Republicans Are Obsessed with a Censorship Lie
LAST WEEK, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES held its fifth hearing about a lie.
I was called as the sole minority witness in the latest installment of this particular right-wing fever dream, what the Republican majority on a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee called the 'Censorship-Industrial Complex: The Need for First Amendment Safeguards at the State Department.' Based on that title, you might think the hearing would investigate the cases of foreign students who have recently been arrested and had their visas revoked because they deigned to use their rights to free expression. But no, the Republicans weren't there to talk about the ongoing assault on our Constitution. Instead, they wanted to talk about made-up stuff.
For the past four years, the Republican party has engaged in obsessive mythmaking about supposed collusion by Democrats, disinformation researchers, and the social media industry to suppress conservative viewpoints online. Reputable journalists have punctured holes in this narrative, showing how it is based on distortion and exaggeration. Academics, too, have looked into the question and found not a vast conspiracy aimed at censoring conservatives but a clear imbalance: right-wing users simply break social media platforms' rules more frequently.
These hearings have no real analytical or fact-finding purpose, but House Republicans have created an entire fictional universe around them, comprising two investigations, dozens of transcribed interviews and depositions, and subpoenas for reams of documents and emails from research institutions around the country. These actions have formed the basis of frivolous lawsuits and smear campaigns of which institutions large and small have struggled to bear the burden.
If that sounds to you like modern-day McCarthyism, it's because it is. Like McCarthy's anti-Communist crusade, Republican pursuit of the censorship lie is political theater is high on fantasy and low on facts. Still, it has had dire consequences; disinformation researchers have faced threats, harassment, and declining funding as a result.
The information environment is in rough shape. Sign up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription to help us improve it through our independent political reporting, commentary, and analysis.
I've been a direct target of this dangerous Republican projection. In 2022, I was appointed to lead the Disinformation Governance Board, an admittedly poorly named but anodyne coordination body tasked with shepherding counter-disinformation policy within the Department of Homeland Security. Within hours of the board's public launch, partisan media, influencers, and members of Congress were calling it a 'Ministry of Truth' and claiming that I would be censoring Americans' speech. They did this entirely without evidence; as demonstrated by the board's founding documents and my five-hour sworn deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in 2023, the board had nothing to do with censorship. Its mission was to protect civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, and the First Amendment.
The lies about me led to widespread harassment, credible death threats, and my inclusion in deepfake pornography. I have been forced to spend almost $90,000 in legal bills dealing with a frivolous civil suit, a congressional deposition, and a cyberstalker. So as I prepared for last week's hearing, it made a lot of sense that a colleague asked me, 'Why are you doing this? Shouldn't you just keep your head down?' Though I wasn't being compelled to appear, I didn't feel like I had a choice; it was an opportunity to directly challenge the folks who have used a conspiracy theory to decimate our nation's response to foreign disinformation. More importantly, it was a chance to directly channel the anger and frustration that many Americans are feeling to a few of the people who need to hear it.
This was clear even before the hearing—starting from the moment Republicans learned I would be the Democratic witness. Republicans' online posts dripped with condescension and sexism, branding me 'Joe Biden's short-lived disinformation czar' (instead of engaging with my actual credentials or expertise) and sharing a carefully curated lineup of witness photos—polished headshots for the Republican witnesses, and a ridiculous screenshot from a four-year-old TikTok video for me. They reduced me to a caricature rather than engaging with my record of work.
The infantilizing rhetoric continued in the hearing itself, where Rep. Bill Huizenga, the chairman of the South and Central Asia Subcommittee that hosted the hearing, introduced me without so much as a mention of my professional background or qualifications, instead calling me a 'disinformation czarina' with a smirk. Meanwhile, the Republican witnesses were given fulsome introductions. The majority clearly expected the folk villain they've created—a zealous, woke, feminist censor—to appear. They thought they could scare or perhaps embarrass me into submission.
Instead, in both my prepared testimony and my responses to committee questions I called out the hypocrisy of the subcommittee's Republicans for holding their first hearing on a fiction, rather than the flagrant violations of the Constitution they were allowing the Trump administration to commit. 'If [the arrest of Fulbright Ph.D. student Rümeysa Öztürk] had happened in a country in this subcommittee's portfolio, you would issue a statement of concern,' I told them. 'But it happened here. So yes, we need First Amendment protections at the State Department—but not for imagined transgressions of previous administrations. We need protections from this administration, today.'
I also challenged the Republicans' star witness, Matt Taibbi, whose participation only underscored just how unserious the hearing was. Taibbi was a central participant in the so-called 'Twitter Files,' the much-hyped journalistic flop that falsely alleged Twitter executives were colluding with government to censor disfavored content. His reporting has been widely debunked. In his barely coherent remarks before the subcommittee, Taibbi claimed that he and other bloggers 'didn't know what they were looking at' when Elon Musk first allowed them to access the documents, as if they had stumbled upon something huge, not purposely relied on outright falsehoods, innuendo, and selectively edited screenshots to drive subscriptions to their paywalled content. I told the subcommittee, 'Mr. Taibbi said . . . he didn't know what he was looking at. Well, he still doesn't. Everything's a conspiracy when you don't know how anything works.'
Share The Bulwark
From the dais, Republicans' shambolic embrace of authoritarianism was on full display. Rep. Keith Self decided it would be appropriate to quote Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels during a congressional hearing. (I think his intention was to compare me to Goebbels, which would be shocking regardless of the context, but he chose to do it after I repeatedly pushed back on his assumptions about my views, undermining his already-garbled line of questions.) Worse still, this wasn't even the first time he's done it. Back in 2010, he used a Goebbels quote to attack a political opponent, and now, in 2025, he's doing it again to prop up a manufactured moral panic. When confronted, he didn't retract or apologize. Instead, his office doubled down, spinning the quote as some sort of righteous critique of government censorship and unfounded attack on me. (For next time, Rep. Self: If you have to explain why you're quoting a Nazi, perhaps don't quote a Nazi.) Self's Goebbels moment aired on Fox News the day after the hearing, leading me to be targeted with a fresh round of online threats and a violent voicemail.
Rep. Self wasn't the only committee member to awkwardly grasp at a dubious historical reference during the hearing. Responding to my characterization of the hearing as a twenty-first-century McCarthy inquisition, Rep. Scott Perry mused aloud that 'many people disagree with McCarthy's methods, but you can't disagree with the facts: that the people that he listed turned out to all be subversive Communists.' The irony was so thick you could cut it with a knife: While claiming to be concerned about free speech and backing Trump's assault on the First Amendment, Perry was celebrating one of the most infamous abusers of American government power, and distorting history in the process.
In the days since the hearing, I've gotten notes of thanks from many Americans who were happy to see someone directly confronting a few of the falsehoods on which Trumpists have built their rule. Like the town halls across the country where Trump's foot soldiers are being challenged by angry constituents for the first time, these representatives were unprepared for the indignation and expertise of someone they've smeared without a second thought. Wading through their hypocrisy is exhausting. And it's risky. But if we want to slow or stop America's slide into autocracy, we have to keep fighting for the truth. Last week's hearing, though a spectacle based on lies, reminded me that we shouldn't wallow in despair; when you stand up to bullies and fight, they crumble.
Share this article with someone who values truth over political expediency.
Share
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit The Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach, even if that leads to more inmates. For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600 million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lieutenant Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.'
an hour ago
Trump officials are vowing to end school desegregation orders. Some parents say they're still needed
FERRIDAY, La. -- Even at a glance, the differences are obvious. The walls of Ferriday High School are old and worn, surrounded by barbed wire. Just a few miles away, Vidalia High School is clean and bright, with a new library and a crisp blue 'V' painted on orange brick. Ferriday High is 90% Black. Vidalia High is 62% white. For Black families, the contrast between the schools suggests 'we're not supposed to have the finer things,' said Brian Davis, a father in Ferriday. 'It's almost like our kids don't deserve it,' he said. The schools are part of Concordia Parish, which was ordered to desegregate 60 years ago and remains under a court-ordered plan to this day. Yet there's growing momentum to release the district — and dozens of others — from decades-old orders that some call obsolete. In a remarkable reversal, the Justice Department said it plans to start unwinding court-ordered desegregation plans dating to the Civil Rights Movement. Officials started in April, when they lifted a 1960s order in Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish. Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the department's civil rights division, has said others will 'bite the dust.' It comes amid pressure from Republican Gov. Jeff Landry and his attorney general, who have called for all the state's remaining orders to be lifted. They describe the orders as burdens on districts and relics of a time when Black students were still forbidden from some schools. The orders were always meant to be temporary — school systems can be released if they demonstrate they fully eradicated segregation. Decades later, that goal remains elusive, with stark racial imbalances persisting in many districts. Civil rights groups say the orders are important to keep as tools to address the legacy of forced segregation — including disparities in student discipline, academic programs and teacher hiring. They point to cases like Concordia, where the decades-old order was used to stop a charter school from favoring white students in admissions. 'Concordia is one where it's old, but a lot is happening there,' said Deuel Ross, deputy director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 'That's true for a lot of these cases. They're not just sitting silently.' Last year, before President Donald Trump took office, Concordia Parish rejected a Justice Department plan that would have ended its case if the district combined several majority white and majority Blac k elementary and middle schools. At a town hall meeting, Vidalia residents vigorously opposed the plan, saying it would disrupt students' lives and expose their children to drugs and violence. An official from the Louisiana attorney general's office spoke against the proposal and said the Trump administration likely would change course on older orders. Accepting the plan would have been a 'death sentence' for the district, said Paul Nelson, a former Concordia superintendent. White families would have fled to private schools or other districts, said Nelson, who wants the court order removed. 'It's time to move on,' said Nelson, who left the district in 2016. 'Let's start looking to build for the future, not looking back to what our grandparents may have gone through.' At Ferriday High, athletic coach Derrick Davis supported combining schools in Ferriday and Vidalia. He said the district's disparities come into focus whenever his teams visit schools with newer sports facilities. 'It seems to me, if we'd all combine, we can all get what we need,' he said. Others oppose merging schools if it's done solely for the sake of achieving racial balance. 'Redistricting and going to different places they're not used to ... it would be a culture shock to some people," said Ferriday's school resource officer, Marcus Martin, who, like Derrick Davis, is Black. The district's current superintendent and school board did not respond to requests for comment. Concordia is among more than 120 districts across the South that remain under desegregation orders from the 1960s and '70s, including about a dozen in Louisiana. Calling the orders historical relics is 'unequivocally false,' said Shaheena Simons, who until April led the Justice Department section that oversees school desegregation cases. 'Segregation and inequality persist in our schools, and they persist in districts that are still under desegregation orders,' she said. With court orders in place, families facing discrimination can reach out directly to the Justice Department or seek relief from the court. Otherwise, the only recourse is a lawsuit, which many families can't afford, Simons said. In Concordia, the order played into a battle over a charter school that opened in 2013 on the former campus of an all-white private school. To protect the area's progress on racial integration, a judge ordered Delta Charter School to build a student body that reflected the district's racial demographics. But in its first year, the school was just 15% Black. After a court challenge, Delta was ordered to give priority to Black students. Today, about 40% of its students are Black. Desegregation orders have been invoked recently in other cases around the state. One led to an order to address disproportionately high rates of discipline for Black students, and in another a predominantly Black elementary school was relocated from a site close to a chemical plant. The Trump administration was able to close the Plaquemines case with little resistance because the original plaintiffs were no longer involved — the Justice Department was litigating the case alone. Concordia and an unknown number of other districts are in the same situation, making them vulnerable to quick dismissals. Concordia's case dates to 1965, when the area was strictly segregated and home to a violent offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan. When Black families in Ferriday sued for access to all-white schools, the federal government intervened. As the district integrated its schools, white families fled Ferriday. The district's schools came to reflect the demographics of their surrounding areas. Ferriday is mostly Black and low-income, while Vidalia is mostly white and takes in tax revenue from a hydroelectric plant. A third town in the district, Monterey, has a high school that's 95% white. At the December town hall, Vidalia resident Ronnie Blackwell said the area 'feels like a Mayberry, which is great,' referring to the fictional Southern town from 'The Andy Griffith Show.' The federal government, he said, has 'probably destroyed more communities and school systems than it ever helped.' Under its court order, Concordia must allow students in majority Black schools to transfer to majority white schools. It also files reports on teacher demographics and student discipline. After failing to negotiate a resolution with the Justice Department, Concordia is scheduled to make its case that the judge should dismiss the order, according to court documents. Meanwhile, amid a wave of resignations in the federal government, all but two of the Justice Department lawyers assigned to the case have left. Without court supervision, Brian Davis sees little hope for improvement. 'A lot of parents over here in Ferriday, they're stuck here because here they don't have the resources to move their kids from A to B," he said. 'You'll find schools like Ferriday — the term is, to me, slipping into darkness."
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
As his trade war faces legal pushback, Trump has other tariff tools he could deploy
WASHINGTON - U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs are facing legal headwinds for the first time — but he has other tools he could deploy in his quest to realign global trade. A federal appeals court is still deciding whether there will be a stay on Trump's universal tariffs enacted through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the duties were unlawful last month. IEEPA is a national security statute that gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. It had never previously been used for tariffs. Trump declared emergencies at the United States' northern and southern borders linked to the flow of fentanyl and migrants in order to hit Canada and Mexico with economywide tariffs. He later declared an emergency over trade deficits to impose his retaliatory 'Liberation Day' duties on most nations. The trade court found Trump exceeded presidential powers by using IEEPA to broadly implement the duties. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision and the White House said it would take the case to the Supreme Court. Following the ruling, White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said he was confident the court ultimately would decide in Trump's favour. Hassett said that if it doesn't, 'we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again.' While the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress, Greta Peisch, the former general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said it passed laws over the last century that allow the president some control in certain situations. Trump is now looking to use those laws — some of them for the first time. The president may be considering Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It allows a president to hit countries with tariffs of up to 50 per cent if the country 'is treating products of the United States disfavourably, compared to products of another foreign country,' said Peisch, a partner at Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C. Section 338 has never been used by a president before and Peisch said it might be difficult for the administration to make a case for it. Trump also might look to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to take trade actions if an investigation finds a trading partner's policies are unreasonable and discriminatory. Trump used this law during his first administration to impose tariffs on some Chinese imports and European Union goods. But Section 301 requires country-by-country investigations of trade policy before a tariff can be imposed — investigations that could take weeks or months and would include a period for public comment. That certainly would slow down Trump's efforts to target the world with tariffs. If the president is looking for speed, Peisch said, he might try to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — another law that has never before been used. Section 122 allows a president to implement tariffs of up to 15 per cent to address large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits. But those duties can only stay in place for a maximum of 150 days before they need Congressional approval to continue. That reduces Trump's leverage if his goal is to pressure countries to sign trade deals — those countries could simply decide to wait the president out. Trump also has said tariffs will help pay down the deficit; the short-term Section 122 power is unlikely to work as a long-term revenue strategy. Ultimately, Peisch said, none of the replacement statutes could easily build Trump's universal tariff wall around the United States. 'Nothing is a great fit without a lot of work,' she said. 'So I think it's potentially going to be a challenge.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025.
