Assessing State Department Compliance with Oversight

Summary

This is a Statement for the Record by HCSB Chairman Roger Williams, titled "Assessing State Department Compliance with Oversight," for the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability, dated March 21, 2024, 2:00 PM ET. The statement says the House Committee on Small Business has been investigating the federal government's censorship of American small businesses by proxy, and that the Department of State (State), through its Global Engagement Center (GEC), funded the Global Disinformation Index (GDI). It says the single document State provided in December was a fraction of what was requested. It states the Committee will consider the use of compulsory process if State and the GEC continue to refuse to cooperate with its investigation.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

          HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
                            ACCOUNTABILITY

                      March 21, 2024, 2:00 PM ET, RHOB 2172

                        HCSB Chairman Roger Williams
                            Statement for the Record
            “Assessing State Department Compliance with Oversight”

        The House Committee on Small Business (Committee) has been investigating the federal
government’s censorship of American small businesses by proxy since the beginning of this
Congress. Concerns arose following the release of the Twitter Files, when investigative
journalists unearthed collusion between the federal government, social media companies,
exorbitantly wealthy foundations, and so-called “non-partisan fact checking” organizations to
censor Americans online. A lawsuit brought by the States of Missouri and Louisiana on this very
issue was argued before the Supreme Court just this past Monday.

        When it was reported that the U.S. Department of State (State), through its Global
Engagement Center (GEC), funded the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a company that
creates blacklists of American media organizations and ranks them by GDI’s perceived
“trustworthiness” and “risk,” the Committee on Small Business took action. The GDI labeled
conservative-leaning companies as “riskiest” while bolstering left-leaning organizations,
ironically including those who were guilty of spreading false narratives.

        By labeling certain companies as “risky” and “untrustworthy” because of expressed
political viewpoints the GDI labels is “misinformation” or “disinformation,” the GDI’s ranking
system interferes with the ability of small businesses to earn revenue through viewership and
advertising. This is reflected in the GDI’s mission statement, which is to “remove the financial
incentive” to create “disinformation” by issuance of its “dynamic exclusion list” (a blacklist
disguised by an eloquent name). Advertising platforms are pressured into ending relationships
with companies GDI paints as “unreliable,” thereby demonetizing the disfavored companies and
redirecting money and audiences to the media companies GDI deems worthy. GDI’s CEO
herself stated that the dynamic exclusion list has “had significant impact on the advertising
revenue that has gone to those sites.”

       Two of the conservative-leaning businesses smeared by the government-funded GDI
have joined the State of Texas in a lawsuit against State and the GEC to stop the government
from interfering in the news-media market and attempting to render disfavored press outlets
unprofitable. The complaint alleges that by funding the infrastructure, development, marketing,
and promotion of censorship technology, the government is covertly suppressing the speech of a
disfavored segment of the American press.

        Other organizations funded by the GEC have been caught sending lists of accounts they
label as purveyors of “disinformation” to social media companies in order to have them removed
from online platforms. Thanks to independent journalism and Congressional investigations, we
                                                                                      Page 1 of 3
now know American accounts were included in these lists. It is a violation of the GEC’s
Congressional mandate to act against Americans, and they cannot send taxpayer money to third-
parties to accomplish the censorship they are forbidden from doing. By funding these companies
who brazenly claim to “fill the gap” of what the government cannot do themselves, the GEC is
violating the First Amendment by proxy. The federal government cannot circumvent
constitutional protections by using private actors to accomplish what the State itself is prohibited
from doing.

        Despite the recent claim by James Rubin, GEC’s Special Envoy and Coordinator, that
they “are not in the business of deciding what is true or not true”, the third parties receiving GEC
funds focus overwhelmingly on “right-wing misinformation” rather than misinformation across
the political spectrum. False narratives spun by left-leaning organizations are wholly ignored.
Despite what State claims, it is evident the Biden Administration considers itself the arbiter of
truth.

       The full extent of the GEC’s censorship scheme remains unknown as the GEC has been
uncooperative with investigations into where they are sending taxpayer money. This
Committee’s first letter to State was not answered for nearly six months. Even communications
with State’s legislative affairs team on production schedule remains limited—responses are
incomplete, delayed, or ignored altogether.

        The single document that was finally provided to the Committee in December was a
fraction of what was requested. Only cooperative agreements were included in the spreadsheet,
rather than all types of grants (the original request was for an “unredacted list of all GEC grant
recipients and associated award numbers from FY 2019 – present”). Project grants should have
been included in addition to the cooperative agreements. Over 20 GEC project grants since FY
2019 are publicly available on USAspending.gov. It is clear these exist and were purposely
excluded from State’s production.

       Further, it appears from the numerical system used for each award that over 100
cooperative agreements were completely omitted. Award numbers in the document skip entire
blocks of awards. Again, this omission was confirmed simply by checking on USAspending.gov.
Even some of the information redacted in State’s production is available online. State has
purposely withheld information.

        These omissions caused the Committee to request more information, including the
identity of subawardees, to see where State’s grant recipients were funneling taxpayer money.
During an in-camera review of the information State redacted, in which Committee staff was not
permitted to take notes, it was relayed that State may not even know the identity of some
subawardees. This is extremely concerning. When combined with the Inspector General report
that found the GEC lacked proper internal controls to ensure contractors did not perform
“inherently governmental functions,” the Committee was prompted to understand more about
GEC’s grant process. The Committee requested a briefing with a GEC grant officer and grant
officer representative; this request also continues to be ignored despite the Committee’s repeated
attempts to schedule it.



                                                                                         Page 2 of 3
        In January, a memo was sent to members of the Committee to update them on this
investigation. A copy of State’s production was distributed with the memo, redacted further so as
to be sensitive to the nature of the information. When copies of the redacted information later
appeared in a news article, State wrote the Committee a letter threatening to only share
information in-camera moving forward. This is unacceptable. Not only are members of the
Committee entitled to this information, none of it was classified.

        State’s actions throughout the course of this investigation are clear attempts to interfere
with Congress’ Constitutional authority to investigate. Obstructing and undermining
Congressional investigations harms Congress’ ability to fulfill its Constitutional duty to legislate
effectively. The Committee on Small Business has explicit authority to investigate all problems
of small businesses—including when the government interferes with their ability to succeed
online. The information requested is essential to that investigation and the Committee cannot
draft adequately informed legislation without State’s production of relevant documents.

        This Committee will not be deterred by State’s hedging, threats, or noncompliance. If
State and the GEC continue to refuse to be forthcoming with the Committee’s investigation we
will consider the use of compulsory process. We hope it does not come to that and look forward
to State’s full and faithful cooperation moving forward.




                                                                                          Page 3 of 3


File and source

File

405932_2024-03-21_van-duyne-gives-statement-to-the-house-foreign-aff_att0.pdf

Size

138,809 bytes

SHA-256

547d7c15c58ec16c59281400f1b977194a05531332febda54a3506405d9d640b

Our copy

405932_2024-03-21_van-duyne-gives-statement-to-the-house-foreign-aff_att0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.