,
Google would prompt you to President Donald Duck or President
Donald Reagan, not President Trump, in the lead up to the 2024
election. Is that just a coincidence?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, we are very proud that Google search
is the most trusted platform for information.
Senator Schmitt. Well, you have a monopoly. That is why. It
is not because of what you are doing, because there is
political bias. Let's talk about that for a second. Is--was
George Washington black?
Mr. Erickson. No, Senator.
Senator Schmitt. OK. Why did on your AI--why did it pop
up--on Gemini, why did the image of the black George Washington
pop up?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, that was an early version of Gemini.
When that happened, that was a mistake. We took down the
product. We put teams in place to fix that mistake, and we set
up internal processes to ensure that it wouldn't happen again
and did not release that product until we were satisfied.
Senator Schmitt. OK. Well, according to a Hoover Institute
study, you haven't fixed the underlying issue of the woke AI.
You haven't. You may have fixed the fact that obviously George
Washington wasn't black, but you still have a woke backbone to
Gemini.
And the great black box out there, and I have been through
the litigation with you guys, the great black box is your
search. And I am telling you, it is politically biased. And
until you reconcile this, you are going to continue to have an
erosion of trust and hopefully more lawsuits, because people do
go on Google, and they search.
And what they find is a politically biased--you could go to
the members of this committee and search in what is on page one
news articles. I don't have time to do that, but it is
astounding. It is astounding, and the difference between Rs and
Ds is real.
Mr. Erickson, I want to ask you, did you--was your
testimony--actually I want to--well, let's stay with you. So,
Google recently sent a letter to Congressman Jordan explaining
that the Biden Administration tried to coerce Google, but that
you found it unacceptable, and you didn't.
So when Rob Flaherty, the Deputy Comms Director for the
White House who is infamous for saying, are you guys effing
serious, I want an answer on what happened here and I want it
today--not to you guys, but during the height of the insanity.
So there was--you guys didn't succumb to any of that
pressure from the White House to censor speech?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, when we get communications from the
Biden Administration, or the Trump Administration, or any
government entity around the world, our trust and safety teams
apply our terms of service and guidelines independently.
Senator Schmitt. OK. So it was your decision to ban Dan
Bongino on YouTube? It was your decision to ban RFK Jr. on
YouTube? Not--that was your decision alone, correct? Yes or no,
please.
Mr. Erickson. Senator, I am not familiar with those
specific examples----
Senator Schmitt. You can't have it both ways. You can't
have both--Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who is now the NIH Director,
you banned content from him because he said masks were
ineffective for kids. You were banning the hell out of
conservatives left and right in that time period, so that is on
you, I guess.
You didn't succumb to pressure, but Facebook did. Facebook
did, and a Facebook employee--and Mr. Potts, I want to ask you.
In July 2021, in addition to Mark Zuckerberg admitting it--your
testimony is interesting because your testimony today was that
these were our decisions.
No pressure. That is not what your CEO said. And maybe that
is a litigation strategy because that case is still ongoing. I
don't know. But you have e-mails from employees saying, because
we were under pressure from the Administration and others to do
more, I was part of the more package.
We removed four claims that multiple fact checkers labeled
as false even though we didn't have a harm assessment. We
shouldn't have done that. You could go through e-mails that
were uncovered in discovery. You could through the letter from
Mark Zuckerberg.
You clearly were coerced by the Biden Administration, but
your testimony today is that is actually not true now. That
these were all done in your own volition. Is that accurate?
Which one is it?
Mr. Potts. Senator, I can't--I am sorry, my eyesight isn't
strong enough to make out that note, and I hate to speculate
with--potentially what my colleague meant----
Senator Schmitt. Well, Mark Zuckerberg's letter to Jim
Jordan said ``we were--repeatedly pressured to censor certain
COVID-19 contact. The Government pressure was wrong, and I
regret we didn't do more, and we were not more outspoken.''
Mr. Potts. That is correct. That is----
Senator Schmitt. So that your testimony is that you were
coerced by Biden Administration. Is that accurate?
Mr. Potts. Senator, if I can add a bit of nuance here. We
felt pressure from the Biden Administration. We ultimately made
those decisions of our own volition. We had our policies, we
made those decision. In hindsight, would we have made different
choices with all the information we have today? I am sure we
would make different choices.
Senator Schmitt. Well, in closing, forgive me if the fact
that the Biden Administration wasn't threatening Section 230
protections wasn't that they were threatening those protections
to go away.
They were threatening investigations. So the idea that you
guys didn't succumb to pressure from the White House to censor
exclusively conservatives and COVID-19 content is laughable.
But thank you, I am out of time.
Senator Moreno [presiding]. Senator Rosen.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate this
hearing today. And while I fundamentally agree that this
committee must examine the state of free speech in the U.S.,
today's hearing once again misses the mark. This is now the
second hearing to focus on accusations from years ago, rather
than the near constant attacks the Trump Administration has
leveled against free speech rights today, today--right here,
right now, today. We still have not had Brendan Carr come to
testify after his threats to revoke broadcast licenses in
response to jokes made by a comedian, Jimmy Kimmel, on his
show.
The Chairman has failed to invite any witnesses that speak
to the threats that we face today. Not in the past, but today.
No one from the now-defunct Pentagon press corps who were told
their choices were to publish only Government-approved
information or lose their credentials. Where is the oversight
there?
No one from universities losing routine grant funding
because they won't adopt the Administration's preferred speech
policies. Where is the First Amendment there? Democracies
cannot exist without people having the right to oppose their
Government actions and speak their mind.
And that is what we need this committee to focus on, the
point that free speech is the fundamental bedrock of our
democracy, whether we agree with it or not. And that is the
hearing I wish we were having today.
But since it isn't, and I will turn to my questions and
start with the Pentagon Press Corps, because earlier this
month, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued new rules for
the Pentagon Press Corps requiring them to seek approval from
the department itself before publishing any news. The public
doesn't have a right to know what is happening in our Defense
Department.
This reporting on the Pentagon is essential, especially
given this Administration's repeated failure to seek
Constitutionally required approval from Congress on matters of
war. It is Constitutionally required approval from Congress. I
commend the outlets that rejected the loyalty pledge and were
therefore denied credentials.
We have seen agencies across the Trump Administration try
to force private organizations, educational institutions,
journalists, and others to sign loyalty pledges essentially
agreeing to silence themselves in order to gain access to basic
Government services, to Federal funding, or the ability to
report on the actions of our Government. So this is a clear
threat to the First Amendment.
So Mr. Creeley, are actions by the Government to force
journalists to only publish pre-approved information a
violation of the First Amendment? And at a minimum, do you
think actions like this just jeopardize the freedom of the
press writ large?
Mr. Creeley. Senator, absolutely. My organization has been
consistent in expressing concern about Government efforts to
require independent journalists to tow a party line before
gaining access to information. That is foundational.
This goes back to before the founding, to John Peter
Zenger, the publisher in Colonial New York who was jailed for
making fun of the then Colonial Governor, William Cosby. This
is something that would horrify the founders.
I think that our right to a free and independent press,
including most importantly one that will criticize the
Government, is a bedrock of American democracy. So, it is
extremely concerning.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. Mr. Feld, I am going to ask you
why you think an independent media and the protection of the
First Amendment is essential to democracy as opposed to just
being forced to print propaganda.
Mr. Feld. There is a reason why the press is listed
separately in the First Amendment and not just a matter of
generally under freedom of speech. It is because the ability to
have news from the local level up to the national and
international level, the ability to have different perspectives
on that news before the electorate is a core to an informed
democracy.
Senator Rosen. I want to move on and talk a little bit
about Brendan Carr. I will move back to you, Mr. Creeley,
because this hearing aims to push the narrative that the prior
Administration tried to ``shut down the speech of Americans
with whom it disagreed.'' But there are clear instances of this
happening today under this Administration.
And as we have noted, FCC Chairman Carr threatened ABC
affiliate broadcast licenses over remarks Jimmy Kimmel made in
the air, threatened to revoke their license because they didn't
like the speech of a comedian. So, yes or no, is Chairman Carr
trying to ``shut down the speech of Americans with whom he
disagrees''?
Mr. Creeley. Yes, and my organization has been very
critical of that. We have called that for what it is, which is
jawboning.
Senator Rosen. For purposes of the First Amendment, is
there any legal distinction whether or not Jimmy Kimmel or
other comedians' speeches are offensive or hateful?
Mr. Creeley. No, the First Amendment does not have an
exception for offensive or hateful speech.
Senator Rosen. And does it matter for purposes of the First
Amendment that Jimmy Kimmel's show is not pure news, but also
has a comedy component?
Mr. Creeley. No, Senator.
Senator Rosen. And in your view, has Chairman Carr engaged
in jawboning as much or even more directly than the prior
Administration?
Mr. Creeley. Senator, I think jawboning is bad in all its
instances and all its forms from whatever Government official,
but absolutely this is jawboning, and we have called it as
such.
Senator Rosen. And I will take the answers for this off the
record, but I am going to state the question, and we will be
reporting on it.
But to Mr. Feld and Mr. Creeley, we are going to ask you
what retaliatory action the Trump Administration has taken or
threatened to take to companies and people it deems critical of
the President and supporters? I have run out of time.
And so, we will take your questions for the record, and we
will be publicizing those when we get them. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. BERNIE MORENO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO
Senator Moreno. Thank you. Thank you to the witnesses. I
hope you are having fun. The question I have for you, and I am
going to read you a quote. Just so four of you think if this
makes sense to you. ``The people shall not be deprived or
abridged of the right to speak, to write, or to publish their
sentiments, and the freedom of the press as one of the bulwarks
of liberty shall be inviolable.'' Do you guys agree with that?
Let's start with you, Mr. Feld.
Mr. Feld. Absolutely.
Senator Moreno. You get bonus points if you know who said
that.
Mr. Feld. I am sorry, but I lose the bonus.
Mr. Creeley. Absolutely. I am going to venture Madison.
Senator Moreno. Yes, James Madison said that. And that was
what he actually wanted the First Amendment to say, that he
wanted it to be more specific. Mr. Potts, do you agree with
that? Senator, in my personal capacity and Meta, we agree with
the First Amendment.
Senator Moreno. Yes. But the company's position would agree
with it, right? How about you, Mr. Erickson?
Mr. Erickson. Yes, Senator.
Senator Moreno. So, isn't really the answer to all of this,
more speech is always better, Mr. Creeley? Like, if we have
more dialog, more ideas in the public square, isn't that really
the best anecdote to all of this?
Mr. Creeley. Absolutely, Senator. That is right.
Senator Moreno. And to Mr. Potts and Mr. Erickson, you guys
are technology companies, you are successful American
technology companies. Doesn't it seem like you are on the road
to hell right now? Meaning, you have immunity as a publisher--
different than publishers, sorry.
But you are acting a lot like publishers. Shouldn't your
point of view be that we modify Section 230 and just take the
part out that says unless Constitutionally protected, and just
allow people to have dissenting points of view on your
platforms? Why get into the business of censoring? Because it
is never going to work out well for you. You have obviously
what happened over the previous Administration during COVID-19.
You mentioned, Mr. Erickson, that it was a tough time.
Yes, it was. And Mr. Potts, you guys would delete people
from your platform who said that it was worse to get the
virus--it was better to get the virus than a vaccine. That is
an opinion, but it is OK to have that opinion. Isn't that free
speech? Isn't my immutable right as an American citizen to have
an opinion even if I am wrong? And it strikes me as you don't
need all this.
Why not just completely get out of the censorship business
unless it is the clear things that Senator Blackburn talked
about, human trafficking, child trafficking, incitement. Why
not get out of the censorship industrial world and just say, we
are just going to be a platform to allow free expression?
Wouldn't that make sense, Mr. Erickson?
Mr. Erickson. So, Senator, Google--free expression and the
First Amendment are core to Google and its mission.
Senator Moreno. But not really, because you have given
examples--and I am not trying to beat up on you, but you have
given examples where you have weighed in. You know, you both
made your comments to me kind of honestly--I don't know if you
intentionally did it--you said, hey, we want to delete content
that is offensive.
That is not the First Amendment. I am allowed to be
offensive. I am usually the recipient of the other side of
that, and that is OK. People can say whatever they want about
me. I don't want--if somebody says something really mean about
me, I don't want people at Facebook or Google deleting that
content. They have the absolute right to criticize me.
Now if they say, hey, Bernie is at this address and let's
go shoot him, maybe that is different. Make sure you change the
address. But the point being, you can't say you are committed
to free expression and at the same time say you are going to
moderate content for something that is offensive. Offensive is
a very subjective word, right?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, we want robust political speech,
other speech on our platforms. There is more speech available
on Google and YouTube than on any platform in history. And we
have pushed back against attempts for us to take down content
that is merely offensive. There was a time----
Senator Moreno. But why not get out of that completely?
Just say, you are not the speech police. And offensive content
is so subjective that you opened the, like I said earlier, the
road to hell. Mr. Creeley, would you agree--if you were giving
them free legal advice--this is great by the way. You have a
lawyer, you can ask them free questions. What would you say? Is
that not better?
Mr. Creeley. My response, Senator, would be that it is best
when different sites are allowed to enforce their own terms of
content moderation, specifically to their interests. If I
wanted to have a site that only allowed commentary about my
favorite football team, the Buffalo Bills, that would be
Constitutionally protected.
Likewise, I think more speech is exemplified by the
response to the President forming his own social media
platform. I think that that exemplifies the kind of diversity
of content that I think the First Amendment is designed to
protect. My concern is more with Government efforts top-down to
dictate moderation choices to platforms.
Senator Moreno. Yes, I mean, these are bad behaviors that
we are learning from China. And you guys do business all over
the world, obviously. These are really bad behaviors.
The First Amendment doesn't exist in China for a reason.
And I just want to make sure that when we are looking at all
these things, that we understand that--what I said at the
beginning--that the antidote to all this is more speech, more
freedom, more liberty. And also, I think both of you and both
of your companies should understand how bad it went for you
over the last 4 years, especially during COVID.
I think Mr. Potts, you said that, but you know, you were in
the room, and you also admitted that to your people that the
censorship isn't neutral. That it is definitely--has a
political bias to it and that is a problem. And I would just
encourage you as a businessperson myself, just is this--like I
said, are you having fun? Is this what you want to keep doing?
Why not--you don't need, for example, one single member of this
Legislature to tell you to put symbols on videos that are
generated by AI.
You don't need a law for that. You can do that today. You
can literally text your tech team right now and say, hey, if
you think a video is created by AI, flag it and say, created by
an AI. Why do you need Washington to tell you how to run your
business? I would just leave you with those thoughts, and you
will get more from my Chairman here.
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CURTIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like
to thank the Ranking Member for this hearing today. It is so
important that we recognize what platforms can do and what they
have done. I have got a series of questions for Mr. Erickson
and Mr. Potts.
I am trying to save time, so I only want to know if you
disagree with me. So let me just start right in. Algorithms
that recommend content are essential to the business model of
social media companies today. When creating your algorithms,
keeping users engaged is one of the main goals. As a result,
businesses----
Mr. Erickson. Senator, if I may.
Senator Curtis. Sure, quickly, please.
Mr. Erickson. Yes. So our platforms are--there is a
distinction between our platforms and social media platforms.
So on YouTube, we are a platform so that users that are seeking
content will get the content that they were looking for,
whether that is a how-to video or----
Senator Curtis. There is nothing in your business model
that wants people to stay with you longer?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, we want people to stay in our
platforms because they are finding relevant information----
Mr. Erickson. So, you are telling me years from now, when
we look back in history--I actually think this is going to be a
lot like the tobacco hearings. Years from now when we go back
in the history, there is going to be no study, there are going
to be no internal conversations that says it is good to have
people stay on our platform longer?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, we want people to stay on our
platform.
Senator Curtis. OK, let me keep moving. Let me keep moving.
In an effort to keep users engaged, these algorithms can create
environments that are dominated by specific types of content,
OK. This can be good when that content is innocent, but
sometimes that algorithm can create a toxic environment based
on what it determines best to engage with users.
All right, now my real question. Research and observation
studies suggest that algorithms often tilt toward more extreme
or emotionally charged content because that drives engagement.
To both of you, doesn't that mean that platforms explicitly
narrow the range of what people see, elevating fringe voices
and suppressing everyday voices?
Mr. Potts. Senator, thank you for the question. I can just
speak for Meta on this, and it is an important topic. In
certain areas where we see the potential for people to engage
with one type of content over and over again, we have recently
rolled out different ways to what we call affectionately
nudges, to nudge people to take a break from being on the
platform or to take a break from that specific type of contact.
So we also have--if I may, we also of recommendation
policies that--if I take a step back, we have community
standards that will allow--will dictate what we allow and do
not allow on the platform. And the things that are violating
those policies, we should just remove.
Senator Curtis. Let me add some nuance to this because I am
really going a different direction than I think my colleagues
have gone today. So in essence, a lot of the conversation today
has been, should you or should you not allow something on.
My question is more, what happens when you decide to
magnify a voice or suppress a voice based on algorithms? And we
all know that Section 230 was meant to protect platforms that
acted in good faith. But my question is, when an algorithm
downranks moderate speech or drives users toward extremism
because it is good for engagement, is that really good faith
moderation?
And should Section 230 immunity apply when you as a--let me
just say not you specifically, right--you as a company or
really as an industry make decisions that magnify certain
content and downgrade other content.
So in essence now, if you go back to the community bulletin
board, right, and you say, I am going to post this up here, and
I am going to post this up here, and you guys are really just a
place where people can go and see those postings. But the
moment you all say, I am not only going to allow this post up
here.
I am going to take it and duplicate it. And I am going to
duplicate it, and duplicate it, and duplicate it, and duplicate
it, or I am going to take it and put somebody else that is on
top of it. Is that really what Section 230 was for? And I am
going to--before I run out of time, I am going to ask our
lawyer here. Like, we didn't see this coming in my expectation
because we wanted a platform where I could go and connect with
my high school friend.
So when this first started, I could on Facebook and connect
with my high-school friend and see what they had said. All of a
sudden I logged on and I was seeing something else. I was
seeing what they wanted me to see. And I believe based on my
questions today that is because there was an intent to keep me
there longer. So should that give them protection from 230, or
do we have some questions here about that protection?
Mr. Creeley. Senator, I appreciate the question. I think
setting aside the 230 question just for a moment to talk about
how much a user interacts, I would caution against Government
regulation or interference here because I am wary of
introducing new rules for new content.
We have heard those kinds of concerns about the alleged
addictiveness of new modes of expression all the way back to
the introduction of novels in Victorian England. So this is an
old concern and one that I take seriously. I have got an 8 year
old and 11 year old at home. We talk about media literacy.
We talk about screen time all the time. But I am wary of
interfering with the system that allows for the robust
marketplace of ideas----
Senator Curtis. Sadly--I mean, I would love us all to spend
an hour on this in thoughtful conversation, right. Really what
I am arguing is not that. What I am saying is the interference
starts when somebody applies an algorithm to it. And I am
sorry, we don't have time for you to respond. I am just saying,
like, I want everybody to think about this for a minute.
Like just putting that up there, I get it, right. There is
no liability, and I tend to be a little bit more with Senator
Moreno who says like don't take responsibility for what you put
up and put down because you will never figure that out. And I
think that was his point. But the moment you make a decision to
magnify that, do you not own that decision, right?
So I am going to have to leave it there, and hopefully we
can have more hearings on this, Mr. Chairman. But I would like
to have a more thoughtful discussion about the responsibility
of magnifying and demagnifying content and why that deserves
protection from the law. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
hearing. Very important. We spent a lot of time talking about
the Biden Administration's actions, but far too little talking
about Donald Trump's repeated and far more serious threats to
the First Amendment. Let's talk about a few of those threats.
In August 2024, Donald Trump made the following threat
against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, ``we are watching him
closely. And if he does anything illegal this time, he will
spend the rest of his life in prison.'' A month later, he
accused Google of showing only ``bad stories about him'' and
urged the Department of Justice to ``criminally prosecute
Google' at ``maximum levels.'' That is scary stuff.
In our country, that is authoritarianism. So I would like
to get a few things out and on the record. Mr. Potts, to your
knowledge, did President Biden or any other Biden
Administration official ever threaten to prosecute Mr.
Zuckerberg, yes or no?
Mr. Potts. Senator, I am not aware.
Senator Markey. You are not aware of it?
Mr. Potts. I am not aware.
Senator Markey. OK. Thank you. Mr. Potts, to your
knowledge, did President Biden or any other Biden
Administration official ever threaten that Mr. Zuckerberg would
``spend the rest of his life in prison,'' yes or no?
Mr. Potts. Senator, I am not aware.
Senator Markey. I appreciate that answer. Mr. Erickson, to
your knowledge, did President Biden or any other Biden
Administration official ever threaten to prosecute Sundar
Pichai or force him to spend the rest of his life in prison?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, not to my knowledge.
Senator Markey. Mr. Erickson, did President Biden or any
other Administration official ever threaten to criminally
prosecute Google over its search results?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, not to my knowledge.
Senator Markey. My Republican colleagues have spent endless
time and resources concocting elaborate conspiracies about
online censorship of conservatives, yet they have ignored the
real threat to free speech staring them in the face.
President Trump's explicit threats to prosecute Mark
Zuckerberg and Google, creating a chilling effect, not only on
those companies, but on everyone else who is less powerful than
those companies which is everyone else in America. These
threats have an impact. A few months later, Meta made Trump-
friendly changes to its content moderation policies.
Even Donald Trump said his threat to Zuckerberg ``probably
caused Meta to make those policy changes.'' Did my Republican
colleagues say a word about those threats? No, not at all. Mr.
Feld, do you agree that Trump's threat to Zuckerberg is far
more dangerous than any communications from Biden
Administration officials with tech platforms?
Mr. Feld. Normally, I would say, that's just bully pulpit,
but the problem is we have seen he means it and he will use the
Justice Department to prosecute those with whom he does not
like.
Senator Markey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Feld. So I just want to
turn to a related issue about the tech platforms and Donald
Trump. In December 2024, Meta and Google each donated $1
million to President Trump's inauguration.
In January 2025, many of those big tech CEOs, including
Mark Zuckerberg, Mr. Pichai, sat directly behind the President
at his inauguration, seats that are usually reserved for family
or past Presidents.
In separate settlements, Meta agreed to pay $25 million,
and Google agreed to paid $24.5 million to Trump for suspending
his accounts on their respective platforms after the January
6th insurrection, even though Trump's lawsuits were frivolous.
And just a few days ago, Meta and Google each made
significant donation to President Trump's $300 million vanity
project to build a new ballroom at the White House. So Mr.
Potts, what is Meta getting out of these payments?
Mr. Potts. Senator, respectfully, I was made aware of those
donations in the news. It is not something that I focus on.
Senator Markey. So I am just simply asking, what would Meta
expect to receive if they made such significant contributions
to Trump?
Mr. Potts. Again, Senator, I think this was just a
donation. I am not familiar with the process behind it.
Senator Markey. Well, thank you. So I don't have much time
left, so if you can't answer that question or, won't. Let me
see if Mr. Erickson can. So what do you think, Mr. Erickson,
that Google is getting out of those payments?
Mr. Erickson. Thank you, Senator. We did give to, Senator,
President Trump's inaugural committee We have given to the
inaugural committees of the last several elections for the
President of the United States.
And with regard to the settlement that you referenced, we
did settle a lawsuit that President Trump and other plaintiffs
had brought. In that settlement, President Trump's attorney had
asked for money to go to a nonprofit of his choosing. That is
where the money was directed.
But importantly, we did not admit any wrongdoing in that
lawsuit, nor did we change any of our products or policies.
Senator Markey. Well, I would just say, obviously, the
difference between the Trump Administration and any previous
Administration is that at the inauguration, the wealthiest
corporate CEOs in America sat directly behind the President and
in front of the Cabinet, with better seats than the Supreme
Court.
So, obviously this is a different time. It is a difference
era. And I think the American public has a right to question
these tech companies and asking what are they getting out of
these generous donations that they are making to Trump, because
obviously the seating at the inaugural has triggered in my
opinion questions of Constitutionality and questions of whether
or not the billionaire corporations are getting more out of
this Government than the poorest amongst us.
And we are seeing that now play out in policy after policy,
including this battle that we are having over health care and
SNAP benefits for the poorest in our society. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey. And I would note
that the recipients of SNAP benefits would get their SNAP
benefits if the Democrats would vote to fund the Government,
and yet 13 times the Democrats have voted party line to keep
the Government shut down, 13 times Republicans have voted to
open the Government. We are going to vote again to open
Government and at some point Chuck Schumer and the Democrats
are going to stop holding the American people hostage. Now----
[Technical problems.]
The Chairman. OK, so Senator Markey is telling everyone who
gets food stamps, the Democrats are going to continue to vote
against your getting food stamps. And it is reckless and
irresponsible.
And if you don't believe me, you can watch the videos of
just about every single Democrat Senator who has gone on TV
over and over and over again saying it is reckless and
irresponsible to vote against a clean CR, and now they are
all--I guess hypocrisy is the tribute that vice gives to
virtue.
They are all doing that because they want to appease their
radical base. Now, Mr. Potts, Mr. Erickson.
[Technical problems.]
The Chairman. I recognize that Senator Markey has a
partisan objective that he wants to hold the entire Government
hostage. By the way, the American Federation of Government
Employees has called on the Democrats to end the Schumer
shutdown. The National Air Traffic Controller Union has called
on the Democrats to end the Schumer shutdown.
But these Democrats don't actually work for their
constituents. People getting food stamps. They don't care,
because they are willing to say no food stamps go out on
November 1 because the only people they care about are the
angry people with torches and pitchforks at the No Kings rally
because this is a party that is captured by its radical left.
And there are a whole lot of Americans who are hurting.
Let's just take within this committee's jurisdiction air
travel where there are right now 50,000 TSA agents going into
work and they are not getting a paycheck. There are 14,000 air
traffic controllers going into work, and they are not getting a
paycheck. And we are seeing flight delays.
We are seeing ground stops. And one Democrat's senior aide
told Politico that the Schumer shutdown will continue, ``until
planes start falling from the air.'' That is the very
definition of reckless and dangerous.
Senator Markey. Well, I would add to this conversation, if
you want, that beginning on November 1, 20 million Americans
are going to get the notices that they are either losing their
health care insurance or it is going to dramatically skyrocket.
And that is a discussion that is hard to have with Republicans
since the House has not been in session for 6 weeks. They are
in a political witness protection program. They are all
traveling around the country but not in Washington----
The Chairman. You are absolutely right that Obamacare is--
Obamacare is a trainwreck and it has caused health insurance
premiums to skyrocket. And Senator Markey will recall I stood
on the Senate floor for 21 hours saying that is exactly what
would happen, that premiums would skyrocket.
And if you don't believe me, you can look to the Washington
Post, hardly a right-wing periodical, which said, Obamacare,
the so-called Affordable Care Act, is not remotely affordable,
and it has caused premiums to skyrocket.
And ironically, what our Democrat colleagues are fighting
for is premium payments that are direct corporate welfare to
health insurance companies, because Obamacare has more than
doubled the profits of the giant health insurance companies and
working families in Texas and Massachusetts, their premiums
have skyrocketed, and it is unaffordable.
And the Democrat solution is not to give more competition,
not to give more choice, not to lower premiums. It is instead
engaged in more corporate welfare and write bigger and bigger
checks to giant multi-billion dollar corporations.
Senator Markey. The House Republicans are in a political
witness protection program. They are not in Washington. How can
we negotiate with them?
The Chairman. No, they have actually done their job. They
voted to fund the Government. They have done their job.
Senator Markey. And there was designed neglect on the part
of the Republicans to withdraw the premium tax credit for those
20 million Americans, and they are going to see their policies
skyrocket over the next couple of months. And it is avoidable.
It is not a catastrophe that has to be in existence. But unless
the Republicans come to the table, we can't solve that problem
because those rates are going to skyrocket.
The Chairman. Forty-two million Americans who receive food
stamps are not going to get them on Saturday, November 1. And
the reason is Senator Markey and just about every other
Democrat is going to vote against those food stamps because he
has got a partisan agenda and feeding your kids is not part of
his partisan agenda.
Senator Markey. President Trump has $5 billion he could
deploy right now to those SNAP recipients and take that worry
away from them. He is not going to do it. He is going to do it
for any favored programs----
The Chairman. So then Senator Markey will vote ``no'' on--
--
Senator Markey.--but not for those that he calls Democrat
programs, like feeding the poor or giving health care to those
most in need.
The Chairman. Senator Markey could provide the funding for
those food stamps any day he wanted to. And to be clear, I have
voted over, and over, and over again to fund those food stamps
while your party keeps voting no, no, no.
At some point the political stunt will end. Now, returning
to the topic of the hearing. Mr. Potts, Mr. Erickson, you
represent two of the most powerful companies in the world. Even
without a lawful basis, could the Biden Administration have
used its considerable powers to significantly harm your
companies if you refused to censor? Mr. Potts.
Mr. Potts. Senator, may you repeat the question?
The Chairman. Even without a lawful basis, could the Biden
Administration have used its power to harm your company if you
refused the censorship it was asking you to engage in?
Mr. Potts. Senator, I don't want to speculate too much. I
know that the Biden Administration did pressure us, especially
related to COVID-19 information. And when we disagreed with
them, they became more frustrated, then upping the pressure. I
don't want to speculate on what the----
The Chairman. But my question is straightforward, could the
President hurt your company if he so desired?
Mr. Potts. I think any Administration and any President
with the position of authority could hurt our company.
The Chairman. Mr. Erickson, same question.
Mr. Erickson. Senator, with respect to the hypothetical, I
can't speak to the hypothetical. I can tell you that whatever
the Administration is, we have a demonstrated track record of
pushing back against----
The Chairman. So try answering the question, could the
Biden Administration have hurt your company?
Mr. Erickson. Senator, yes.
The Chairman. Mr. Creeley, some may argue that the Biden
Administration was engaging in mere persuasion or exerting
pressure that doesn't rise to the level of coercion in
violation of the First Amendment. In your legal judgment, are
thinly veiled threats prohibited under First Amendment
precedent?
And based on what we know about the covert action by the
Biden Administration, did the Administration's actions toward
our tech witnesses constitute coercion that undermines the
First Amendment?
Mr. Creeley. Mr. Chairman, in our opinion, it did indeed.
We argued as much in an amicus brief that we filed with the
Supreme Court. And I think Justice Sotomayor, writing for a
unanimous court in National Rifle Association v. Vullo,
elaborated on the distinction between persuasion and coercion
very well. If you mind, I will just read it. ``A Government
official can share her views freely and criticize particular
beliefs. And she can do so forcefully in the hopes of
persuading others to follow her lead. In doing so, she can rely
on the merits and the force of her ideas, the strength of her
convictions, and her ability to inspire others. What she cannot
do, however, is use the power of the state to punish or
suppress disfavored expression. And I think the extensive
entanglement, the bullying, the pressure tactics, the tone, the
authority, the invocation of legal sanctions, and revisiting
regulatory authority, all of which taken together, crossed the
line.''
The Chairman. The First Amendment is the greatest protector
of free speech in history. Even so, we have had evidence
presented that there are legal challenges to stop the
Government from jawboning.
Even when you can demonstrate that the Government censored
you, your options in court may be limited. In your judgment,
what challenges or gaps in the law do Americans face in
vindicating their First Amendment rights in the courtroom, and
what can Congress do to help solve them?
Mr. Creeley. Well, there are two problems, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, quite often when folks are silenced, there is
difficulty establishing causality. They may not know that their
post has been deleted or demoted as a result of Federal
pressure.
So that is the first problem. Too often, this is very
difficult for the end user, the affected, targeted, silenced
American, to understand. The second problem is there is no
meaningful deterrent.
Right now, if you are silenced by a Federal official, you
don't have the ability to go to court and seek monetary
damages. You need an express statutory grant to give courts the
authority to put money on the line. I think that would change
behavior. So, transparency and deterrence.
The Chairman. Well, I very much agree with you. As you
know, I am in the process of drafting legislation, the
jawboning legislation designed to do exactly that, designed to
provide transparency for when the Federal Government is urging
tech platforms and other companies to censor, and to provide
for a cause of action to sue the Government if and when
somebody is censored.
Obviously, the devil is in the details but described at
that level of generality because we are drafting statutory
language right now to do so, I want to ask each of the
witnesses if you would be supportive of that approach, with the
caveat that everyone wants to see statutory language before
having a final opinion. But Mr. Erickson, let's start with you.
Mr. Erickson. Senator, yes.
Mr. Potts. Senator, with your caveat, yes.
Mr. Creeley. Absolutely.
Mr. Feld. We would support it and would look forward to
working with you on it.
The Chairman. Well, that is fantastic news, and it is good
to get agreement across the spectrum. And so, I appreciate each
of the witnesses being here. Thank you for your testimony and--
all right, I got to look to see how long we are keeping the
record open. How long are we keeping the record open?
Senators will have until the close of business on November
5 to submit questions for the record, and the witnesses will
have until the close of business on November 19 to respond to
those questions. That concludes today's hearing. The Committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Cruz to
Markham Erickson
Question 1. Internal documents reveal that Google staff confessed
the Biden White House ``is very interested in our work on borderline
content,'' meaning content that did not violate company policy, and
that the company needed to ``address these concerns'' in order ``to
prevent anything from potentially spiraling out of control,'' observing
that the White House Digital Director Rob Flaherty ``ha[d] been tough
on us at times.'' YouTube also sent a meeting request to Flaherty to
review and approve YouTube's ``new policy to remove content'' in line
with the Biden administration's preferences. How do you and your
company square these documents with your refusal to publicly admit that
the Biden administration bullied and jawboned Google to effectuate
censorship the administration could not conduct directly?
Answer. Around the world, we hear from government agencies,
legislators, non-governmental organizations, academics, and individual
users who inform us of content that they believe we should remove or,
on the other hand, content that we have removed that they believe
should remain available. This happens across the political spectrum and
around the world, and it has for years. We believe we have a
responsibility to engage on these issues in the countries where we
operate, including with government officials across U.S. presidential
administrations.
We regularly hear from administration officials and lawmakers
across the political spectrum, including from this Committee and its
Members, who are interested in YouTube's policies or online trends that
may occur across our platforms. It is important to note that, in
soliciting feedback from government officials regarding YouTube's
Community Guidelines (as occurred in the communication from September
2021 cited in your question), YouTube does not seek these stakeholders'
approval of its policies or enforcement decisions.
While we believe in constructive engagement and transparency, we
reject government attempts to dictate how we moderate content on
YouTube. Our business model depends on user trust, and in order to be
trusted by billions of users globally, we must apply and develop our
policies consistently, impartially, and independently. When content is
flagged, our teams independently evaluate whether the content violates
our terms of service and policies, without regard for the source of the
original inquiry.
Our testimony before the Senate and the House has underscored the
Company's core principles and independent decision making, including
around policy development and enforcement. YouTube charts its own
course and, while it has solicited--and will continue to solicit--
feedback from key stakeholders, it does not seek their approval on
issues of content moderation.
Question 2. During the hearing you stated: ``We [Google] made our
decisions independently and often said `no' when pressed by the [Biden]
administration.''
a. Did you ever say ``yes'' to the Biden administration's request
to censor lawful content that the Administration opposed? If so, please
provide the number of times Google agreed with a Biden administration
request to censor lawful content.
b. You admitted during the hearing that the Biden administration
``pressed'' Google to censor lawful content. Please describe in detail
how the Biden administration officials pressed Google to censor lawful
content.
c. Based on your answer to the above, is it Google's position that
you voluntarily chose to censor lawful content provided by your users
that happened to align with the administration's documented pressure
campaign?
d. In a September 23, 2025 letter, counsel for Alphabet stated:
``YouTube takes seriously the importance of protecting free expression
and access to a range of viewpoints.'' How is this position consistent
with Google's position that it voluntarily chose to censor lawful
content provided by its users? Please explain the contradiction between
these two positions.
Answer. We have policies that help us maintain a responsible
business and govern what is and is not allowed on our platforms.
Establishing and enforcing these policies independently is not only how
we do business, but also a right we enjoy in this country as a matter
of law. When content is flagged to us-whether by governments, non-
governmental organizations, members of Congress or others-we evaluate
whether it violates our terms and policies, reach our own conclusions,
and take appropriate enforcement action in accordance with our own
determinations. In some circumstances, these independent determinations
may align with a particular administration's positions; and in others,
they will be contradictory. For example, in contrast to other large
platforms, YouTube never had Community Guidelines prohibiting
discussion of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Across our products, we take seriously the importance of protecting
free expression and access to a range of viewpoints while also
maintaining and enforcing responsible policy frameworks. Google
responds to billions of search queries every day, and over 500 hours of
content are uploaded on YouTube every single minute, reflecting a vast
proliferation of viewpoints and a range of perspectives. YouTube's news
creators represent a broad spectrum of perspectives; according to a
recent Pew study, roughly a quarter of news creators are right leaning,
a quarter left leaning, and half show no clear political orientation.
We have policies in place that prohibit certain content that, while
lawful, we conclude is harmful or dangerous. As just two examples,
YouTube has policies prohibiting pornography and graphic violence. On
Google Search, on the other hand, we do not remove web results except
for specific reasons covered by our narrow content policies for Google
Search, which cover child sexual abuse material (``CSAM''), highly
personal information, spam, site owner requests, and valid legal
requests.
We recognize that transparency regarding our own policies and terms
of service, as well as our interactions with governments, is essential
to foster public trust and uphold the principles of freedom of
expression.To this end, YouTube makes its Community Guidelines and
Terms of Service easily accessible online and publishes data on
government content removal requests in its biannual Transparency
Report.
e. In the September 23, 2025 letter, counsel for Alphabet stated:
``YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the
platform if the Company terminated their channels for repeated
violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no
longer in effect.''
i. To date, how many creators who had their channels terminated
have had their channels restored?
ii. How many creators does YouTube project are eligible to have
their channels restored due to termination by YouTube under this
opportunity to Rejoin?
Answer. YouTube had a long standing policy whereby creators whose
channels had been terminated were permanently banned from the platform.
We heard frustration from creators that they wanted more options to
return to YouTube.
While our termination policy remains an effective tool to protect
our community, we recognize that a blanket permanent ban left some
creators on the sidelines. As a result, we recently rolled out a new
pilot for a broad set of terminated creators to request a new channel.
We are considering several factors when evaluating requests for new
channels, including whether the creator committed particularly severe
or persistent violations of our Community Guidelines or Terms of
Service. Creators are also not eligible to apply for a new channel
until one year after their channel was terminated. However, during the
year that creators were terminated, they can still appeal the channel
termination if they think we got it wrong, and YouTube will take
another look.
Relatedly, for Community Guidelines policies that have been
deprecated--namely COVID-19 and election integrity--we offered creators
a 30-day grace period to appeal those terminations. Channels were
reinstated upon appeal.
We are happy to brief your office about the status of this pilot
program.
f. During the hearing, I showed you a chart with an example of a
video that YouTube blocked in 2022 as part of its censorship of lawful
content. You admitted during the hearing that the video I showed to you
on my chart would be considered ``news.'' Why was Google censoring the
news? Was it wrong to censor the news?
Answer. All content on YouTube must abide by our Community
Guidelines. Each enforcement decision is specific to the content
policies at issue in the evaluation. Sometimes, content that would
otherwise violate our Community Guidelines can stay on YouTube when it
has Educational, Documentary, Scientific, or Artistic (EDSA) context.
We assess whether content gets an EDSA exception on a case-by-case
basis--first determining whether there is a Community Guidelines
violation in the content and, if so, assessing whether there is enough
context in the content to make an EDSA exception. With respect to the
chart you are referencing, we would need additional information about
the specific content at issue to determine whether our enforcement
action was accurate or made in error. We would be happy to review with
additional context and information.
Question 3. The European Union's Digital Services Act and the
United Kingdom's Online Safety Act require social media and online
search companies to have content moderation policies that ``mitigate''
illegal content under the laws of EU Member States or the United
Kingdom, respectively. Like many other foreign jurisdictions, the EU
and UK tag far more content as illegal than what the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution would allow.
a. Does Google have an affirmative, written, enacted policy to
ensure that the First Amendment is the legal standard underlying your
content moderation policies addressing the expression of United States
persons?
b. How often are Google's social media or search products,
policies, and processes tailored to a distinct legal jurisdiction,
specifically the United States, instead of globally? Why or why not?
c. Please list all instances where a Google product's content
moderation policy differs in a European jurisdiction from Google's
policy in the United States and state what the policy difference is.
d. If a foreign jurisdiction provides Google notice that expression
by a United States person is illegal in that jurisdiction and should be
suppressed, either through elimination, demotion, or some other means,
would Google comply with such a notice? If it would depend on
additional facts or contexts, what facts or contexts?
i. In 2023, 2024, and 2025, how many notices that the expression of
a United States person is illegal and should be suppressed has Google
received from a foreign jurisdiction? How many has Google complied
with? If exact numbers are not available, provide estimates.
ii. When Google does comply with such a notice from a foreign
jurisdiction, how often does Google suppress that expression only in
the jurisdiction issuing that notice?
iii. If Google does comply and suppress that expression beyond the
jurisdiction issuing that notice, how often does Google suppress that
expression (i) in the United States; or (ii) in other foreign
jurisdictions beyond the jurisdiction that issued that notice?
Answer. Legal standards vary greatly by country and region. Content
that violates a specific law in one country or region may be legal in
others. Typically, we remove or restrict access to content only in the
specific country or region where it is deemed illegal. We have multiple
tools at our disposal to maximize freedom of expression while complying
with local laws. For example, we are able to geo-block a video in a
particular country or region, or, where required, we can use IP
addresses to IP-block content availability in a country or region.
We receive legal demands to remove content through a variety of
avenues and from authorities at all levels--including via court orders,
written requests from national and local government agencies, and
requests from law enforcement professionals. In order for us to
evaluate a removal request, it must be in writing, as specific as
possible about the content to be removed, and clear in its explanation
of how the content is illegal. We do not honor requests that have not
been made through the appropriate channels, and in cases in which we
receive verbal requests, we ask for them to be put in writing.
We maintain a robust process to receive, evaluate, and act on
government removal requests. We review these requests closely to
confirm that they are supported by local laws and to determine whether
we should remove content as a matter of national law or our platform-
wide policies.
We have a track record of pushing back against overly broad or
otherwise inappropriate government demands for user data and content
removals, including objecting to some demands entirely. There are many
reasons why we may not remove content following a government request.
Some requests might not be specific enough for us to know what the
government wants us to remove. In these cases, we ask for more
information. Other times, we do not take action because the content at
issue has already been removed by the content owner. As noted above,
YouTube publishes data on government content removal requests in its
biannual Transparency Report.
In other instances and due to a variety of factors--including
government demands related to our user data and content policies--we
have decided to not offer some of our services and platforms in those
countries. For instance, in mainland China, our core products such as
Search, Gmail, Maps, and YouTube are not available.
Question 4. On September 23, 2025, Alphabet's counsel sent a letter
to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan stating that
``obligations under laws such as the Digital Services Act and Digital
Markets Act may stifle innovation and restrict access to information.''
a. How do these laws place a disproportionate regulatory burden on
American Companies?
b. How could these laws pose a risk to freedom of expression
outside of the European Union, specifically the United States?
c. Alphabet further stated that the DSA ``may open avenues for
substantive regulation of lawful speech, including through risk
mitigation, the use of codes of conduct and crisis protocols, and the
out-of-court dispute settlement mechanisms.'' Please explain further
how the DSA may open up such avenues for regulation of lawful speech.
Answer. An increasing number of countries around the world are
proposing restrictive laws and content regulations that limit access to
information and put free expression at risk. Censorship and targeting
of American companies has long been the case in less democratic
countries. As these trends have expanded globally, countries are also
leveraging antitrust actions to exert tighter control over the Internet
and passing ``hostage-taking laws'' to target or detain workers if they
do not follow government orders.
Increasing censorship and fragmentation will hurt consumers and
make it more difficult for American businesses to provide cross-border
services and technologies. Onerous obligations under laws from
countries across the globe may stifle innovation and restrict access to
information. We remain mindful of these risks and continue to be
vigilant in its defense of these rights.
Many European regulations and taxes place a disproportionate burden
on American companies. For example, the European Commission (EC)
structured the Digital Markets Act (DMA) such that its obligations
apply only to ``gatekeepers'' that meet certain specific thresholds of
annual turnover and number of users. These quantitative thresholds are
set at levels that primarily capture American companies. The EC also
structured the DMA so that it applies only to gatekeepers that provide
``core platform services,'' which are defined to exclude sectors (such
as music streaming, enterprise software, and telecommunications) in
which European firms are more dominant. Overall, the DMA's thresholds
capture 22 U.S. products while excluding all European companies and the
vast majority of Chinese rivals. To date, the EC has only initiated DMA
investigations against American companies.
The DMA is increasingly being deployed to regulate what speech and
information can be displayed and accessed on American products and
services. For example, the DMA dictates whether companies can show
weather forecasts, sports scores, dictionary definitions, stock quotes,
and other forms of informational content in search results and other
media. A recent DMA investigation could result in companies being
forced to display spam, scams, and other low-quality content. In
addition, the DMA has decreased the visibility of reviews and other
user-generated content related to restaurants, hotels, and other local
services. This has resulted in new barriers for people that are seeking
to access important channels of user expression.
In a similar fashion, the DSA was designed as an ``asymmetric''
regulation that places the heaviest burdens on companies based on size.
This has had a disproportionate impact on American companies. Among
other provisions, the regulation includes potential fines of up to six
percent of a company's global annual turnover; fines are not limited to
European revenues. DSA regulators also charge large `supervisory fees,'
also calculated in reference to global turnover, and used to subsidize
oversight of Chinese and European companies.
The Company has also expressed concerns about the risk that the DSA
may pose to freedom of expression within and outside of the European
Union, depending on how certain provisions may be enforced. For
example, DSA risk assessments not only cover systemic risks for the
dissemination of illegal content, but also cover categories of lawful
speech considered to pose actual or foreseeable negative effects on
civic discourse. Additionally, under the DSA, out-of-court dispute
settlement bodies can be certified to have oversight over both
notifications of illegal content and application of platforms' global
policies, including review of platform decisions to keep lawful content
online in accordance with their policies.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Markham Erickson
According to the Pew Research Center, more and more Americans,
especially young people, get their news from social media platforms,
including YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok. By design, these platforms
don't produce news themselves, yet benefit greatly from those that
generate the content and news that populate their platforms.
The rise of these platforms and shifts in the advertising market
have undermined the economics of local journalism. According to the
Medill Center's annual report, we have lost more than one-third of our
newspapers since 2005 and 127 newspapers in the last year alone. And AI
is only making things worse, with studies showing significantly fewer
people clicking through to read full articles when an AI summary
appears. As more consumers turn to AI to find information, newsrooms
across the country are left producing content that's critical for our
democracy yet funneled through platforms and models outside of their
control. Now more than ever, we need to have a system that is
responsive to the fact that we need reliable information.
Question 1. Does your company have an interest in maintaining the
economic model for local journalism?
Answer. Our core operating principle is to connect people with
relevant information. A healthy information environment, including news
and local journalism, is a shared societal asset, and its endurance
requires a collective effort. Google's work includes developing
products that help connect Americans with local news content when it is
relevant and useful to their needs, supporting local journalists with
tools for data analysis, and helping local media companies to reach an
audience and monetize their content.
Google Search and Google News drive economic value to American news
businesses by displaying links to relevant news results, connecting
people to publishers' websites more than 24 billion times per month.
These website visits provide news publishers with increased readership
and support publisher revenue through advertising and subscriptions,
see more information here. According to PwC, each of these visits, on
average, creates 8 to 10 cents in value for the relevant website owner.
Google also pays to license content from local news publishers for
Google News Showcase. News Showcase is a product feature within Google
News that gives participating publishers more control over their
content and how it should appear to our users and, in the US, more than
90 percent of participating publishers are local news sites. In
Washington state, we partner with a number of local news organizations
including Lynwood Today, Edmonds News, MLTnews, The Spokesman-Review,
and Capitol Hill Seattle Blog.
Additionally, earlier this year, we launched the AI Sustainability
Lab, a program to help news publishers explore the use of AI to support
business objectives. The Seattle Times Affiliate Newspapers was part of
the first cohort of 15 news outlets to participate, and reported the
program led to them creating a News Marketing Assistant GPT that lifted
e-mail referrals by 149 percent.
Question 2. In the era of AI, does Google have a responsibility to
ensure that local journalism survives?
Answer. Google has worked for years to support the long-term
sustainability of local journalism and recognizes that the preservation
of a healthy news environment is a shared societal asset, one that
requires the support of a multi-stakeholder effort including consumers,
governments, philanthropy organizations and the private sector.
At Google, we are committed to doing our part by:
Prioritizing the Web: In the era of AI, more than any other
company Google is focused on building products that drive users
to directly engage with content creators and publishers'
websites. We are focused on fulfilling our part by ensuring our
new AI features, like AI Overviews and AI Mode, continue to
send valuable traffic to diverse publishers and creators. Our
products are distinct from those of some other companies in
that they are built to highlight the web, featuring prominent
links and visible citation of sources.
Supporting Evolution: We recognize that the news industry is
navigating complex challenges, such as ``news deserts.'' We
also see growth in digitally-native newspapers and note there
are some local news organizations showing growth and success.
We aim to work constructively with the industry by developing
AI tools that support their work, help them better engage with
Americans, and support their financial sustainability.
We stand by our record of support for local news and the news
ecosystem at large, and believe others in American society could make
similar contributions.
Question 3. What can we do in the era of AI to make sure that we
are instilling more competition, growing more diverse media sources,
and ensuring that quality, reliable information is produced?
Answer. In the era of AI, we see a focus on relevance and
authenticity as being critical to users as they navigate the web, and
seek to find and engage relevant and helpful content from a range of
sources. AI has lowered barriers to creation, allowing for a ``long
tail'' of creativity where independent experts build business models
around niche topics and authentic voices become more discoverable.
We see users increasingly seeking different perspectives and
opinions, often direct from primary sources and experts, and a growing
preference for audio and visual formats, in addition to text. Google is
implementing AI to help meet these needs, enabling users to explore a
wider range of perspectives relevant to their query, and in a variety
of formats.
Google also recently launched Preferred Sources, a feature that
provides users with more control over their Search experience by
enabling them to select the sites they want to see more of, whether
that is a favorite blog or a local news outlet like the Tacoma News
Tribune or the Edmonds Beacon.
More generally, we continue to invest in and support core
principles that have long underpinned the utility of Google Search and
Google News.
Prioritizing Originality: Highlighting websites that create
in-depth reporting, unique perspectives, and first-person
experiences that go beyond what an AI summary can convey.
Empowering Creators: Providing AI tools like Pinpoint to
free up journalists from routine tasks, allowing them to focus
on high-impact creative and investigative work.
Ensuring Quality and Trust: Upholding our commitment to
quality through sophisticated ranking algorithms and quality
control measures that assess content for expertise. We also
employ tools like SynthID watermarking of AI-generated imagery
and video to provide provenance and context, helping consumers
make informed assessments.
Promoting Fair Use: Maintaining balanced copyright
frameworks, such as fair use in the United States and flexible
text and data mining exceptions in countries like Japan,
Singapore, and the European Union is key to combating bias and
discrimination in AI systems, preventing skewed outputs, and
ensuring there is a balance between the interest of consumers
and copyright holders.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Cruz to
Neil Potts
Question 1. The European Union's Digital Services Act and the
United Kingdom's Online Safety Act require social media and online
search companies to have content moderation policies that ``mitigate''
illegal content under the laws of EU Member States or the United
Kingdom, respectively. Like many other foreign jurisdictions, the EU
and UK tag far more content as illegal than what the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution would allow.
a. Does Meta have an affirmative, written, enacted policy to ensure
that the First Amendment is the legal standard underlying your content
moderation policies addressing the expression of United States persons?
Answer. At Meta, we want people to be able to talk openly about the
issues that matter to them, whether through written comments, photos,
music, or other means. On platforms where billions of people can have a
voice, virtually all of the good, bad and ugly is on display. But
that's free expression, a value at the core of our corporate ethos. We
appreciate efforts within the Trump Administration and in Congress to
ensure that international regulatory regimes do not continue to place
increasingly burdensome and disparate requirements on U.S. companies
when it comes to moderating content. To that end, we have cooperated
with a number of related inquiries from Federal regulators and
lawmakers on Capitol Hill regarding similar topics. In addition, we
have been able to share lessons from our broader compliance experience
with other stakeholders in the Administration. This cooperation
reflects our broader effort to align our operations with the values
enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, even when operating in
jurisdictions that do not share, or even recognize, these protections.
As we have shared, despite our commitment to American values, and in
some circumstances because of that commitment, we face increasing
pressure from foreign governments whose legal frameworks often conflict
with U.S. values and consumer expectations. This can create significant
operational and legal complexities and raises specific concerns from
our users about their rights. But we have taken, and will continue to
take, concrete measures to resist such overly burdensome
extraterritorial demands, protect American users from foreign
overreach, and ensure American innovation remains at the forefront of
global competition.
b. In October 2025, Meta began prohibiting political, electoral,
and social issue ads on its platforms in the EU in response to the EU's
Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising regulation. How
often are your company's social media or search products, policies, and
processes tailored to a distinct legal jurisdiction, specifically the
United States, instead of globally? Why or why not?
Answer. With respect to user content, Facebook, Instagram,
Messenger and Threads are global communities, so our Community
Standards apply equally to everyone, everywhere and to all types of
content. Our approach to enforcing these policies may differ depending
on the jurisdiction, but the rules about what is allowed on our
platforms remain the same. As one example, Meta last year announced a
series of significant changes to its content moderation practices
specifically focused on strengthening free expression in the U.S. Among
other things, we ended our third-party fact-checking program in the
United States and moved to a Community Notes model; eliminated a number
of restrictions on topics that are the subject of frequent political
discourse and debate; and adopted a more personalized approach to
political content. In contrast, international regulatory regimes have
increasingly placed burdensome and disparate requirements on U.S.
companies, at times even seeking to undermine the core American
principle of free speech. Despite these challenges, we remain committed
to freedom of expression globally and have opposed extraterritorial
legal demands that run contrary to America's fundamental values.
Similarly, our Advertising Standards are also global and apply to
ads running across our services. However, local laws, regulations, and
where applicable, self-regulatory advertising codes may limit the
offerings available in different countries. As referenced in your
question, we no longer allow political, electoral and social issue ads
on our platforms in the European Union (''EU''). This was a difficult
decision--one we took in response to the EU's Transparency and
Targeting of Political Advertising (TTPA) regulation, which introduces
significant operational challenges and legal uncertainties. Similarly,
due to highly burdensome regulations, our policies prohibit ads
targeted to Washington state that relate to Washington's state or local
elected officials, candidates, elections or ballot initiatives.
We continue to believe online political advertising is a vital part
of modern politics, connecting people to important information about
the politicians that represent them, and ensuring candidates have a
cost-effective way of reaching their audiences. That is why Meta has
gone above and beyond many of our peers--and well beyond what is
required by law--to ensure the political ads served on our platforms
are authentic and information about them is transparent.
Since 2018, we have had in place tools which provide more
transparency for ads about politics, elections and social issues than
any other platform, on or offline, as well as other extensive
safeguards. Advertisers who run these ads are required to complete an
authorization process, to prove who they are and where they live, and
include a ``paid for by'' disclaimer on these ads. These ads are then
stored in our publicly available Ad Library, where everyone can see
information about targeting and how much was spent on them.
Unfortunately, the TTPA introduces significant, additional
obligations to our processes and systems that create an untenable level
of complexity and legal uncertainty for advertisers and platforms
operating in the EU. For example, the TTPA places extensive
restrictions on ad targeting and delivery which would restrict how
political and social issue advertisers can reach their audiences and
lead to people seeing less relevant ads on our platforms. It is yet
another threat to the principles of personalized advertising, ignoring
the benefits to advertisers and the people they want to reach.
Despite extensive engagement with policymakers to share these
concerns, we were left with an impossible choice: alter our services to
offer an advertising product which does not work for advertisers or
users, without guarantee that our solution would be viewed as
compliant, or stop allowing political, electoral and social issue ads
in the EU. We are not the only company to have been forced into this
position. Once again, we are seeing regulatory obligations effectively
remove popular products and services from the market, reducing choice
and competition.
Our decision is specific to the EU. Elsewhere, we will continue to
provide our industry-leading tools that ensure authentic and
transparent political advertising. It also will not prevent people in
the EU from continuing to debate politics on our services, or stop
politicians, candidates and political office holders from producing and
sharing political content organically. They just will not be able to
amplify this through paid advertising.
We believe that personalized ads are critical to a wide range of
advertisers, including those engaged on campaigns to inform voters
about important social issues that shape public discourse. Regulations,
like the TTPA, significantly undermine our ability to offer these
services, not only impacting effectiveness of advertisers' outreach but
also the ability of voters to access comprehensive information.
c. Please list all instances where Meta's content moderation policy
differs in a European jurisdiction from Meta's policy in the United
States and state what the policy difference is.
Answer. Please see the response to Question 1.b.
d. If a foreign jurisdiction provides Meta notice that expression
by a United States person is illegal in that jurisdiction and should be
suppressed, either through elimination, demotion, or some other means,
would Meta comply with such a notice? If it would depend on additional
facts or contexts, what facts or contexts?
i. In 2023, 2024, and 2025, how many notices that the expression of
a United States person is illegal and should be suppressed has Meta
received from a foreign jurisdiction? How many has Meta complied with?
If exact numbers are not available, provide estimates.
ii. When Meta does comply with such a notice, how often does Meta
suppress that expression only in the jurisdiction issuing that notice?
iii. If Meta does comply and suppresses that expression beyond the
jurisdiction issuing that notice, how often does Meta suppress that
expression (i) in the United States; or (ii) in other foreign
jurisdictions beyond the jurisdiction that issued that notice?
Answer. When regulators or government entities believe content on
our services goes against local law, they may ask us to restrict the
content. Non-government entities and members of the public may also
send reports alleging content is unlawful. We may also receive court
orders. While uncommon, we occasionally receive legal demands that
assert extraterritorial jurisdiction and request that we restrict the
availability of content globally. While we respect the law in countries
where we operate, we strongly oppose any extraterritorial legal demands
and actively pursue all available options to appeal such orders.
When we receive a report or an order, we first review it against
our Community Standards. If we determine that the content goes against
our policies, we remove it. If content does not go against our
policies, in line with our commitments as a member of the Global
Network Initiative and our Corporate Human Rights Policy, we conduct a
careful legal review as well as human rights due diligence to determine
whether the report is valid.
As a member of the Global Network Initiative, we are committed to
narrowly interpreting the jurisdiction of government and law
enforcement entities and to considering opportunities to push back on
or challenge requests that are overly broad or inconsistent with
internal standards.
In cases where we believe that reports are not legally valid, are
overly broad, or are inconsistent with users' rights, we may request
clarification or take no action.
Where we feel we are compelled to act against user content on the
basis of foreign law rather than our Community Standards, we endeavor
to restrict access to the content only in the jurisdiction where it is
alleged to be unlawful and do not impose any other penalties or feature
restrictions. We also notify the affected user, to the extent possible.
Where we are forced to comply with global takedown orders we will
challenge that decision both before and after the fact, and we publish
the decisions on our Transparency Center.
Question 2. On August 26, 2024, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent a
letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan stating, ``I feel
strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to
pressure from any Administration in either direction--and we're ready
to push back if something like this happens again.'' What processes,
procedures, or policies has Meta changed since it was pressured by the
Biden administration in 2021 to ensure Meta is ``ready to push back''
against government jawboning? Please be specific.
Answer. We recently implemented a series of significant changes to
our content moderation approach in the U.S. designed to bring us back
to our roots and allow for more speech.
As we said at the time of their announcement:
Ending Our Third-Party Fact-Checking Program and Moving to a
Community Notes Model. When we launched our independent fact-
checking program in 2016, we were very clear that we did not
want to be the arbiters of truth. We made what we thought was
the best and most reasonable choice at the time, which was to
hand that responsibility over to independent fact-checking
organizations. The intention of the program was to have these
independent experts give people more information about the
things they see online, particularly viral hoaxes, so they were
able to judge for themselves what they saw and read.
That is not the way things played out, especially in the United
States. Experts, like everyone else, have their own biases and
perspectives. This showed up in the choices some made about
what to fact check and how. Over time we ended up with too much
content being fact checked that people would understand to be
legitimate political speech and debate. Our system then
attached real consequences in the form of intrusive labels and
reduced distribution.
So we changed our approach and ended the third-party fact checking
program in the United States, moving to a Community Notes
program. We have seen this approach work on other platforms--
where they empower their community to decide when posts are
potentially misleading and need more context, and people across
a diverse range of perspectives decide what sort of context is
helpful for other users to see. We think this is a better way
of achieving our original intention of providing people with
information about what they're seeing.
Meta does not write Community Notes or decide which ones show up.
They are written and rated by contributing users. Community
Notes also require agreement between people with a range of
perspectives to help prevent biased ratings. We intend to be
transparent about how different viewpoints inform the Notes
displayed in our apps and are working on the right way to share
this information.
We have phased in Community Notes in the U.S. and continue to
improve them. We have stopped demoting fact-checked content,
and, instead of overlaying full screen interstitial warnings
people have to click through before they can even see a post,
we now use a much less obtrusive label indicating that there is
additional information for those who want to see it.
Allowing More Speech. We found that we were over-enforcing
our rules, limiting legitimate political debate, censoring too
much trivial content, and subjecting too many people to
frustrating enforcement actions. We want to undo the mission
creep that has made our rules too restrictive and too prone to
over-enforcement. We got rid of a number of restrictions on
topics that are the subject of frequent political discourse and
debate.
We also changed our approach to enforcement to reduce the number of
mistakes. We historically used automated systems to scan for
all policy violations, but this resulted in too many mistakes
and too much content being censored that should not have been.
So, we have continued focusing these systems on tackling
illegal and high-severity violations, like terrorism, child
sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud, and scams. For less severe
policy violations, we now rely on someone reporting an issue
before we take any action.
We also found we were demoting too much content that our systems
predicted might violate our standards. We got rid of most of
these demotions and now require greater confidence that the
content violates for the rest. Additionally, we tuned our
systems to require a much higher degree of confidence before a
piece of content is taken down.
People are often given the chance to appeal our enforcement
decisions and ask us to take another look, but the process can
be frustratingly slow and doesn't always get to the right
outcome. We added extra staff to this work and, in more cases,
we are also now requiring multiple reviewers to reach a
determination in order to take something down. We are working
on ways to make recovering accounts more straightforward and
testing facial recognition technology, and we have started
using AI large language models to provide a second opinion on
some content before we take enforcement actions.
A Personalized Approach to Political Content. Since 2021, we
have made changes to reduce the amount of civic content people
see--posts about elections, politics, or social issues--based
on the feedback our users gave us that they wanted to see less
of this content. But this was a pretty blunt approach. We
started phasing this back into Facebook, Instagram, and Threads
with a more personalized approach so that people who want to
see more political content in their feeds can.
We are also continually testing how we deliver personalized
experiences and have conducted testing around civic content. As
a result, we started treating civic content from people and
Pages users follow on Facebook more like any other content in
their feed, and we started ranking and showing people that
content based on explicit signals (for example, liking a piece
of content) and implicit signals (like viewing posts) that help
us predict what is meaningful to people. We are also
recommending more political content based on these personalized
signals and are expanding the options people have to control
how much of this content they see.
We believe these changes are having a positive impact. As reflected
in our Community Standards Enforcement Report for the first quarter of
2025, we saw a roughly 50 percent reduction in enforcement mistakes on
our platforms in the United States from the last quarter of 2024 to the
first quarter of 2025. During that same time period, the low prevalence
of violating content largely remained unchanged for most problem areas.
This improvement follows the earlier commitment we made to change our
focus to proactively enforcing high-severity violations and enhancing
our accuracy through system audits and additional signals, as described
above.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Neil Potts
Local Journalism. According to the Pew Research Center, more and
more Americans, especially young people, get their news from social
media platforms, including YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok. By design,
these platforms don't produce news themselves yet benefit greatly from
those that generate the content and news that populate their platforms.
The rise of these platforms and shifts in the advertising market
have undermined the economics of local journalism. According to the
Medill Center's annual report, we have lost more than one-third of our
newspapers since 2005 and 127 newspapers in the last year alone. And AI
is only making things worse, with studies showing significantly fewer
people clicking through to read full articles when an AI summary
appears. As more consumers turn to AI to find information, newsrooms
across the country are left producing content that's critical for our
democracy yet funneled through platforms and models outside of their
control. Now more than ever, we need to have a system that is
responsive to the fact that we need reliable information.
Question 1. Does your company have an interest in maintaining the
economic model for local journalism?
Answer. We want to serve all our users, including local
journalists, and our free platforms and low-cost advertising provide
economic benefit to news outlets. Publishers choose to post their
content on our platforms to expand their reach, gain new audiences and
increase their revenue. The links that publishers share on Facebook
drive new traffic to their own sites, and publishers keep 100 percent
of the revenue from traffic and subscriptions derived from these
outbound links from Facebook. Many local journalists have highlighted
the importance of this. These publishers typically choose to put links
on our site.
Question 2. In the era of AI, does Meta have a responsibility to
ensure that local journalism survives?
Answer. Posts with links to news are a small part of the Facebook
experience for the majority of people who use the platform. We invest
in our services to connect people to diverse sources of information
that educate and entertain them. These investments serve communities on
and off our platforms. We are proud that news publishers derive
significant value from our platforms, which are free and have tools
that derive unique value to publishers and journalists of all sizes,
helping them build sustainable business models. This is why so many
publishers voluntarily post their own content to our platforms with
links to their news stories. That engagement links directly back to the
publisher's site and generates revenue opportunities for those
publishers.
Question 3. What can we do in the era of AI to make sure that we
are instilling more competition, growing more diverse media sources,
and ensuring that quality, reliable information is produced?
Answer. AI offers an opportunity to expand access to information
and help ensure a vibrant, diverse information ecosystem. AI is poised
to drive innovation, enhance human productivity, and inject trillions
of dollars into the global economy.
One example is open-source AI models, like Llama, which empower
organizations to use and build upon them for free. Open-source AI
models allow businesses of all sizes, including news organizations, to
create innovative new products and tools that benefit individuals,
society and the economy--saving time and money in the process. The
Washington Post, for example, launched ``Ask The Post,'' an AI tool
built with Llama that helps users find answers from its published
reporting, in an effort to democratize access to information and meet
audiences where they are. Readers can ask the chatbot questions and
receive factual responses based on information from The Washington
Post's article archives dating back to 2016. ``Ask The Post'' responds
in the newspaper's voice and links to source articles, helping to
ensure transparency and accountability. The Washington Post was able to
do this without the limitations and cost restrictions of other
proprietary models.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Cruz to
Will Creeley
Question 1. Does the First Amendment protect the information
Americans are permitted to receive and not just the content they can
express?
Answer. Yes, the First Amendment protects our right to receive
information. In decisions dating back decades, the Supreme Court of the
United States has consistently recognized that the same First Amendment
freedom that protects our right to share an idea ``necessarily protects
the right to receive it.'' Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143
(1943); see also Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 534 (1945) (striking
down statutory restriction on labor leader's speech as violative of
both his ``right to speak and the rights of the workers to hear what he
had to say''); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) (``It is
now well established that the Constitution protects the right to
receive information and ideas.''); Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va.
Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 756 (1976) (First Amendment
protects a speaker's ``communication, to its source and to its
recipients both.''). As Justice Brennan put it: ``The dissemination of
ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not
free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of
ideas that had only sellers and no buyers.'' Lamont v. Postmaster Gen.,
381 U.S. 301, 308 (1965) (Brennan, J., concurring). The bottom line is
that the First Amendment generally prohibits government restrictions on
willing speakers reaching willing listeners, or interference with what
speakers choose to say.
But while the First Amendment bars the government from interfering
with our right to receive information, when a private entity hosts
speech--as with newspaper opinion pages, for example, or social media
posts--that platform possesses its own First Amendment right to decide
for itself what content it makes available, and the government may not
compel it to choose otherwise. That's why the Supreme Court has
consistently ``barred the government from forcing a private speaker to
present views it wished to spurn in order to rejigger the expressive
realm.'' Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 727-733 (2024)
(reviewing cases). ``However imperfect the private marketplace of
ideas,'' the First Amendment prohibits the ``worse proposal--the
government itself deciding when speech was imbalanced, and then
coercing speakers to provide more of some views or less of others.''
Id. at 733.
Question 2. When, if ever, does the First Amendment apply within
the context of artificial intelligence?
Answer. Always, potentially. Artificial intelligence generally
involves and/or operates through expression. And as with any other
technology, when artificial intelligence is used for expressive
purposes, the First Amendment applies. People, not the tools we use to
communicate, possess First Amendment rights--and artificial
intelligence is a new tool, one with potentially powerful ramifications
for our ability to generate and exchange information and ideas.
Technological advances in how we communicate with one another do
not alter or diminish the First Amendment's protection against
government censorship. When Americans use artificial intelligence to
invite, facilitate, and/or produce expression, the First Amendment
applies just as it does when we share ideas and information via the
printed page, radio, television, telephone, or internet. The First
Amendment's protection remains constant, as Justice Scalia recognized
in a case about the constitutional implications of government
restrictions on video games: ``[W]hatever the challenges of applying
the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, `the basic principles of
freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment's command, do
not vary' when a new and different medium for communication appears.''
Brown v. Entm't Merchs. Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786, 790 (2011) (quoting Joseph
Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 503 (1952)). Accordingly, using
artificial intelligence to create, disseminate, and receive information
is protected by the First Amendment.
Question 3. What are the First Amendment and free speech
implications of government attempts to alter content generated by
artificial intelligence to address alleged ``bias'' or to pressure
artificial intelligence companies to set up processes to moderate or
eliminate alleged ``disinformation,'' as well as ``offensive'' or
``objectionable'' content? Do such efforts run afoul of the First
Amendment? How?
Answer. Each of these efforts would violate well-established
Supreme Court precedent and rob Americans of the right to engage in
open discourse free from government censorship. The First Amendment
prohibits the government from defining and prohibiting ``bias'' or
``disinformation,'' or ``offensive'' or ``objectionable'' speech,
because any such restriction would require the government to dictate
answers to inherently subjective determinations. Because ``one man's
vulgarity is another's lyric,'' our First Amendment jurisprudence
rightfully recognizes ``governmental officials cannot make principled
distinctions'' between the two. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25
(1971). Instead, the First Amendment requires that these subjective
determinations be left where they belong: with the individual.
The First Amendment bars the government from altering or
restricting private speech--including expressive content generated by
artificial intelligence--to suppress ``biased'' viewpoints. ``On the
spectrum of dangers to free expression, there are few greater than
allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order
to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana.''
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 741-42 (2024). That's
because any such effort would violate the First Amendment in several
fundamental respects. Perhaps most predominantly, the First Amendment
prohibits viewpoint discrimination. ``It is axiomatic that the
government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or
the message it conveys,'' Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ.
of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995), because allowing the state to favor
some views while restricting others would render freedom of expression
illusory. The Founders understood the First Amendment to bar precisely
this form of state repression. In our system, as James Madison
articulated, ``the censorial power is in the people over the
government, and not in the government over the people.'' 4 Annals of
Cong. 934 (1794).
A government-imposed burden or ban on ``biased'' expression
generated by artificial intelligence would also be impermissibly vague,
thus violating both the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's Due
Process clause. Because determinations of bias are necessarily
subjective, a restriction on biased expression would fail to afford
``fair warning'' to artificial intelligence's developers, distributors,
and users, depriving them of the notice due process requires and
allowing for ``arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.'' Grayned v.
City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09 (1972).
Vagueness is particularly problematic in the First Amendment
context, because ``[u]ncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to
`steer far wider of the unlawful zone' . . . than if the boundaries of
the forbidden areas were clearly marked.' '' Id. To prevent that
chilling effect, laws and regulations that may impact speech protected
by the First Amendment ``demands a greater degree of specificity than
in other contexts.'' Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 573 (1974). Our
Bill of Rights ``requires the invalidation of laws that are
impermissibly vague''--and because a broad ban on ``bias'' would be
``so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously
discriminatory enforcement,'' it would be unconstitutional. FCC v. Fox
Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012) (citing United
States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 306 (2008)).
Government attempts to ``pressure artificial intelligence companies
to set up processes to moderate or eliminate alleged `disinformation,'
as well as `offensive' or `objectionable' content'' would fare no
better. Like a ban on ``bias,'' these operative terms--
``disinformation,'' or ``offensive'' or ``objectionable''--are both
viewpoint discriminatory and inherently subjective, and thus fail to
pass constitutional muster. Further, the government cannot require
private companies to moderate speech in a particular way. Moody, 603
U.S. at 734 (``The government may not, in supposed pursuit of better
expressive balance, alter a private speaker's own editorial choices
about the mix of speech it wants to convey.'').
These restrictions on government regulation of speech apply
regardless of whether the regulation comes via a formal edict or
informal coercion. Compounding the constitutional problem, the
government cannot ``pressure'' or coerce private companies to censor
speech; as noted in my opening testimony, indirect or informal attempts
to censor speech in this way violate the First Amendment as surely as
direct censorship. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed just last year: ``A
government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress
disfavored speech on her behalf.'' NRA of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175,
190 (2024).
Our jurisprudence recognizes that speech is ``powerful''--that it
``can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow,
and . . . inflict great pain.'' Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 460-61
(2011). The temptation to regulate that power in an attempt to prevent
that pain is evergreen. But ``[a]s a Nation we have chosen a different
course--to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that
we do not stifle public debate.'' Id. No matter how well-intentioned,
any governmental effort to restrict ``hurtful speech''--here,
restrictions on content generated by artificial intelligence--would
ultimately erode our ability to decide for ourselves what is good and
true to ``permit the continued building of our politics and culture,
and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual.'' Police Dep't of
Chi. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95-96 (1972).
Question 4. What should I keep in mind as I craft legislation to
ensure that Americans are fully protected against government efforts to
decide or limit what they can read, particularly in the context of
artificial intelligence?
Answer. We must defend our First Amendment right to use artificial
intelligence to freely express ourselves--and that defense becomes all
the more essential if it does, in fact, revolutionize our ability to
communicate with each other and to generate and share knowledge. To
that end, FIRE urges lawmakers to remember two central points as they
consider legislation regarding artificial intelligence.
(1) Artificial intelligence is in its infancy. We are just beginning
to understand its possibilities. So imposing broadly
prophylactic laws or regulations now to restrict its
development and expressive uses risks foreclosing potentially
invaluable applications. To the extent that artificial
intelligence creates particular policy problems in time,
legislators and regulators may act within the bounds of the
Constitution to address them. But preemptory action driven by
fear about how the technology may impact us will impede
innovation. The immense power of the Internet to democratize
speech was unleashed in large part because Congress acted
quickly to prevent it from being stifled by frivolous
litigation or censorial regulations early in its development.
We should remember that lesson now.
(2) Some policymakers fear the use of artificial intelligence will
result in a variety of social harms--facilitating
discrimination in contexts like medical care, employment, or
housing, for example, or generating ``deepfakes'' so lifelike
as to cause social and political consequences. It is true that
artificial intelligence can be wielded, like any tool, to
antisocial and unlawful ends. But it is also true that existing
law already prohibits and provides legal redress for the vast
majority of the misconduct driving legislators' concerns. We do
not enact a new First Amendment to accompany each new
technology. We should not enact new civil and criminal codes,
either.
And because artificial intelligence companies are just as
susceptible to coercive governmental pressure as social media
platforms, both legislators and the public should be vigilant against
policymakers and regulators jawboning developers into changing models'
outputs to accord with their political or ideological preferences.
Pressure campaigns are already underway.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Press Release, Off. of Att'y Gen. of Mo., Attorney
General Bailey Fights To Expose Big Tech Censorship of President Trump
as AI Chatbots Produce Fake News (July 9, 2025), https://ago.mo.gov/
attorney-general-bailey-fights-to-expose-big-tech-censorship-of-
president-trump-as-ai-chatbots-produce-fake-news (``Today, Missouri
Attorney General Andrew Bailey sent a formal demand letter to Google,
Microsoft, OpenAI, and Meta regarding biased and factually inaccurate
responses produced by the companies' artificial intelligence
chatbots.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Will Creeley
Platform Settlements. President Trump sued the two social media
platforms testifying at this hearing because they removed him from
their platforms after the January 6th insurrection.
Despite the fact that legal experts called these lawsuits
meritless, both Meta and Google settled their lawsuits this year, once
President Trump was back in office.
Question 1. Mr. Creeley, you have called this strategy of suing
media companies ``dictatorial.'' Can you explain why the President is
``dictatorial'' when he sues media organizations over their editorial
decisions?
Answer. Dictators abuse power to silence dissent, control the
narrative, and coerce targets into both immediate and anticipatory
obedience. They ignore or abolish legal limits on their authority. By
flouting longstanding First Amendment precedent to file legally
baseless lawsuits, then abusing his authority to pressure them into
settlements, President Trump is checking those boxes.
Filing as a private citizen, Trump's 2021 suits against Meta and
Google alleged that the companies violated his First Amendment rights
by barring him from their platforms and removing his content. Trump
argued Meta and Google were ``state actors'' based on their
interactions with the government, but his filings relied on erroneous
understandings of the law. More centrally, the First Amendment protects
private entities' exercise of editorial discretion, including the
decisions of private companies like Meta and Google to moderate content
on their sites. This is blackletter First Amendment law, reaffirmed by
the Supreme Court just last year. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707
(2024). The Court has ``time and again held'' that attempts to ``alter
[speakers'] choices about the views they will, and will not, convey . .
. interfere with protected speech.'' Id. at 737-38. So legal
commentators correctly described the lawsuits as baseless, as did
Google and Meta themselves.
After Trump won re-election, however, the lawsuits' lack of legal
merit apparently became less consequential. Rather than continue to
contest now-President Trump's claims and risk his ire, the companies
settled--as have other media entities, private universities, and law
firms. In each instance, the determinative calculations appear to have
focused more on political and financial consequences rather than legal
merit, given the strength of the First Amendment arguments available to
each targeted entity against President Trump's plain abuses of
power.\2\ These transactional capitulations are a result of the fear
engendered by the president's demonstrated willingness to abuse the
power of his office and those of his political appointees to punish
people and entities whose speech he opposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., Angel Eduardo, Why YouTube caving to Trump is
cowardly, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Oct. 2,
2025) (``What makes all this worse is that the lawsuits are based on
obviously meritless claims that would never withstand scrutiny if they
actually went to court.'').
Trump Media Lawsuits. In addition to his actions against the
platforms, President Trump has filed a series of lawsuits against media
organizations. These include a lawsuit against CBS for editing a 60
Minutes interview with his opponent in the 2024 election, Vice
President Harris; a lawsuit against the New York Times for defamation
based on reporting about his time hosting The Apprentice; and even a
lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and its pollster Ann Selzer for
publishing a poll showing him losing Iowa in 2024. While some media
companies have fought these lawsuits, others have settled with the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President.
Question 1. Mr. Creeley, what is the effect of these lawsuits on
the free press?
Answer. President Trump's lawsuits are a cynical effort to chill
critical coverage by bullying media outlets into silence. The
president's suits flatly ignore our ``profound national commitment to
the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust, and wide-open.'' N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270
(1964). Instead, they aim to impose prohibitive costs on media outlets
that dare to publish and broadcast news and views the president doesn't
like.
The suits rely on bizarre legal theories that would be laughable
were they not so dangerous. For example, the president's lawsuit
against our client, the pollster J. Ann Selzer, claims that her poll
constituted ``fraud'' under state law. But as my colleagues have
explained at length in our filings, the president's argument has no
support in law. Selzer's poll was entirely protected by the First
Amendment; getting a prediction wrong doesn't render a poll ``fraud.''
Earlier this month, a Federal court agreed, dismissing with prejudice a
copycat lawsuit filed by a Des Moines Register subscriber that closely
tracked the president's claims. Donnelly v. Des Moines Register & Trib.
Co., No. 4:25-cv-00150-RGE-WPK (S.D. Iowa Nov. 6, 2025) (order granting
defendants' motions to dismiss). As the court explained, ``there is no
free pass around the First Amendment.'' Id. at *6.
Lawsuits like the one against Selzer are classic examples of
``SLAPPs'': strategic lawsuits against public participation, designed
to chill speech and punish speakers through costly litigation. That
these suits are without merit is beside the point; forcing opponents
into lengthy court battles is the goal. To prevent vexatious SLAPP
litigants from silencing speech, 38 states (and the District of
Columbia) to date have enacted legislation allowing for early dismissal
of meritless suits.
But unlike a typical plaintiff, the President's suits present a
uniquely pernicious threat because of the power of his office--and his
willingness to abuse it to silence speech. The president has brazenly
sought to leverage the power of Federal regulatory agencies to force
favorable resolutions of his lawsuits against media outlets.
Take President Trump's lawsuit against CBS, for example. As in his
suit against Selzer, the President baselessly alleged protected
journalism--here, CBS' routine edits of a 60 Minutes interview with
Vice President Kamala Harris--is somehow consumer fraud. It isn't. But
Federal Communication Commission Chairman Brendan Carr exerted
regulatory pressure on CBS, reinstating a previously dismissed
investigation of the network for alleged ``news distortion'' and
stalling approval of a proposed merger between CBS corporate parent
Paramount Global and Skydance Media.
As my colleagues and I pointed out in FIRE's public comment to the
agency, Carr's pressure campaign constituted jawboning in broad
daylight:
The purpose and timing of this inquiry are both obvious and
unjustifiable. Launching a politically fraught investigation
based on such a paper-thin complaint in these circumstances is
alone a compelling example of regulatory abuse. But to
resurrect the flimsy complaint after it was fully and properly
interred by staff dismissal, and to do so in support of the
President's private litigation position, is all but a signed
confession of unconstitutional jawboning. The Commission can
begin to recover some dignity only by dropping the matter
immediately.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A copy of our comment was included with my written testimony
and is available online at https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/
2025/03/FIRE%20Comments%20on%20FCC%20
News%20Distortion%20Complaint.pdf.
And the agency's narrow, tightly cabined ``news distortion''
doctrine does not and cannot overcome the First Amendment's bar against
the FCC or its Chairman exerting power over a broadcaster's editorial
decisions.
Nevertheless, CBS settled for $16 million, and the FCC approved the
merger--complete with a new ``ombudsman,'' Kenneth Weinstein,
previously President Trump's nominee for ambassador to Japan. According
to Carr, Weinstein's job will include ensuring CBS airs of ``a
diversity of viewpoints from across the political and ideological
spectrum'' in its programming.\4\ A range of views may or may not make
for compelling television. But that must be the choice of the
broadcaster, not the government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ David Folkenflik, CBS shifts to appease the right under new
owner, NPR (Sept. 12, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/09/12/nx-s1-
5537152/cbs-news-ellison-steps-appease-trump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The full impact of the President's litigation isn't easy to assess.
It's hard to count stories that have been spiked, broadcasts that never
made the air, and assignments that have been revoked. But it is plain
that the President's willingness to abuse both the legal system, by
filing meritless lawsuits against media outlets, and the power of his
office, by invoking regulatory authority to pressure outlets to bow to
his political worldview, has made publishing and broadcasting views he
doesn't like far riskier. That makes our free press less so, and we all
suffer as a result.
FCC Censorship. There has been a lot of attention--and rightly so--
on FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's threats to knock Jimmy Kimmel off the
air. But Carr's censorship of Kimmel is just one in a series of attacks
on the First Amendment. Although the FCC is supposed to be independent,
under Brendan Carr, the agency has become the President's speech
police.
Since taking over the FCC, Carr has reopened frivolous inquiries
into CBS, NBC, and ABC about their coverage of the 2024 election;
launched investigations into NPR and PBS stations; and publicly
threatened broadcast TV and radio stations based on the content of
their coverage of immigration issues.
Question 1. Mr. Creeley, does the FCC have authority to dictate
coverage decisions to journalists?
Answer. Absolutely not. Per the First Amendment, Federal law, and
longstanding precedent, the FCC has no business dictating the editorial
choices of media outlets.
The Communications Act is clear: The FCC cannot exercise ``the
power of censorship,'' nor impose any ``regulation or condition . . .
which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio
communication.'' 47 U.S.C. Sec. 326. For more than fifty years, the
Commission understood that it ``is not the national arbiter of the
truth.'' Complaints Covering CBS Program ``Hunger in America,'' 20
F.C.C.2d 143, 151 (1969). Likewise, the Supreme Court has rejected as
unconstitutional FCC action that risks the ``substantial abridgment of
important journalistic freedoms which the First Amendment jealously
protects.'' FCC v League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 402
(1984).
In the United States, `` `editorial control and judgment,' not
official decree,'' determine a broadcast's ``choice of material.''
Miami Herald Pub. Co., Div. of Knight Newspapers, Inc. v. Tornillo, 418
U.S. 241, 258 (1974). Government actors cannot dictate to journalists,
editors, or broadcasters what to say or air; ``any such a compulsion to
publish that which `reason' tells them should not be published is
unconstitutional.'' Id. (citation and internal quotation omitted).
As a Commissioner, before taking the reins of the agency, Chairman
Carr once understood that ``[a] newsroom's decision about what stories
to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any
government official, not targeted by them.'' \5\ FIRE will continue to
remind him of what he has since forgotten.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Press Release, FCC, FCC Commissioner Carr Responds to
Democrats' Efforts to Censor Newsrooms (Feb. 22, 2021), https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-370165A1.pdf.
Attacks on the First Amendment. Congress created the Federal Trade
Commission to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices and
ensure a competitive free market. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson,
however, has been using the FTC's authority to bully social media
platforms into changing their content moderation decisions to favor
conservative content and force companies to advertise on Elon Musk's X
platform.
This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized that
social media platforms have First Amendment rights to ``select and
shape other parties' expression into their own curated speech
products.''
Question 1. Mr. Creeley, is Chairman Ferguson's campaign consistent
with the First Amendment?
Answer. No. The First Amendment protects the editorial decisions of
social media companies just as it protects the editorial decisions of
newspapers or broadcasters. ``The principle does not change because the
curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world. In
the latter, as in the former, government efforts to alter an edited
compilation of third-party expression are subject to judicial review
for compliance with the First Amendment.'' Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603
U.S. 707, 717 (2024). And the First Amendment protects social media
companies and other private entities from all governmental efforts to
restrict their expressive rights, whether the threat comes from state
or Federal law, as in Moody, or via pressure from agency action. See,
e.g., NRA of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024) (director of state
regulatory agency likely violated First Amendment by pressuring
regulated entities to end providing services to National Rifle
Association because of its advocacy).
Relatedly, FIRE has opposed Chairman Ferguson's use of sweeping
civil investigative demands to retaliate against Media Matters for
America's research and reporting about X Corp. and Elon Musk. See Br.
Amici Curiae FIRE Supp. Plaintiff-Appellee, Media Matters for Am. v.
FTC, No. 25-5302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2025). Last month, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the
Commission's motion to stay a Federal district court's preliminary
injunction against the investigative demands, noting among other
factors Chairman Ferguson's statements regarding his desire to
investigate Media Matters for its viewpoints. Media Matters for Am. v.
FTC, No. 25-5302, at *21 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2025).
Press Walkout from Pentagon. Earlier this month, dozens of
journalists--including those from conservative outlets like Fox News
and Newsmax--turned in their press badges and walked out of the
Pentagon rather than agree to a new policy that gave the Defense
Department the ability to control the information they solicit or
obtain. Last week, the Pentagon announced a new group of media outlets
that agreed to its unprecedented restrictions on reporting.
Question 1. Mr. Creeley, is the Pentagon's new press policy
consistent with the First Amendment?
Answer. No. The Pentagon's new press policy runs afoul of the First
Amendment. The refusal of news organizations to submit to the policy is
justified and commendable.
Courts have long recognized that ``a major purpose of that
Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.''
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966). The Founders thus
``specifically selected the press'' for constitutional protection as
``a powerful antidote to any abuses of power by governmental officials
and as a constitutionally chosen means for keeping officials elected by
the people responsible to all the people whom they were selected to
serve.'' Id. at 219. But the Pentagon's new press policy contains vague
restrictions that infringe upon these long-established First Amendment
principles.
Perhaps most troublingly, the policy attempts to draw a distinction
between ``lawfully requesting information from the government and
actively soliciting or encouraging government employees to break the
law,'' contending that ``[t]he First Amendment does not permit
journalists to solicit government employees to violate the law by
providing confidential government information.'' But that contention
has no support in the law. ``The right of citizens to inquire, to hear,
to speak, and to use information'' is protected by the First Amendment.
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 339, 349 (2010). That includes
newsgathering. The press possesses an ``undoubted right to gather news
`from any source by means within the law.' '' Houchins v. KQED, Inc.,
438 U.S. 1, 11 (1978) (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681-82
(1972)). And the First Amendment protects reporters who gain
information from officials ``simply by asking.'' Smith v. Daily Mail
Publ'g Co., 443 U.S. 97, 99, 103-04 (1979).
The policy also presents a practical problem. When reporters
exercise their First Amendment right to ask questions of government
officials, they don't determine the answers they may receive. By
targeting reporters, instead of government officials who may provide
confidential information, the policy misplaces the burden and restricts
protected expressive activity. The policy's vague terms also empower
the government to punish reporters simply for doing their job: asking
questions.
Brendan Carr Jawboning: Senator Cruz's memo laments that the Biden
administration had tried to ``shut down the speech of Americans with
whom it disagreed.'' Most recently, Chairman Carr threatened ABC
affiliate broadcast licenses over remarks Jimmy Kimmel made on the air.
Question 1. Is Chairman Carr trying to ``shut down the speech of
Americans with whom [he] disagree[s]'' and does it matter, for purposes
of the First Amendment, if Jimmy Kimmel's speech was offensive?
Question 2. Does it matter, for purposes of the First Amendment, if
Jimmy Kimmel's speech was offensive? Does it matter, for purposes of
the First Amendment, that Jimmy Kimmel's show is not pure news, but
also has a comedy component?
Answers. Yes, Chairman Carr was trying to shut down the speech of
Americans with who he disagrees, if we take him at his word. Chairman
Carr has been clear about targeting broadcasters and programming,
including Kimmel and Disney, because of his disagreement with the views
they express. After Kimmel's monologue on Charlie Kirk's alleged
assassin, for example, Carr said the comments created a ``very, very
serious issue right now for Disney.'' And just this week, Chairman Carr
reposted President Trump's call for NBC to fire late night host Seth
Meyers because, in the President's words, he ``is suffering from an
incurable case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.'' \6\ But
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC), X (Nov. 15, 2025, 7:28 PM),
https://x.com/Brendan
CarrFCC/status/1989853016174866891?s=20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And no, it does not matter if some, many, most, or even all
Americans found Kimmel's speech offensive. The First Amendment protects
offensive speech and prohibits the government from discriminating on
the basis of viewpoint. ``Giving offense is a viewpoint. The `public
expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are
themselves offensive to some of their hearers.' '' Matal v. Tam, 582
U.S. 218, 220 (2017) (quoting Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592
(1969).
Nor does it matter, from a First Amendment standpoint, that
Kimmel's show mixes comedy and news. Whether a show features comedy,
news, or a blend of both, the First Amendment bars the FCC from
supplanting the broadcaster's editorial judgments with its own. Turner
Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 650 (1994) (``The FCC is forbidden by
statute from engaging in `censorship' or from promulgating any
regulation `which shall interfere with the [broadcasters'] right of
free speech.' '') (quoting 47 U.S.C. Sec. 326). See also Network
Coverage of the Democratic Nat'l Convention, 16 F.C.C.2d 650, 657-58
(1969) (reaffirming the agency's ``general rule . . . that we do not
sit to review the broadcaster's news judgment, the quality of his news
and public affairs reporting, or his taste.'').
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Harold Feld
Local News and Media Consolidation. Americans rely on local news to
understand what's going on in their communities. According to the Pew
Research Center, nearly three-quarters of Americans trust their local
newspapers and broadcasters. But local news faces serious headwinds.
Recently, the Medill Center reported that 50 million Americans have no
access to local news, a new high.
The advertising-supported model of local newspapers and local
broadcast has declined, with an increasing share of revenue going to
tech platforms rather than news organizations. And AI models rely on
the legwork of journalists without fair compensation, going to the
newsrooms and reporters who put in the work.
There has been a wave of consolidation in the media, ranging from
broadcast affiliates to newspapers. And for many Americans, most of
their news comes through social media algorithms, giving the owners of
these platforms inescapable influence over what we see and read.
Question 1. What policies should we consider to ensure the media
and platforms serve individuals and support a democratic society,
rather than undermine it?
Answer. Congress and the Supreme Court have long recognized that a
democratic society cannot exist without a vibrant fourth estate where
people have access to news from the ``widest possible dissemination of
information from diverse and antagonistic sources.'' \1\ Accordingly,
policies should not simply resist further consolidation or ensure the
survival of existing news creators. Congress should affirmatively
facilitate new, independent sources of news that can take full
advantage of a multitude of platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945). See
also Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 194 (1997)
(``Federal policy, however, has long favored preserving a multiplicity
of broadcast outlets regardless of whether the conduct that threatens
it is motivated by anticompetitive animus or rises to the level of an
antitrust violation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, however, it is important to distinguish between ``media''
and ``platforms.'' Media--particularly legacy media such as newspapers
and broadcast licensees, but also including digital news creators--are
one-to-many outlets that engage in original reporting and distil news
into a form understandable by the public. Platforms are a means of
distributing content that do not themselves produce the content.
Platforms can enable not only distribution of the work of journalists,
but can enable robust discussion among the public--and preserve events
that become the basis for reporters and serious journalists. At the
same time, platforms can exercise unseen influence on how people see
and encounter important news content. They can favor some sources of
news or particular viewpoints without disclosing this bias. Platforms
can provide an important income stream for reporting, but can also have
negative impacts on income for journalists through demonitization and
interfering with the relationship between advertisers and reporters (or
the media that supports reporting, such as newspapers). This is
particularly problematic with AI tools that provide a summary of news
content developed by reporters and journalists.
While platforms have a First Amendment right to curate the content
on their platforms. It is critical that Congress act to ensure that
actual reporting by multiple and genuinely diverse and antagonistic
outlets (that is to say, outlets in actual competition with each and
therefore providing different perspectives, and with incentive to
invest in reporting to ``scoop'' each other) is widespread and
vigorous. As the Supreme Court has said, there is ``a governmental
purpose of the highest order in ensuring public access to a
multiplicity of information sources.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. at 190
(cleaned up).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should therefore adopt policies that promote competition
between independent and diverse media sources, while at the same time
ensuring adequate funding for reporting at the local, national and
international level. At the same time, we must facilitate competition
among platforms and make it easy for journalists to use a multitude of
platforms to reach their audience. Finally, Congress must make sure
that actual reporting remains economically sustainable.
For example, with regard to competition among media outlets,
Congress should make clear that the FCC has no authority to raise the
existing national audience reach of 39 percent, and should eliminate
the ``UHF loophole'' that counts UHF stations at only 50 percent of
their audience reach. Congress should also consider cross-ownership
limitations that would prevent a single owner, or a small group of
owners, from controlling both the productions and dissemination of news
through broadcasters and then use control over platforms to favor its
own viewpoint and disadvantage rivals.
Similarly, Congress should pass legislation designed to (a) prevent
large platforms from monopolizing either journalists or advertisers;
and (b) foster the development of new platforms with different content
curation policies and competing algorithms. For example, requiring
portability so that a news provider can take its audience to a rival
platform (or easily replicate the same content on a rival platform),
and prohibiting policies that demonitize news providers for using
competitors, would allow news creators and distributors to maximize
their revenue streams.
Question 2. How can we level the playing field for independent
local journalism against mammoth tech platforms?
Answer. Congress can take several affirmative steps, but should
avoid other proposals that would actually harm the production of news
from diverse and antagonistic sources. Public Knowledge has made
several specific proposals to enhance antitrust enforcement which would
directly address the ability of platforms to exercise market power in
ways detrimental to local journalism (including making local
journalists unduly dependent or support on referrals by dominant
platforms). Additionally, Public knowledge has recommended using grant
programs to support local journalism (with adequate safeguards to
protect journalistic independence).\3\ To briefly summarize the most
important elements of our proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Lisa Macpherson and Morgan Wilsmann, ``A Policy Primer for
Free Expression and Content Moderation, Part II: Empowering User
Choice,'' Public Knowledge (December 9, 2024). https://
publicknowledge.org/empowering-user-choice/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local news grants
Direct Federal support through local news grants
recognizes that local journalism provides public goods that
markets alone won't adequately support, particularly in
smaller communities where advertising revenue has never
been sufficient to sustain robust coverage. A superfund
model using fees collected from platforms benefiting from
news content, as a percentage of total users or some other
mechanism, offers a potential funding mechanism. By
collecting fees from digital platforms that profit from
news distribution and using those resources to support
local journalism broadly, this approach channels money back
toward news production without the government making
content-based decisions about which outlets deserve
support.
Interoperability
If journalists and news organizations could take their
audiences with them when platforms no longer serve them
well, platforms would face real competitive pressure to
treat publishers fairly. Currently, a journalist who builds
a following on a platform is locked in because leaving
means abandoning that audience. Interoperability and data
portability would let journalists maintain connections to
audiences across platforms, dramatically reducing platform
leverage.
Enhance traditional antitrust remedies, creating multiple
platforms and diminishing the importance of any individual
platform to journalists generally.
As we have seen in recent antitrust cases against Meta
and Google, traditional antitrust remedies are not
sufficient to address the market power of the largest
platform. Congress should consider legislation that would
make it easier for stakeholders to bring antitrust lawsuits
directly, and require structural remedies that would
address the market power of dominant platforms.
Media Concentration. In today's media landscape, consumers are
transfixed by their screens, whether by TV or mobile phone, to access a
wide array of content, including news and entertainment. Yet ownership
of the platforms that deliver that content is becoming increasingly
concentrated in the hands of a few.
President Trump has said that the same family which already
controls Paramount, CBS, and Skydance will lead the new ownership group
for TikTok. Recent reports suggest that the same family is also seeking
to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery--with the backing of the Trump
administration.
Question 1. How might these deals and other media mergers--which
require the President's sign-off or his administration's approval--
reshape our media and political landscape?
Answer. This raises tremendous concern over the ability of
Americans to access genuinely diverse and antagonistic sources of
information. The level of concentration spanning virtually every
information and entertainment platform on its own would create a threat
to democracy as the market power and financial interests of a single
family places too much power to control the availability of news,
access to real-time information, and influence through one of the
largest and most popular social media platforms. The explicit
machinations of the President of the United States, through secret
dealings with regard to TikTok, and with public statements designed to
manipulate the bidding process over Warner Brothers Discovery (coupled
with the very real examples of how the President has used merger review
to extract control mechanisms over news, advertising and other content)
make explicit that the President expects his supporters at Skydance to
actively serve as a combination of censor and propagandist for himself
and his political allies.
Question 2. How does increased media concentration affect the
economics of local, independent journalism?
Answer. Acquisitions of local news outlets--whether local
newspapers, local television stations, or local radio stations--have
undermined the viability of local, independent journalism until it has
become almost extinct. Whether hedge funds or publicly traded
companies, these acquirers finance their unending acquisition sprees by
accumulating ever greater debt. This, combined with the desire of these
``absentee landlords'' to maximize profit regardless of the welfare of
the local community, means layoffs of reporters and news crews in the
name of ``synergies.'' Fewer reporters are expected to cover news for
an increasing number of outlets. Local newsrooms of broadcast
affiliates are reduced or eliminated entirely. These are often replaced
with national ``must carry'' segments that reflect the political views
of the large corporate owners rather than focusing on local issues.
Actual reporting, which requires investment of resources and skilled
journalists, is replaced with syndicated entertainment or opinion
pieces that make no effort at journalistic practices.
In the worst cases, particularly with local newspapers, these giant
corporate owners will simply shut down local newspapers rather than
spend the money to maintain them. Broadcast news may be entirely
replaced with cheap, syndicated entertainment programming. This has led
to the creation of ``news deserts,'' where local communities lack any
local reporting.
Question 3. Is the administration following the requirement that
Congress set out in the law to divest TikTok and its algorithm from
Chinese control?
Answer. While it is clear that there have been violations of the
law, the extent to which the President has violated the Protecting
Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA)
is impossible to fully determine because the President has neither
briefed the public or Congress on the full details of the divestiture
to ensure that the terms of the divestiture comply with the
requirements of the Act. Even given what information is available,
numerous parties have expressed concern that the leasing agreement with
China for the algorithm, and ByteDance's continuing stake in the
company, do not provide the necessary independence from Chinese control
to satisfy the requirements of PAFACA, despite the President's
certification.
There are two clear violations of PAFACA:
PAFACA allotted just one 90 day extension to the president,
if the president could show considerable progress was being
made toward a divestiture deal. President Trump has issued
multiple executive orders claiming to delay enforcement for 75-
day periods without meeting the statutory requirements for the
90-day extension. The statute provides no authority for these
discretionary enforcement delays that aren't tied to
divestiture progress.
While the divestiture deal is being discussed, TikTok
remained operating (apart from a short black-out stint), with
the executive failing to uphold the law by refusing to enforce
the provisions of PAFACA.
Finally, while not an express violation of PAFACA, it was never the
intent of Congress to allow the President to structure a deal behind
closed doors to give control to his personal supporters.
Platform Settlements. President Trump sued the two social media
platforms testifying at this hearing because they removed him from
their platforms after the January 6th insurrection.
Despite the fact that legal experts called these lawsuits
meritless, both Meta and Google settled their lawsuits this year, once
President Trump was back in office.
Question 1. Mr. Feld, how do you think the lawsuits and settlements
by Meta and Google affect what we see and hear on their platforms?
Answer. Meta and Google settled lawsuits concerning deplatforming
Donald Trump after the President violated platform content policies--a
perfectly legal action well within Meta and Google's rights. In fact,
deciding what content and who can use their platforms is precisely
first amendment protected. Nevertheless, through the act of settling,
these platforms have made it clear that they are more than willing to
amend their content policies to appease whichever party is in power to
avoid regulatory scrutiny. We saw at the beginning of President Trump's
second term in January 2025, when Meta announced it changed content
moderation policies to ``promote free expression,'' by being more
permissive of contentious topics around gender identity and
immigration--opening the door wider to harassment of marginalized
users. It also eliminated fact-checking, which President Trump and his
allies believed is akin to censorship, despite fact-checking simply
providing more speech to content. What results is a platform with more
hate speech and toxic content, with fewer tools to address intentional
falsehoods.
FCC Censorship. There has been a lot of attention--and rightly so--
on FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's threats to knock Jimmy Kimmel off the
air. But Carr's censorship of Kimmel is just one in a series of attacks
on the First Amendment. Although the FCC is supposed to be independent,
under Brendan Carr, the agency has become the President's speech
police.
Since taking over the FCC, Carr has reopened frivolous inquiries
into CBS, NBC, and ABC about their coverage of the 2024 election;
launched investigations into NPR and PBS stations; and publicly
threatened broadcast TV and radio stations based on the content of
their coverage of immigration issues.
Question 1. Mr. Feld, is Chairman Carr's behavior consistent with
the FCC's mandate to be independent of the White House?
Answer. No. Chairman Carr himself has characterized his role as
being part of the President's agenda to remake the media by eliminating
``DEI,'' and otherwise conforming media content to reflect the
President's priorities. Chairman Carr has repeatedly echoed President
Trump's social media posts on what media programming should be banned,
and has echoed the President's complaints that public media and certain
network programming are ``propaganda'' for the Democratic Party or
unduly negative to President Trump.
Question 2. Do you think that these investigations could be
considered jawboning?
Answer. Absolutely. The combination of investigations with public
statements by both the President and Chairman Carr that make it clear
the investigations are retaliation for content and coverage they don't
like is classic jawboning.
Question 3. Does the First Amendment protect a broadcaster's
ability to decide what they do or don't cover, and how they cover it?
Answer. The First Amendment directly protects the ability of a
broadcaster to decide what they cover and how they cover it. See FCC v.
League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364 (1984) (First Amendment prohibits
Congress from preventing public broadcasters from editorializing). See
also Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666
(1998) (broadcaster may exclude independent candidate from televised
Presidential candidate debate).
Because broadcast licenses are uniquely limited by the laws of
physics, and those few broadcast licenses which can be granted without
creating harmful interference are granted by the government, the
government may impose certain obligations on broadcasters to allow
others to respond to editorial positions expressed by broadcast
licensees, or may require broadcast licensees to provide news and
perspectives of importance to the local community. Compare Red Lion
Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) (upholding Fairness
Doctrine and right of reply) with Miami Herald Publishing Co. v.
Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (striking down state right of reply
statute when applied to newspaper). Even where the FCC is permitted to
require a broadcaster to allow a right of response, however, it must do
so in a content neutral and consistent manner, not in a manner designed
to influence the editorial choices of the broadcaster. The Fairness
Doctrine and public interest obligations applied to broadcasters are
designed to create more speech, not to censor speech.
Question 4. Does the First Amendment allow the FCC to revoke
broadcast licenses solely because the Chairman, or the President of the
United States, doesn't like what was broadcast?
Answer. Absolutely not. To revoke a license (or threaten to revoke
a license) because the President of the United States dislikes what the
broadcaster says is not merely a violation of the First Amendment (see
League of Women Voters, supra), it violates Section 326 of
Communications Act which prohibits ``any regulation or condition . . .
which shall interfere with the right of free speech.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 326.
Attacks on the First Amendment: Congress created the Federal Trade
Commission to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices and
ensure a competitive free market. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson,
however, has been using the FTC's authority to bully social media
platforms into changing their content moderation decisions to favor
conservative content and force companies to advertise on Elon Musk's X
platform.
This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized that
social media platforms have First Amendment rights to ``select and
shape other parties' expression into their own curated speech
products.''
Question 1. Mr. Feld, what authority does the FTC have to dictate
content moderation decisions to platforms?
Answer. None. The FTC Act, Clayton Act and Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act give the FTC the authority to police ``unfair or deceptive acts or
practices'' and ``unfair methods of competition.'' This jurisdiction
covers economic conduct, which does not include editorial judgements
made by platforms. More specifically, platforms' content moderation
decisions are expressive rights protected by the First Amendment.
Unless the claims themselves are Section 5 ``deceptive'' in the
commercial context (i.e., false advertising), the FTC has no lawful
basis to intervene.
[all]