Under the Microscope: Examining the Censorship-Industrial Complex and Its Impact on American Small Businesses (House Small Business Committee hearing, June 26, 2024)

Summary

Printed record of the House Committee on Small Business hearing held June 26, 2024, Under the Microscope: Examining the Censorship-Industrial Complex and Its Impact on American Small Businesses, Small Business Committee Document Number 118–054. Chairman Roger Williams presided, the Committee meeting at 10:02 a.m. in Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building, with Ranking Member Nydia Velázquez giving the minority opening statement. Witnesses were Jenin Younes of the New Civil Liberties Alliance; Benjamin Weingarten of RealClearInvestigations and RealClearPolitics; Carrie Sheffield of the Independent Women's Forum; and Dr. Mary Anne Franks of George Washington Law School. The appendix adds material from the American Sunlight Project, Rumble and The Free Press; the committee adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

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

Cite this document

“Under the Microscope: Examining the Censorship-Industrial Complex and Its Impact on American Small Businesses (House Small Business Committee hearing, June 26, 2024).” Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/under-the-microscope-examining-the-censorship-industrial-complex-and-i-0b5ca8f6c9/, SHA-256 dc59c587c5da2a2391bc646b4357c6b8ed97043335f1b1cdf091a1785cf246b5.

Full text

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: EXAMINING THE
CENSORSHIP-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND ITS
IMPACT ON AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESSES

HEARING
BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD
JUNE 26, 2024

Small Business Committee Document Number 118–054
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55–971 WASHINGTON : 2024
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
TRACEY MANN, Kansas
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
MARC MOLINARO, New York
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
ELI CRANE, Arizona
AARON BEAN, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
NICK LALOTA, New York
CELESTE MALOY, Utah
NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, Washington
SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
JUDY CHU, California
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire

BEN JOHNSON, Majority Staff Director
MELISSA JUNG, Minority Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Roger Williams ................................................................................................ 1
Hon. Nydia Velázquez ............................................................................................. 3

WITNESSES
Ms. Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance, Wash-
ington, DC ............................................................................................................. 5
Mr. Benjamin Weingarten, Investigative Journalist & Columnist,
RealClearInvestigations & RealClearPolitics, Washington, DC ....................... 7
Ms. Carrie Sheffield, Senior Policy Analyst, Independent Women’s Forum,
Winchester, VA ..................................................................................................... 9
Dr. Mary Anne Franks, Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in
Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law, George Wash-
ington Law School, Washington, DC .................................................................. 11

APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Ms. Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance,
Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 30
Mr. Benjamin Weingarten, Investigative Journalist & Columnist,
RealClearInvestigations & RealClearPolitics, Washington, DC ............... 34
Ms. Carrie Sheffield, Senior Policy Analyst, Independent Women’s Forum,
Winchester, VA ............................................................................................. 45
Dr. Mary Anne Franks, Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor
in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law, George
Washington Law School, Washington, DC ................................................. 50
Questions and Answers for the Record:
Questions from Hon. Nydia Velázquez to Dr. Mary Anne Franks and
Answers from Dr. Mary Anne Franks ......................................................... 54
Additional Material for the Record:
American Sunlight Project ............................................................................... 57
Rumble, CEO, Chris Pavlovski ........................................................................ 63
The Free Press .................................................................................................. 65

(III)
UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: EXAMINING THE
CENSORSHIP-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND
ITS IMPACT ON AMERICAN SMALL BUSI-
NESSES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2024

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams [chair-
man of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Williams, Luetkemeyer, Meuser, Van
Duyne, Alford, Crane, Bean, Maloy, Velázquez, Landsman,
Scholten, Thanedar, and Davids.
Chairman WILLIAMS. I want Mr. Crane from the great State of
Arizona to lead us in the pledge and the prayer. Would you please
stand.
Mr. CRANE. All right. We will pray first. Lord, thank you for op-
portunity to be here this morning. We ask that You continue to
bless this nation. We ask that you would continue to bless small
businesses in our economy. We ask that you will bless this com-
mittee hearing today in Your name. Amen.
All. Amen.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, in-
divisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Chairman WILLIAMS. So good morning, everyone. I now call the
Committee on Small Business to order. Without objection, the
Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any
time.
We are going to do things a little differently today because we
are expecting votes to be called around 10:30. So we will do our
best to get through opening statements introductions, or witness
testimony before we recess to go vote. We will then reconvene when
votes are complete and begin Member questions at that time. So
I now recognize myself for my opening statement.
Welcome to today’s hearing, which will examine how the federal
government is tipping the scales against certain business online. I
would like to start off by thanking our witnesses for being with us
today. Your attendance and input on these important issues is
greatly appreciated.
The online marketplace is essential for small businesses and gen-
erate revenue in the modern economy. Business owners use social
(1)
2

media and online platforms to reach their customers’ earned rev-
enue from advertising and promote products. Over a year ago it
was brought to this committee’s attention that the government has
funded certain third-party organizations, which are making it hard-
er for conservative businesses to succeed online.
Now when I first heard about this, it seemed simply un-Amer-
ican and against what we should stand for as a country. Our econ-
omy is based on competition, where anyone that has a superior
product, price, or customer service is able to build a successful
business.
However, during this committee’s investigation, we found out
that this is simply no longer the case. The committee uncovered a
vast networks of non-profits, research groups, and other entities
that receive government funding with the goal of stopping misin-
formation. As these groups attempt to define what is true, there
are many voices and businesses whose reach is being reduced sim-
ply because they believe something that is against the mainstream
narrative.
An example of a viewpoint that would prevent the reach of a
business or publisher online would be that the COVID-19 virus is
man-made, and came from a lab. Even though this is now a widely
not—this is now a wildly accepted theory, about how global pan-
demic began, this view expressed just 2 years ago would have been
censored online and limited the reach of your business.
The issue has extremely consequential First Amendment implica-
tions which are working their way through the judicial system, and
this hearing will examine how the efforts had been trickling down
to affect small businesses.
The committee uncovered three main ways in which the small
business ultimately could get affected by these censorship efforts:
First these misinformation organizations flagged with content and
acceptable posts on social media websites, thereby eliminating the
reach to customers if they get in the cross hairs of these third par-
ties; now secondly, there are government-led pressure campaigns to
remove certain businesses from online marketplaces, preventing
them from selling their products over the internet; and, finally,
these organizations hinder businesses from earning an advertising
revenue and other income streams by diminishing a business’ rep-
utation in the case of media outlets, their circulation.
To put this plain and simple, the government has been caught
collaborating with private entities to censor narratives that they
don’t like. And yes, your taxpayer dollars are being used to do this.
Main street is constantly working as hard as possible to compete
and thrive. The emergence of online marketplaces has provided
millions of small businesses with new ways to make money and
reach customers. However, we have found out that all businesses
online are not given a fair chance to succeed in this new battle-
ground.
So if you do not agree with a company, the customer can choose
not to do business with them. But when the government inserts
itself in the process to tip the scales against certain businesses, it
simply is unacceptable.
So finally, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
statement from Rumble CEO, Chris Pavlovski, emphasizing the im-
3

portance of free speech to not only this country, but to small busi-
ness upon which our economy depends. So without objection, it is
so ordered.
I want to thank you all again for being here with us today, and
I am looking forward to today’s important conversation. And with
that I yield to our distinguished Ranking Member from New York,
Ms. Velázquez.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ev-
eryone, and thank you for being here.
I must admit, when I heard the title of this hearing, I was terri-
fied. The Censorship Industrial Complex—that sounds frightening.
The thought that thousands of universities, NGOs, and government
agencies are pondering to silence any dissenting views is a horri-
fying proposition. Are they really trying to silence our cherished
small businesses? Thankfully, the idea itself is fiction, cynically
created by the right-wing outrage machine to drum up fear during
election season.
There is simply no evidence that anyone in the small business
community is being censored by the government for legitimate po-
litical speech. Nor is there evidence that the accused universities
and NGOs that make up the so-called Censorship Industrial Com-
plex have actually censored anyone.
A quick look into the facts of my colleagues’ investigation reveals
a baseless effort to stir up anger and fear as we approach election
season. It is the oldest trick in the book, and a cynical misuse of
committee resources.
Let’s take a look at the basic claims of their investigation. First,
the major claim is that the U.S. Government funded the develop-
ment of software that censors conservative media. However, the
fact is that a nonprofit organization had already developed propri-
etary software that can detect patterns of misinformation online.
The Global Engagement Center of the State Department gave an
award of $100,000 for 3 months of work to expand that software
to six more languages: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese,
Russian, and Ukrainian, to be used in Asia and Eastern Europe.
I suspect few of my colleagues will be against the State Depart-
ment using its resources to detect Chinese or Russian propaganda
overseas. However, that is exactly what they are attacking at a
crucial moment in history for our national security.
The second major claim is that this software has been used pri-
marily to censor conservatives here in the U.S. Again, this is base-
less. The software assembles a list of thousands of websites around
the world, a small fraction of which are American, which have a
tendency to publish what they call adversarial content. Basically,
content created to drive engagement by creating outrage.
Advertisers realized a long time ago that social media algorithms
boost this type of content because it helps keep users online, but
they do not want to sponsor it. This software fills a niche that ad-
vertising agencies were asking for. It is not censorship. It is cap-
italism, something my colleagues usually, without a doubt, support.
After all, if companies were forced to sponsor content they dis-
agree with, that would be an egregious violation of the freedom of
speech.
4

Let’s acknowledge what this investigation truly is an attempt by
the majority to weaponize the federal government against univer-
sities and nonprofit organizations they disagree with. They want
you to believe conservatives across the country are being silenced
by some Orwellian censorship regime. That is pure fiction.
In reality, it is they who seek to silence this organization through
threat of lawfare, investigation, and by encouraging harassment. It
is censorship by proxy.
Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the intersection of social media,
free speech, and small businesses, they are plenty of legitimate
points of debate.
We could talk about Section 230, or the concentrated private
power of just a few tech companies to dictate who seeks what, or
whose voice gets heard. We could talk about the reliance of small
businesses on these platforms, and the power platforms have to
charge high fees. We could even talk about how small firms are
innovators, influencers, creators, and engineers of these platforms.
Mr. Chairman, the Censorship Industrial Complex is simply a
distraction. My hope will be that you will use the gavel to bring
attention to real issues facing small businesses. While we may dis-
agree on tax or regulatory policy or the best way to help small
firms access capital, we can actually agree that those are real
issues. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. And I will
now introduce our witnesses.
Now our first witness here with us today is Jenin Younes. Ms.
Younes is litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance lo-
cated here in Washington, D.C. At the New Civil Liberties Alliance,
Ms. Younes has played a significant role in First Amendment chal-
lenges to the government’s involvement in censorship and social
media. Ms. Younes graduated from the New York University
School of Law where she earned her doctorate of law degree, and
from Cornell, which I think we have a colleague that also went to
Cornell up here.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. [Inaudible.]
Chairman WILLIAMS. Well, there is two of you. That is scar-
ier—earned her degree of law from Cornell University where she
earned her bachelor of art’s degree. So thank you for joining us
today. And I am looking forward to today’s important conversation.
Our next witness here with us today is Mr. Benjamin
Weingarten. Mr. Weingarten is investigative journalist and col-
umnist for the RealClearInvestigations and RealClearPolitics. In
addition to his role as RealClear, Mr. Weingarten is a columnist
and contributor to several print and media outlets, including the
Federalist and Newsweek. Mr. Weingarten is also the founder and
CEO of Changeup Media, a media consulting production firm help-
ing individuals and institutions create compelling content.
Mr. Weingarten graduated from Columbia University where he
earned his bachelor of arts degree in economics and political
science. I want to thank you, sir, for being here with us today and
look forward to our conversation.
Our next witness here with us today is Ms. Carrie Sheffield. Ms.
Sheffield is the senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s
Forum located here in Washington, D.C. As a former small busi-
5

ness owner in the digital media industry, Ms. Sheffield knows the
importance of advertising to reach new customers and grow your
audience. Ms. Sheffield is familiar with the inequities considered
conservatives face in this space. Ms. Sheffield is the author of the
best-selling book, ‘‘Motorhome Prophecies: A Journey of Healing
and Forgiveness.’’ And like many authors, Ms. Sheffield knows the
importance of using platforms like Amazon to sell books and prod-
ucts. Ms. Sheffield earned her bachelor of arts in communication
from Brigham Young University, then went on to earn her master
of policy from Harvard University.
I want to thank you each for joining us today. I am also looking
forward to our conversation. And with that I now recognize the
Ranking Member from New York, Ms. Velázquez, to briefly intro-
duce our last witness appearing before us today.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our final witness
today is Dr. Mary Anne Franks. Dr. Franks is the Eugene L. and
Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology,
and Civil Rights Law at the George Washington University Law
School. She is an internationally recognized expert on the intersec-
tion of civil rights, free speech, and technology. Dr. Franks is also
the president and latest leader and tech policy director of the
Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. A nonprofit dedicated to combating
online abuse and discrimination. She holds a juris doctorate from
Harvard Law School, and a doctorate and master’s degree from Ox-
ford University where she studied as a Rhodes scholar. Thank you,
Dr. Franks, for providing your testimony today.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, and we appreciate, again, all
of you being here today. So before recognizing witnesses, I would
like to remind them that their oral testimony is restricted to 5 min-
utes in length. That is important. And if you see the light turn red
in front of you, it means your 5 minutes have concluded, and you
should wrap up your testimony. If you keep going, you are going
to hear this. That means stop, okay?
So I now recognize Ms. Younes for her 5-minute opening re-
marks.

STATEMENTS OF JENIN YOUNES, LITIGATION COUNSEL, NEW
CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE, ON BEHALF OF NEW CIVIL LIB-
ERTIES ALLIANCE; BENJAMIN WEINGARTEN, INVESTIGA-
TIVE JOURNALIST AND COLUMNIST,
REALCLEARINVESTIGATIONS & REALCLEARPOLITICS, ON
BEHALF OF REALCLEARINVESTIGATIONS &
REALCLEARPOLITICS; CARRIE SHEFFIELD, SENIOR POLICY
ANALYST, INDEPENDENT WOMEN’S FORUM, ON BEHALF OF
INDEPENDENT WOMEN’S FORUM; AND DR. MARY ANNE
FRANKS, EUGENE L. AND BARBARA A. BERNARD PRO-
FESSOR IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, TECHNOLOGY, AND
CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW SCHOOL

STATEMENT OF JENIN YOUNES
Ms. YOUNES. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member Velázquez,
and Members of the committee, thank you for having me here
today. Over the past several years, investigative journalists, law-
6

yers, and individual Americans have uncovered a vast federal cen-
sorship enterprise that targets American speech on social media.
In the words of a White House staffer named Rob Flaherty, this
enterprise stems from the highest levels of the White House and
involves the efforts of at least a dozen federal agencies, if not more.
Politicians and media have attempted to portray these efforts as
laudable attempts to fight misinformation, disinformation, and
malinformation on social media. Of course what constitutes misin-
formation, disinformation, and malinformation are determines
made by the censors.
Government actors have used threats, coercion, pressure, and in-
fluence on private social media companies to effectuate censorship
of disfavored views, including scientists such as Jayanta
Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, and journalists like Alex
Berenson. That conduct is the subject of a case that was just de-
cided in the Supreme Court about 10 minutes ago, and I still
haven’t had a chance to read the decision, Murthy v. Missouri.
In the other cases, the government has outsourced private cen-
sorship programs—sorry, censorship programs to private industry
in attempts to circumvent First Amendment strictures.
The State Department, through its Global Engagement Center,
has funded the development, marketing, and promotion of hun-
dreds of tools and technologies designed to combat misinformation
and disinformation online. They act with the purpose of depriving
our clients, Daily Wire and Federalist, and other disfavored media
outlets of revenue and visibility, thereby diminishing their reach on
social media and elsewhere. Our clients were severely impacted,
along with hundreds of other small independent and conservative-
leaning news outlets and journalists.
Why is this a problem? First, Congress created GEC within the
State Department to counter foreign propaganda and
disinformation efforts. Congress also included a funding limitation.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made
available to carry out this section shall be used for purposes other
than counting foreign propaganda and misinformation that threat-
ened United States national security. Yet GEC is intricately in-
volved in the development of technologies that are intended to and
do result in the suppression of American speech. This use of funds
to stifle domestic speech constitutes an unlawful misappropriation
of funds. It is also an alter virus action because GEC’s mandate is
to counter foreign propaganda.
Second, even if Congress wanted to, it could not constitutionally
give GEC the authority to fund market and promote companies like
NewsGuard and GDI because this activity violates the First
Amendment.
Supreme Court jurisprudence has made clear the government
cannot use private industry to accomplish what the Constitution
prohibits from doing directly.
In a case called Norwood v. Harrison, for example, the court said
it is axiomatic that the government may not induce, encourage, or
promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally
forbidden to accomplish.
Another indication that this program is not and never was about
protecting Americans’ national security interest is that companies
7

such as NewsGuard and GDI targeted primarily if not exclusively
conservative speech, which should strike any fair-minded person as
suspect. Its viewpoint discrimination and its anathema to the First
Amendment, which doesn’t tolerate government silencing views of
political adversaries.
By the way, I am not a political conservative or Republican. I am
left-leaning. To say the least, I don’t agree with much of the speech
that has been the subject of this censorship program. But I recog-
nize that it is extremely dangerous to put government in decid-
ing—in charge of deciding who and what should be heard and who
and what should be silenced. That is precisely what the Framers
of the Constitution issued when they included the First Amend-
ment in the Bill of Rights. They understood the government actors
are just people, and in no better position than I or any American
to decide what is true and false.
The First Amendment implicitly recognizes our dignity as indi-
viduals. We are not inferior beings who need to be told who or
what to believe by a monarch. We are capable of evaluating com-
peting claims in light of our individual experiences and perspec-
tives.
Some say the plethora of information that social media allows to
be put forth at a rapid pace requires governmental interference,
once again, protect people from bad or false ideas. But social media
doesn’t change the fundamental premise underpinning the First
Amendment. The best way to address problematic or false ideas is
through counter speech, not censorship.
Censorship does not make bad ideas or lies go away. It drives
them underground where they fester. As the saying goes, sunlight
is the best disinfectant. And rapidity with which information may
be posted on social media also means that lies and other problem-
atic speech can be combated that much more quickly.
Those who think there is nothing wrong with the government
censorship regime exposed through this case as well as Murthy v.
Missouri should think long and hard about what this means when
power changes hands. Do you want President Trump’s administra-
tion funding tools and technologies designed to censor speech he
disfavors? It is time Americans recognize the danger we face, not
from misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation, but from
our government deeming itself arbiter of the truth and inserting
itself into the marketplace of ideas so as to silence those that it
disfavors. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The time is up. I now recognize Mr.
Weingarten for his 5-minute opening remarks.

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN WEINGARTEN
Mr. WEINGARTEN. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member
Velázquez, and Members of the committee, thank you for the op-
portunity to testify.
Free speech and a free press are bedrock features of our republic.
The Censorship-Industrial Complex therefore imperils our republic.
Disturbingly, the U.S. Government has played an indelible role
in fostering this censorship regime—one that has purged unauthor-
ized opinions and inconvenient facts en masse.
8

Today’s hearing highlights one insidious instance of it: federal
funding, direct and indirect, via the State Department’s Global En-
gagement Center, of entities in NewsGuard and GDI that threaten
the viability of media companies that dare to dissent from estab-
lishment orthodoxy.
The relationships this committee is probing and the stonewalling
it has faced should concern all Americans. GEC’s stated mission is
to counter ‘‘foreign...propaganda and disinformation efforts.’’
NewsGuard says it aims to ‘‘systematically defund sources of harm-
ful misinformation’’—foreign and domestic. It does so by rating and
reviewing thousands of outlets for ‘‘reliability’’ and creating what it
calls ‘‘exclusion lists’’—blacklists for brands to provide ad agencies
and ad tech partners for use in determining where not to place ads.
GDI, likewise, says it seeks to ‘‘reduce’’ disinformation by
‘‘remov[ing] the financial incentive’’ it says works behind it, ad rev-
enue. It took arms ad-tech companies with a ‘‘dynamic exclusion
list’’—reportedly containing 2,000 ‘‘risky’’ publications, including
American ones. Perversely then, a foreign-facing agency has sup-
ported entities that exist to put disfavored domestic outlets out of
business. Those NewsGuard and GDI have targeted suggest they
have been smeared and stigmatized for taking positions on matters
from COVID-19 to the war in Ukraine, contrary to those of the po-
litical establishment, consequently incurring financial and
reputational damage.
NewsGuard’s alleged viewpoint discrimination can be seen in the
significantly higher scores on average that it has lavished on left-
learning sources over right-leaning ones—and in the Kafkaesque
correspondences dissident sources left and right have had with its
readers when challenging seemingly unmerited scores.
GDI’s blacklist isn’t public, but its 2022 report on ‘‘disinformation
risk’’ among U.S. sources betrays a similar bias. There, it lists
among its 10 least risky publications nine liberal—too progressive
corporate media outlets—and The Wall Street Journal. Its 10
riskiest publications include nine conservative or libertarian outlets
and RealClearPolitics. Many maligned by NewsGuard and GDI re-
port plummeting ad revenues—which GDI’s executives have gloat-
ed about. Some say they have lost traffic.
Our experience at RealClearPolitics and RealClearInvestigations
may be more troubling. RCP’s bread and butter is curating compel-
ling analysis—from sources left and right, corporate and inde-
pendent—on key issues of the day, so readers can weigh both sides.
We score a 62 on NewsGuard’s 100-point scale based on the subjec-
tive assessments of NewsGuard’s journalists, who analyze a sample
of other journalists’ work to render judgment on whole outlet.
Amazingly, NewsGuard dings us in part for our quote, unquote,
‘‘undisclosed’’ conservative bent. The implication is that it either
dismisses the feature of viewpoint diversity that we promote, or
worse, sees viewpoint diversity as a bug.
RCP, mind you, ranks below NPR, The Washington Post, and Po-
litico, all of which garner perfect NewsGuard scores despite their
biases and bungles. These scores influence not only advertisers but
up to half a billion readers through NewsGuard’s partnerships.
They appear next to sites in search results on browsers equipped
9

with NewsGuard’s extension. A low rating is a digital Scarlet let-
ter.
RealClear investigations curates deep dives from sundry sources
and publishes our own from journalists with diverse perspectives—
some antithetical to my own. NewsGuard has branded us biased as
well, albeit while giving us an 80. The rater would seem to see bias
in our pursuit of stories and angles competitors miss or ignore. It
took RCI to task for unmasking the whistleblower behind the first
impeachment of President Trump—in the face of political pressure,
our silent peers folded under.
As for GDI, beyond landing on its risky list, RCP may be on its
secret blacklist, too.
Now RealClear has thrived despite these entities, but the Cen-
sorship-Industrial Complex has made a highly competitive business
harder, and placed us at a competitive disadvantage. Our ad rev-
enue has declined materially, forcing us to devote substantially
more time and resources to fundraising. We have seen a meaning-
ful drop in certain search rankings. And we’ve taken a reputational
hit.
Even if the risk raters were unobjectionable, the fundamental
issue would remain. Through funding and supporting such entities,
government has abridged our freedom of speech and of the press
by proxy. Taxpayer dollars should not back those who would silence
Americans by destroying our media businesses. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. I now recog-
nize Ms. Sheffield for her 5-minute opening remarks.

STATEMENT OF CARRIE SHEFFIELD
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Ranking Member, thank
you for inviting me today. My name is Carrie Sheffield, and I am
a senior policy analyst at the Center for Economic Opportunity at
Independent Women’s Forum. We are a nonprofit organization
committed to increasing the number of women who value free mar-
kets and personally liberty.
Prior to my current role, I founded Bold TV, a small business
which I ran from 2015 until selling its assets in 2019 to an edu-
cational nonprofit. Bold TV is a digital media news network fea-
turing newsmakers across politics, business, and lifestyle.
At Bold TV, we utilize tools from Facebook Live, Instagram,
Twitter, Amazon Fire, Apple News, YouTube, and other tech and
content distribution partners to grow our audience.
Just prior to my departure, our viewership was approximately 30
to 70,000 views on each Bold TV program which approximately
10.16 million organic impressions for the first 6 months of 2019.
In addition to social media monetization tools, Bold TV also
maintained a website using a private marketplace ad exchange net-
work for revenue.
I am also an author with my first book, Motorhomes Prophecies,
published in March by Hachette Book Group. My publisher uses ad
exchanges to sell books. Ad exchanges are the lifeblood of small
businesses, both for selling and promoting their content to external
audiences. A recent survey from the Connected Commerce Council
of more than 2,400 businesses found that among small and mid-
10

size businesses, SMBs, 40 percent of SMB publishers say that dig-
ital ads drive over half of their overall revenue.
The survey also found 71 percent of SMB publishers, including
72 percent of Black and 65 percent of Hispanic-led SMB publishers
say they could not have launched and sustained their business
without digital advertising revenue. Seventy-nine percent of SMB
publishers say digital ads helped them compete with much larger
competitors.
My media experience leads me to believe government censors and
interferes with small businesses. This impacts businesses’ abilities
to use digital ads and sell products in the online marketplaces such
as Amazon, Etsy, or eBay.
For example, under the leadership of Chairwoman Lina Khan,
President Biden’s Federal Trade Commission seeks to punish au-
thors by like myself by harming our ability to sell books on Amazon
at lower prices to customers.
The government can also interfere with advertising revenue by
supporting companies that attack the credibility of businesses. This
can occur through government reliance on organizations, such as
the Global Disinformation Index, GDI, a media-rating website.
GDI appears to be a tool for the U.S. Government to circumvent
our First Amendment rights and censor American small busi-
nesses. Evidence suggests the U.S. State Department gave tax-
payer funds to GDI, which then downrated conservative media or-
ganizations, including the Daily Wire and the Federalist.
In response, the Federalist and the Daily Wire jointly fired a
lawsuit in December. The complaint alleges the Biden administra-
tion used U.S. funds to tap GDI which has relationships with social
media giants and deep-pocketed advertisers.
Federal election data shows State Department employees for
many years have favored Democrats over Republicans with their
political contributions. For example, during the 2016 cycle, State
Department employees gave Democrats almost eight times the
amount of money they gave Republicans. This disproportionate fi-
nancial support could indicate motivation for the alleged viewpoint
discrimination against conservative media.
At Independent Women’s Forum and our sister 501(c)(4) organi-
zation, Independent Women’s Voice, we rely heavily on digital tools
to reach our audiences. Last year we witnessed suppression over
political differences from tech platform Eventbrite. Eventbrite
banned our page, Let Women Speak, organized by our IWN Austin
chapter. Eventbrite claimed we violated community guidelines for
perpetuating hate speech. Eventbrite believes in silencing women’s
voices in the high stakes national conversation on protecting fe-
male safety in sports, prisons, and battered women’s shelters.
While IWN has no evidence, the government pressured
Eventbrite to remove our event, it is worth noting two important
facts: First, IWF has is vocally and visibly opposed to the Biden ad-
ministration’s illegal rewrite of Title IX’s protections for women,
prohibiting sex-based discrimination.
Second, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Biden ad-
ministration violated the First Amendment by pressuring tech-
nology companies to suppress or remove social media posts.
11

In conclusion, America cannot function as a healthy republic
without freedom of speech. Commercial freedom and freedom of ex-
pression go hand in hand. As the Supreme Court has noted for
more than a century, businesses are voices for people.
I am grateful to this committee for investigating this issue and
look forward to working with your team in the days ahead to en-
sure a robust marketplace of ideas flourishes in America.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. And I now recognize
Dr. Franks for her 5-minute opening remarks.

STATEMENT OF DR. MARY ANNE FRANKS
Ms. FRANKS. Thank you. As noted in my introduction, I am a
law professor at the George Washington Law School, and I spe-
cialize in the intersection of the First Amendment Technology and
Civil rights. I am also the president of the Cyber Civil Rights Ini-
tiative, which is the leading U.S. nonprofit organization focused on
combating image-based sexual abuse.
I am speaking only on my own behalf today. I am drawing on the
expertise that I have developed in both of these roles to offer expla-
nations of settled First Amendment doctrine, and to emphasize how
harassment and intimidation campaigns against misinformation re-
searchers, especially when it is instigated by government officials,
chill freedom of expression and jeopardize national security.
The First Amendment, broadly speaking, protects speech from
government suppression. It does not protect speech from criticism
or competition. It does not guarantee any speaker a platform or a
profit. The same First Amendment that protects one person’s right
to speak also protects the right of another person to reject, to dis-
credit, or ignore that speech.
The fact that critical speech may lead to negative consequences
for those who are criticized, such as a decline in popularity or in
revenue merely indicates that the speech is effective, not that it is
censorship.
Competition is not censorship. Counterspeech is not censorship.
Research is not censorship. Providing information to businesses
about other businesses is not censorship.
Efforts to convince consumers, advertisers, and the public that
certain content is false, is fraudulent, harmful, extremist,
harassing or exploitative, is not censorship.
None of this changes just because the government may have pro-
vided funding for the speech in question. While the Supreme Court
has held that ‘‘government officials cannot attempt to coerce pri-
vate parties in order to punish or suppress views that the govern-
ment disfavors,’’ the government is allowed to speak on its own be-
half, and to take sides in controversial matters.
The government is allowed, for example, to promote military en-
listment and war bonds during wartime without also having to pro-
mote messages that discourage those efforts. The government is al-
lowed to fund certain messages or perspectives and not others.
In the 1991 case of Rust v. Sullivan, Chief Justice Rehnquist,
writing for the majority, stated that the First Amendment allows
the government ‘‘to selectively fund a program to encourage certain
activities it believes to be in the public interest, without at the
12

same time funding an alternative program, which seeks to deal
with the problem in another way.’’
The individuals, organizations, and research institutions that are
fighting to maintain the integrity of our elections, our public health
systems, our information ecosystem, are speakers, not censors.
Their speech is more urgently needed now than ever as we face un-
precedented threats to our democracy from both outside and inside
the United States.
If there were any doubt as to the significance of this speech, it
has been dispelled by the increasingly desperate and aggressive at-
tempts to silence it. Misinformation researchers have been vilified,
defunded, harassed, and threatened, including by Members of Con-
gress—government officials using taxpayer dollars to instigate
hearings, subpoenas, lawsuits, document requests, and investiga-
tions to literally shut down speech that they do not like. And un-
like the federal funding programs attacked in this hearing, these
actions by government officials are not merely encouraging speech
that they prefer, but punishing the speech that they fear.
These efforts have been chillingly effective. It was announced re-
cently that the Stanford Internet Observatory, a cross-disciplinary
program that provided in-depth analyses of social media’s role in
child exploitation and the spread of false information about elec-
tions and vaccines ‘‘may shut down amid the political and legal at-
tacks that have,’’ as The Washington Post says, ‘‘cast a pall on ef-
forts to study online misinformation,’’ attacks that have included
‘‘lawsuits, document requests and threats of physical harm,’’ includ-
ing the targeting of student volunteers.
This is what censorship looks like: Government-led efforts to di-
rectly suppress disfavored speech as well as to leverage third par-
ties to assist in those efforts. The harassment and silencing of mis-
information researchers, especially in a year when a record-break-
ing number of elections will take place around the world, threatens
free speech and democracy on unprecedented scale.
If Congress genuinely wants to address the threat of censorship,
it should start by acknowledging that the call is coming from inside
the House. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. As I mentioned at
the beginning, the committee—they have called for votes. So we
will take a brief recess until 11:15, and we will reconvene and
begin the questions. So thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman WILLIAMS. The committee will now come to order.
We will now move to the Member questions under the 5-minute
rule. And I want to thank all of you for bearing with us as we
voted. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
We heard in the Ranking Member’s opening statement that there
is no evidence of government censorship affecting small businesses.
However, three of our witnesses’ testimony seem to negate that
assertation.
Additionally, we heard from Dr. Franks that this hearing is
meant to harass research groups and universities. This is simply
not true. We are asking for transparency to ensure that taxpayer
dollars are not being weaponized to silence political opponents.
Also, our committee has only sent letters to federal agencies, no
13

universities, or other private actors. This is a textbook congres-
sional oversight.
Now, though, through our investigation, we have seen hundreds
of awards that have been given through the SBIR programs to com-
panies who claim to be disinformation experts to police the internet
and interfere with Americans’ right to free speech.
One of these examples is NewsGuard. NewsGuard is multiple
products, one of which uses politicized metrics to rate the media
outlets based on their supposed credibility. And if NewsGuard
claims an organization is not credible, their advertising revenue is
severely affected. NewsGuard is reportedly rated around 10,000
media outlets, many of them small and medium businesses.
So Ms. Younes, can you tell us more about how NewsGuard oper-
ates and how they impact the ability of businesses to earn revenue.
And why it is a problem that the federal government is giving
these kind of companies money?
Ms. YOUNES. So NewsGuard rates media companies based on
their ostensible reliability. And that has the effect of driving adver-
tiser revenue away from them if their rank is unreliable.
Now, I believe that GDI is even worse than NewsGuard. And
their secret blacklist was actually revealed sometime before we
started this litigation and was part of the reason we actually did.
And their secret blacklist showed that all of the sites that they
ranked were reliable were liberal, including, you know, websites
such as The Huffington Post, which I would argue don’t really en-
gage in the most journalistic practices of the highest integrity. And
all of the ones that they deemed unreliable were conservative. So
really shows that this is viewpoint discrimination. Not to mention
the fact that the GEC shouldn’t be funding any of this at all, be-
cause their mandate is to deal with foreign so-called
disinformation. And these are domestic news sites that they are
ranking.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. NewsGuard and companies
like them don’t just impact the businesses. They rate small busi-
nesses. They are not large enough to have an internal advertising
department often partnered with advertising companies to help get
their products or services out to the public. Many of these adver-
tising companies look at the ratings that NewsGuard gives media
companies when deciding where to place a small business ad.
So, Ms. Sheffield, if I am a small business owner, which I actu-
ally am in Texas, and looking to place advertisements to online—
to a conservative audience. But the advertising partner I am work-
ing with is partnered with a company like NewsGuard, am I going
to have issues reaching out to the audiences I need to reach out
to?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Well, so in the industry, there is a term called
‘‘brand safe.’’ And a lot of times, especially for a small startup or
a medium-sized business, a lot of these big brands, like, say, Nike,
or some of the bigger marquis brands, they are not going to be fa-
miliar with smaller startups. And so, they rely on some third par-
ties to determine whether or not this organization or this media
outlet is quote, unquote ‘‘brand safe.’’ And that brand safe designa-
tion can really make or break the future of a business.
14

As I said earlier in my testimony, that 40 percent of small and
medium business publishers say that digital ad sales drive over
half of their overall revenue. So this could be the death knell if
they are not considered brand safe.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Mr. Weingarten, in the limited
time that we have, over the course of our investigation, we found
that so-called fact-checking organizations are being used to bolster
traditional media outlets by labeling others, often small- and me-
dium-sized outlets as untrustworthy if they question the accepted
narratives. So this creates a conflict of interest for many news or-
ganizations; either get in line and stop asking tough questions, or
lose out on advertising revenue, potentially get out of the business.
So based on the output of Newsguard’s and similar companies’
ratings, which narratives do you see being silenced, and do you
think this is a creating an environment where those in power are
not being held accountable?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. I think there is substantial evidence to sug-
gest that views, for example, with respect to virtually every aspect
of COVID-19 from origins to mitigation measures would lead a site
to get downgraded to the extent they took positions that were anti-
thetical to those of public health authorities. We have also seen
this as well with respect to the war in Ukraine.
And I think what is so chilling about this ultimately is if this en-
tire disinformation, counter-disinformation—so-called ecosystem ex-
isted in and of itself without any sort of government backing, I
think we would probably still find it objectionable, but we would
say there is a First Amendment right to it, it is protected.
The problem here is that government is conferring its blessing on
this entire ecosystem, which clearly exists to chill speech officials
don’t like.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. And I now recognize the
Ranking Member for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Franks, have you seen any evidence that ties money from
federal awards to the ratings of American media outlets by GDI?
Ms. FRANKS. I have not.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. In recent testimony, you highlight the real-
world consequences of the investigations launched by Congres-
sional Republicans, that by the way, are basically partisans. For in-
stance, according to your subpoena, you asked for any awards re-
lated to the National Democratic Institute and the role combating
misinformation overseas. Yet your subpoena voids asking for any
records related to the International Republican Institute, which
does similar work overseas, and has also gotten awards from GEC.
Let’s be serious about this issue.
Dr. Franks, can you discuss how this investigation, the legal ex-
penses they create, and harassment they invite can have a chilling
effect on the legitimate political speech of individuals?
Ms. FRANKS. Yes, particularly through the use of things like
very burdensome subpoenas, as you have mentioned, invasive
record requests for massive amounts of private communications,
work product, including student volunteers, in some cases, de-
mands for closed-door interrogations of researchers, expensive law-
suits that take not only money, but time away from researchers
15

and their important work. Those who are involved in these inves-
tigations have, at times, lied about researchers’ work, have vilified
them in the press.
They have made false accusations about them on social media,
which has led to extensive harassment and threats by online mobs
who have published their private information in some cases, have
expressed threats against their family members, and made many
of these researchers fear for their safety. And in response, many of
those individuals have closed down their social media accounts en-
tirely. They have canceled speaking engagements, they have with-
drawn from their work, they have withdrawn from civic participa-
tion. And this is, in fact, what it looks like to see government coer-
cion and actual silencing.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you. Mechanisms that protect our na-
tional security are being threatened, while organizations that com-
bat misinformation by our adversaries are shutting down. Can you
broadly discuss the spread of information warfare from our adver-
saries, specifically during this upcoming election season?
Ms. FRANKS. Broadly speaking, information warfare really
thrives on social tensions, it thrives on misinformation, it thrives
on a polluted information ecosystem. And so, when we are con-
cerned about foreign interference with our elections and other proc-
esses, we have to be concerned about the integrity of that informa-
tion environment. And so the attempts to shut down research on
mis- and disinformation makes us more vulnerable to those kinds
of attacks. And these kinds of threats are only escalating with the
advancement of AI.
We have already seen evidence that AI is being used by foreign
sources to make their campaigns of disinformation and misinforma-
tion and sowing political division even more effective.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Social media algorithms tend to promote con-
tent that is sensational or divisive, because those posts tend to
drive more engagement. If advertisers choose to withdraw their ads
from posts because they do not want to be associated with the mes-
sage, is that censorship?
Ms. FRANKS. It is not censorship, and it is, in fact, quite the op-
posite. It is the First Amendment protected right to choose to dis-
associate from speech with which you disagree.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Is there any evidence of social media algo-
rithms favoring one political viewpoint over another?
Ms. FRANKS. To the extent that there is evidence of partisan
special treatment, that actually runs in the opposite direction.
There have been multiple studies conducted by social media plat-
forms and others that have indicated that, in fact, it is conservative
speech, right-wing speech, that receives preferential treatment.
And that even at times Meta, for instance, on its Facebook service
decided to change its algorithm so that it could boost right-wing
content over left-wing content.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. In my colleagues’ quest to be the ultimate vic-
tim, they often come close to recognizing a real problem, the power
of the counsel of social media platforms to control what is essen-
tially the entire information flow in the country.
What material steps could we take to enrich competition in social
media and create more transparency among them?
16

Ms. FRANKS. If we are really concerned about that conglomera-
tion, that consolidation of power in these few companies, one of the
first things we would need to do is to reform Section 230(C)(1),
which is providing just absolutely unconscionable amount of immu-
nity to social media platforms for engaging in harmful facilitation
of content.
We could also encourage the Federal Trade Commission to do
more oversight and regulation of unfair and deceptive practices.
And we could also provide funding for local media, for other news
sources, for other kinds of interactions that people could engage in
for specific participation in public discourse.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. I now recog-
nize Representative Meuser from the great State of Pennsylvania
for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses as well. You know, interesting and disturbing at the
same time. All right. We appreciate the honesty of how there are
those on this panel that feel that government has the right to
choose what information should be permitted to be published on so-
cial media.
Now certainly, I think we agree at a private sector or the con-
fines of your own home or just personally, you can choose not to
read a particular newspaper or choose not to provide information
to your children, and the private sector within a business. But the
government, the United States Government has the right to pull
information that it disagrees with? Am I hearing this right?
Ms. Franks, we are going to get to that. Are we actually hearing
that right?
So let me ask you this. Thank you again for your honesty. So let
me—Ms. Sheffield, the advertisers are being pushed from free
speech platforms. Can you discuss how those censorship efforts are
affecting, you know, the implications for your small businesses?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Yes, as we have heard from my colleague and
also from litigation from other outlets and in my personal experi-
ence, whether it is investors or advertisers, there is certainly a per-
ception that if you lean a certain way, that if you have populous
impulses, that somehow you are not considered brand safe.
Mr. MEUSER. So in Title IX, you mentioned something about
Title IX. So if I believe in Title IX and boys shouldn’t be playing
girls’ sports, I could be censored?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Absolutely. And in our case, we were censored
by the tech platform Eventbrite——
Mr. MEUSER. Right.
Ms. SHEFFIELD.—which removed our event which allowed
women to speak——
Mr. MEUSER. Right.
Ms. SHEFFIELD.—about sexual assault and their concern with
being forced to be——
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you.
Ms. SHEFFIELD.—placed in the——
Mr. MEUSER. And, Ms. Franks, do you think that is wrong?
17

Ms. FRANKS. You asked the question of whether or not you had
it right, if you are hearing this correctly. And I would say, no, you
are not, if what you are saying——
Mr. MEUSER. Unless specifically—is Ms. Sheffield wrong in
what she just said?
Ms. FRANKS. I am not entirely clear what point was being made
there.
Mr. MEUSER. Okay. Then we will move on.
Ms. FRANKS. But you did ask whether or not you were hearing
correctly. I do just want to say that, no, what I was suggesting was
not my feeling about the law, this is, in fact, the statement of the
law.
Mr. MEUSER. And you were pretty clear. I am going to reclaim
my time. Mr. Weingarten?
Ms. FRANKS. That First Amendment actually does allow the
government to express its own viewpoints, but it does not of course
allow it to silence a dissent——
Mr. MEUSER. You cited Rehnquist, okay? Rehnquist decision,
and the draft was taking place. Okay. Rehnquist decision would
not have suppressed or censored anyone online or putting up a bill-
board that said, I am against the draft. You are suggesting that
would be appropriate by the government and that is dead wrong.
Ms. FRANKS. I am suggesting that words mean something, and
the words ‘‘silencing’’ and ‘‘censoring’’ mean something.
Mr. MEUSER. No——
Ms. FRANKS. These websites have not——
Mr. MEUSER. Counter speech. That’s what we call it, and that
is what the schools have called it.
Ms. FRANKS.—they have not been confined. They have not been
imprisoned. They have not been——
Mr. MEUSER. That is what we call it, and that is what the
schools have called it. And that was what is appropriate, counter
speech, diversity in ideas and discussion.
Ms. FRANKS. Exactly what the GDI is providing, yes.
Mr. MEUSER. Is that what the GDI is providing, Mr.
Weingarten?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. The government has the bully pulpit and a
whole slew of other tools to express its viewpoint. Funding entities
that exist to bankrupt media companies that propagate dissenting
viewpoints, expressly, to me is un-American, unconstitutional, and
frankly just wrong on its face.
Mr. MEUSER. They have labeled you all in pretty nasty terms.
They labeled real clear—almost risky and untrustworthy media
outlets impacted operations—to impact your operations and reve-
nues. Do you want to talk about that a minute?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. Well, first, it bears noting that when a
NewsGuard comes to you with the rating that it does, it does so
with the backing of one of its largest investors, which is a major
ad, PR company representing major clients, including the likes of,
for example, Pfizer, pharmaceutical companies. And it does so with
advisors that include the former head of the State Department’s
Global Engagement Center, the former head of CIA, NSA, as well
as the former Homeland Security advisor.
18

So when it does so, it is a big deal for you to be tarnished and
your reputation to be attacked with very little recourse against it
on seemingly subjective grounds.
Mr. MEUSER. Not by a competitor, by the government.
Mr. WEINGARTEN. De facto.
Mr. MEUSER. De facto, okay. Ms. Younes, how has government’s
involvement using taxpayer dollars, okay, my dollars, my constitu-
ent’s dollars to interfere with the ability of small businesses to
compete online because of—because they may have questioned the
origins of COVID, because they feel immunity when COVID was
there might be comparable to getting the vaccine—or they have
concerns about the vaccine, or they believe in Title IX, or they have
other beliefs that maybe this administration doesn’t agree with.
How does that hurt small business?
Ms. YOUNES. It drives revenue away, and it interferes with our
ability to reach the public, which they have a First Amendment
right to do as the press.
Mr. MEUSER. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields. I now recognize
Representative Landsman from the great State of Ohio for 5 min-
utes.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Court did rule as
we were sitting here, or earlier, in favor of the administration. The
Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to
sharply limit White House officials and other federal employees
from pressuring social media companies to remove posts from their
platforms that the U.S. Government deems problematic. In a 6-3
ruling, the court said the challengers did not have legal grounds or
standing to bring the case against the Biden administration be-
cause the States and individuals could not show that they were di-
rectly harmed by the communications between federal officials and
social media platforms.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said compa-
nies like Facebook and YouTube have longstanding content mod-
eration policies that place warning labels on certain posts and de-
lete others. The challengers, Barrett wrote, did not demonstrate
the company’s actions to remove posts that were traceable to the
government. These lead me to a couple of questions. One is the
Court has spoken.
Just to clarify, let’s start with warning labels. The government
has said that cigarette companies have to put—tobacco companies
have to put warning labels on their products because it causes can-
cer. And this is just a yes or no question. I just—Ms. Younes, do
you oppose those warning labels?
Ms. YOUNES. No.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Okay. Mr. Weingarten, do you oppose those
warning labels?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. No.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Ms. Sheffield, do you oppose those warning la-
bels?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. I don’t think it is applicable here, but——
Mr. LANDSMAN. Yes or no?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. It is apples or oranges, but no.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Good. Ms. Franks?
19

Ms. FRANKS. No, I do not oppose it.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Now, here we will get to something a little bit
more applicable, Ms. Sheffield. Sheffield?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Sheffield, yes, Like ‘‘The Nanny.’’
Mr. LANDSMAN. Yeah. During the thirties and forties, Hitler’s
Nazi Government used propaganda, not just in Germany, but here
in the United States, as you are aware. One of the leading causes
of drivers of anti-Semitism and ultimately horrible events, includ-
ing the Holocaust has been blood libel, including this lie that Jews
killed Jesus.
Let’s say, as they did in the thirties and forties, that the Nazi
Government was paying for content on platforms that Jews killed
Jesus and that they needed to be round up. Would you have a prob-
lem, Ms. Younes, if the government pulled that content?
Ms. YOUNES. I am sorry, who is putting the content up?
Mr. LANDSMAN. Well, this was content that was put up and
distributed throughout the United States in the 1930s and early
’40s. And so, if similar content was put out on media platform now,
yes or no, do you have a problem?
Ms. YOUNES. I do not think that the government should be in-
volved in censoring that. I think that counter speech is the appro-
priate way to go.
Mr. LANDSMAN. So in this case, it is fine, Jews killed Jesus,
round them up, you can keep it. Mr. Weingarten?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. Well, I’d want to think more about the hy-
pothetical. What I think is inapt to this is you are talking about
foreign-funded on domestic platforms.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Right, we don’t——
Mr. WEINGARTEN. We are also talking about an enemy regime,
not American speech on issues that are politically——
Mr. LANDSMAN. Foreign adversaries don’t pay for this by say-
ing, Hey, we are paying for this. We don’t know who is paying for
the content.
Ms. Sheffield, yes or no? Are you okay with this or no?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. This hearing is about the Global Engagement
Center, which is the U.S. State Department and whether or not
they spent U.S. tax dollars to suppress American citizens. The
analogy is clearly irrelevant.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Ms. Franks, you would agree that that content
needed to be removed?
Ms. FRANKS. I believe that if the government made the choice
that it wanted to assist organizations in countering that message,
or suggesting that there were tools that could be used so that that
message could be countered with truthful and factual information,
that that would be acceptable.
Mr. LANDSMAN. I think that’s right. Ms. Sheffield, your beef is
with Eventbrite. I mean, you are frustrated because Eventbrite
thought that promoting an event that bullied children was a prob-
lem. That is how they saw it. It is a private company. Did you take
them to court?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. We requested them to reinstate our event, and
they chose not to respond. But again, that is just one of numer-
ous——
Mr. LANDSMAN. And did you take them to court?
20

Ms. SHEFFIELD. We have waited—we sent out a message to
them. We waited for a response. The event has already passed. But
again, this—the question is——
Mr. LANDSMAN. But you could if you wanted to. You have ac-
cess to the criminal justice system, the court system. You can take
them to court.
Ms. SHEFFIELD. We could.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Okay.
Ms. SHEFFIELD. And, in fact, we actually are taking the Biden
administration to court for its illegal rewrite of Title IX.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Just be careful because the Supreme Court
just said, I wouldn’t do that. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. SHEFFIELD. The Supreme Court just said this was not
based on——
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. The time is
up. I now recognize Representative Van Duyne from the great
State of Texas for her 5 minutes.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much. Mr. Landsman just
quotes from today’s SCOTUS opinion. But it is important to high-
light exactly what you were saying, that neither the individual nor
the State plaintiffs have established Article 3, which is standing.
It doesn’t mean that they do not have standing to sue. This is not
a decision based on the merits.
Ms. Younes, you are our constitutional—can you give us some
clarity on this?
Ms. YOUNES. Sure. Actually, I am one of the lawyers on the
case, so I know it well. This was also limited to the preliminary in-
junction. They said because a preliminary injunction is about for-
ward-looking relief, and they hadn’t—the plaintiffs hadn’t estab-
lished a likelihood that they would be harmed in the future be-
cause some of these programs appeared to be ending.
So this is not about the merits. The court actually specifically
said it was not expressing the views to the merits. The case will
continue in the district court. And I suppose that is essentially the
issue is this is limited to the preliminary injunction. They are not
saying that the government didn’t do anything wrong.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you for clarifying that. I wanted to
make sure that that was clarified and not just cut off. The State
Department’s so-called Global Engagement Center which is exactly
what we are here to talk about today had spent millions of tax-
payer dollars to silence American small businesses who do not
share their liberal, political beliefs.
The CEO of the Global Disinformation Index even admitted that
this list has, quote, ‘‘significant impact on the advertising revenue,’’
unquote, on the companies, showing that they are knowingly at-
tempting to destroy livelihoods of those with which they disagree.
Meanwhile, the Global Disinformation Index scores NPR as one
of the least risky outlets, citing as quote, ‘‘neutral, fact-based con-
tent.’’ Contradicting GDI’s rating, an NPR staffer who worked
there for 25 years wrote about his experiences at NPR, and high-
lighted the level of bias that GDI failed to recognize. This article
said that when stories NPR labeled as disinformation turned out
to be credible, such as the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden laptop
21

and the COVID-19 lab leak theory, that NPR quote, ‘‘pretended it
never happened and performed no self-reflection.’’
Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter the full arti-
cle into the record.
Chairman WILLIAMS. No objection.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. The Biden administration has pledged to be
the most transparent administration in history. But instead, we
found that they have been stonewalling our requests time and time
again because they know exactly what they are doing, and they are
using improper use of taxpayer funds, if not completely unethical
and illegal.
We will continue to expose this administration’s extremist agen-
da and their lawless acts as we work to provide accountability for
American small businesses.
I was stunned, Ms. Franks, that you had to say that, Oh, they
haven’t been imprisoned. Is that now the bar that we are setting?
So we are fine bankrupting these businesses, we are fine black-
listing them, we are fine shutting them down, and silencing their
voice, but at least they are not being imprisoned yet.
Ms. FRANKS. Sorry, was that a question for me?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. No, it is not a question. I am just flab-
bergasted at your statement.
Ms. FRANKS. I misunderstood——
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Weingarten, do you think the Global
Disinformation Index is a fair assessment?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. I don’t, but even if it was, the government
shouldn’t be funding it.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So given that opinions are often difficult to
separate from fact and that facts evolve over time, would it even
be possible to assess the accuracy of a media outlet in a truly objec-
tive fashion?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. It is an inherently subjective exercise—as
outlets put out news and views that are varying. And to have some
sort of ‘‘ministry of truth,’’ or ‘‘ministries of truth’’ out there with
the government’s blessing is incredibly chilling.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So why is it an issue that the federal govern-
ment is funding supposed fact-checking organizations?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. Because effectively, this amounts to abridg-
ing of speech by proxy. Even if you couldn’t draw a straight line
from a government official saying ‘‘Take down X, Y, Z speech,’’ the
government is effectively giving its blessing through its funding to
these entities, which exist to put out of business, some entities, and
also, by the way, effectively provide a subsidy to the protected
whitelisted publications as well.
So it is a dual-edged sword. It is picking winners and losers de
facto with government funding.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. But it is picking winners and losers based on
what?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. Well, it seems clear when you look at the
breakdowns of how the scores come out based upon ideology. View-
point—diversity is antithetical it seems to these entities.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So Ms. Franks said that typically what hap-
pens is it benefits conservative news outlets. Has that been your
experience? Is that what you have seen?
22

Mr. WEINGARTEN. We have seen ratings to suggest—
NewsGuard’s ratings reviewed—large samples of both right-leaning
and left-leaning publications, and it comes out that the left-leaning
publications rank substantially higher, 25-plus points higher on
NewsGuard’s 100-point scale than right-leaning publications.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Can you give any examples of right-wing pub-
lications that they have disparaged?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. Well, they cast, I guess, RealClearPolitics
and RealClearInvestigations, as having an undisclosed conservative
bias. But, of course, this includes the Federalist, I think probably
well The Daily Wire, Townhall, I believe, a slew of other so-called
right-wing leaning entities as well.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Excellent. Thank you, and I yield.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. Now I recog-
nize Representative Crane from the great State of Arizona for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the hearing
today.
I want to start with you, Ms. Franks. I believe you said the gov-
ernment has the right to participate in expressing its viewpoint. Is
that what you said?
Ms. FRANKS. Yes.
Mr. CRANE. I don’t—respectfully, Ms. Franks, I don’t think that
is what we are really talking about here today. We are not talking
about the government expressing its viewpoints. What we are real-
ly talking about is when the government pays and uses taxpayer
dollars to fund these entities that we are talking about here today
that actually discredit some of these news sites, and drives away
their advertisers. Do you think that is fair as well?
Ms. FRANKS. What is fair is for the government to be able to
fund projects and organizations that do certain things with those
funds that may include competing in the marketplace of ideas, and
they may be winning in the marketplace of ideas. But the govern-
ment is not making those choices. And when certain news outlets
lose in the marketplace of ideas, they may want to blame the gov-
ernment for that, but maybe they are just losers.
Mr. CRANE. So—okay. Ms. Franks, do you think——
Ms. FRANKS. It is actually Dr. Franks.
Mr. CRANE. Okay. Dr. Franks, sorry. Ms. Younes here said that
when she was looking at these entities and the organizations that
they have blacklisted, every single one of them was a conservative-
leaning organization. Do you think that is fair as well? Is that
okay, Dr. Franks?
Ms. FRANKS. You used a different name, so I wasn’t sure you
were talking to me.
Mr. CRANE. Yeah, I am still talking to you. I am still looking
at you. I am still talking to you.
Ms. FRANKS. Would you repeat the question for me.
Mr. CRANE. Yeah. You seem to have a problem paying attention
to the questions being asked of you today. I will repeat it for you
again. Do you think that it is okay that these entities that are
blacklisting companies, all of the companies on the list that are
blacklisted are conservative outlets?
23

Ms. FRANKS. Do I think that it is okay for a company, for a
nonprofit organization to develop tools that offer rankings? In other
words, offer speech of criticism, critical speech about certain busi-
nesses? Yes, I think that is okay, because that is protected First
Amendment activity.
Mr. CRANE. So you think it is okay for the federal government
to be using our tax dollars to basically, through a proxy, blacklist
one side of the aisle? You think that is okay?
Ms. FRANKS. I do not, because that is not what is happening.
Mr. CRANE. Really? How so?
Ms. FRANKS. Yes. Because——
Mr. CRANE. Then why are all the companies on the list, the
blacklist, conservative groups?
Ms. FRANKS. I think that is something the conservatives would
need to answer.
Mr. CRANE. No. I think that is something you need to answer.
Ms. FRANKS. I am not working with any of these companies.
Mr. CRANE. Because we are talking about censorship here and
there is only one group of people being censored.
Ms. FRANKS. No one is being censored according to——
Mr. CRANE. Ms. Younes here admitted she is not even a Repub-
lican. She leans left. Yet she is telling us that all of the companies
on the blacklist are conservative groups. How do you square that,
Doctor?
Ms. FRANKS. I don’t have to square that, because, as I said, the
focus here——
Mr. CRANE. I know, because you don’t have to make any sense,
do you?
Ms. FRANKS. May I answer the question?
Mr. CRANE. Yeah, go ahead.
Ms. FRANKS. The First Amendment has certain principles and
certain rules. People may not like them. People may disagree with
them. People may not like the fact that someone out there may say
conservatives are all bad or liberals are all bad. The correct re-
sponse to not liking that is to engage in your own speech, as is
often happening here. It is not to say, Oh, this is censorship, we
are being silenced. It is simply to say we disagree with what is
being said here. Try to compete, and if you are good enough, maybe
you will win.
Mr. CRANE. Ms. Younes, what do you have to say about what
Dr. Franks just said?
Ms. YOUNES. I want to be clear that this wasn’t just about
NewsGuard and GDI. The government was funding hundreds, at
least 300 tools and technologies that were designed to censor
speech. Some of them weren’t even pretending to censor foreign
disinformation, quote, unquote. ‘‘Disinformation.’’ Of course, that is
a subjective term. They were hosting COVID disinformation chal-
lenges where they were giving grants to companies who showed
that they were the best at censoring COVID disinformation.
COVID is not really a national security or foreign topic, even if it
has some tinges of that.
So this was about the government using its authority—the gov-
ernment can’t use its authority, can’t use its power, and can’t use
its money in order to censor views it doesn’t like. It is the govern-
24

ment. Yes, it has a right to censor—sorry, to express its own views,
but not to use those views to censor. That is where it stops. And
the Court expressly said that in Vullo recently actually.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Weingarten, I am going to allow you to com-
ment on this exchange.
Mr. WEINGARTEN. I would just say briefly we have heard a ro-
bust defense of the government’s purported right to speak, which
is we have established, really looks like a right to censor, and the
censor is portrayed as the victims here. But Americans’ speech, en
masse, has been censored by this Censorship-Industrial Complex
on a slew of issues that expressly reflect protected political speech,
and if a stop isn’t put to it, we are going to lose this right in toto.
Mr. CRANE. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Representative Bean from the great State of Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. BEAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning
to you, and good morning, Small Business Committee. For 237
years, our nation has been the beacon, the shining example of free-
dom around the world. Other nations look to us with envy. The cor-
nerstone of that freedom is our First Amendment freedom of the—
freedom of the press, freedom of speech, what is one of the many
things that separates America from the rest of the world. Hope-
fully, America is watching.
America, are you watching? Because thanks to the congressional
investigations by the Judiciary Committee, we now know the Biden
administration has been undermining freedom of the press and
freedom of the speech almost since they took office.
Here is how they do it. Here is the recipe to undermine Ameri-
cans’ right to know. They push big tech to change their terms of
service, to fit the administration’s agenda. One such company was
Amazon. We have got the smoking gun evidence right here. On
March 12th, 2021, Biden at the White House emailed Amazon’s
vice president of public policy about the high levels of propaganda
and misinformation and disinformation at Amazon.
They continued to pressure Amazon to give warnings about any-
body questioning the COVID vaccines, but that was not enough.
They continued to press them on taking these books out of reach,
or even just making them disappear. Thousands of books about the
vaccine were disappeared overnight.
Still not enough. They continued to press them. We have got the
memos. They continued to press Amazon to put something called
‘‘do not promote’’ designation under the table at Amazon, and then
another 43 books that questioned the vaccine just disappeared.
If you are going to sell anything, America looks to Amazon as it
is the largest bookstore in our nation, and it has a drastic effect
on getting the word out.
So I will start with Ms. Sheffield. How important is it that an
author to have access to sell books on Amazon? Is that a big deal?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. It is huge. It is the largest book seller, and as
I mentioned in my opening remarks, the FTC under Lina Khan,
the Biden administration has sought to basically suppress authors
from being allowed to offer their books at the lowest price, and it
is an Orwellian attempt to destroy what is known as the consumer
25

welfare standard, and the consumer welfare standard has been the
bedrock of competition in this country for decades, and it is truly
troubling that Lina Khan believes that she can be a rogue actor,
and she keeps getting swatted down in the courts repeatedly. That
is the only silver lining of her actions.
Mr. BEAN. So it is a big deal is your answer. It is a big deal
and it stifles free speech. It does stifle free speech. Do you find it
ironic that the Biden administration pointed the finger at States
like my State, the free State of Florida, for removing porn, porno-
graphic materials from elementary schools, yet they actually went
to Amazon to have these books secretly removed? Do you find
honor—irony in that, Ms. Sheffield?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Oh, absolutely. I mean, it—but it is also not
surprising from this administration that we see over and over the
overreach of government to suppress speech. It is interesting this
Congressman——
Mr. BEAN. Let’s just do this, because I have got more questions
to get to. Let the record reflect the witness says yes, it is very iron-
ic.
Here is how they did it, too. America, are you still listening? Be-
cause they used something called NewsGuard and then they get to
pick and choose what sources, what news. If you like them, they’ll
promote you, and if they don’t like you through NewsGuard, then
they can bankrupt you, they can label you disinformation, and it
is shocking. It should be shocking to you, America.
But how about this? It also concerns me the NewsGuard is
partnered with the American Federation of Teachers, the largest
teachers’ union, 1.7 million teachers now have NewsGuard in their
classrooms where their news is chosen for them. It means that stu-
dents using NewsGuard are told generally conservative outlets can-
not be trusted, yet they should put their faith in organizations, leg-
acy media, like The New York Times. We don’t—we know about
The New York Times. It doesn’t have—there is a bias. We all know
there is a bias.
Our students are indoctrinated not to trust outlets based on
NewsGuard’s partisan ratings, and if you don’t get the good rat-
ings, then you are not trusted and no one wants to advertise or go
there.
So Mr. Weingarten, does it worry you that students are being
told that outlets such as RealClear and other media outlets cannot
be trusted? Does that bother you?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. It is troublesome, and particularly given
that media literacy education is starting to be mandated in a lot
of States, which is going to mean you are going to have to get your
news content from NewsGuard raters.
Mr. BEAN. I will take it as a yes.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Gentleman yields back. I now Represent-
ative Maloy from the great State of Utah for 5 minutes.
Ms. MALOY. First of all, I just want to thank the witnesses for
being here, and I apologize I have had to be in and out a couple
of times. I testified in front of a committee once and I spent a lot
of time preparing, and the Members came in and out and I found
that kind of irritating, so I apologize, but that has been me today.
26

I think I am going last, right, Mr. Chair? One more. Okay. So
I don’t have to——
Chairman WILLIAMS. Do you want to go last?
Ms. MALOY. No. I am good. I just wanted to know if I need to
wrap it up or if I can build. Okay.
I feel like I talk about the same things a lot in this committee,
but what we are here talking about isn’t necessarily what the First
Amendment says, but what the proper roles of government agen-
cies are. And this is the Small Business Committee, and the reason
we are talking about it here and not in Oversight or Judiciary right
now is because we have got government entities that are acting
outside of their proper role, and it is having a negative impact on
main street businesses in the United States of America, and that
is something I think we should all find troubling, no matter where
you fall on the political spectrum.
And so, I do have questions, but I want to be clear when I start
asking questions that that is where I am coming from. That is
what we are talking about here, is what role the government
should be playing in picking winners and losers in the free market.
So Mr. Weingarten, I want to start with you, because you talked
about something that I want to give you a little bit more time to
follow up on. So we are talking about foreign facing—foreign facing
agencies—easy for me to say—that are supposed to be giving rat-
ings to disinformation coming from other nations, correct?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. That is correct.
Ms. MALOY. And now they are using those authorities to do
what?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. They are using those authorities effectively
to attempt to cripple the business models of disfavored media com-
panies, U.S.-based media companies included.
Ms. MALOY. So we are not really talking about government
speech and what is and isn’t allowed. We are talking about these
specific agencies have authorities and they are acting outside of
those authorities. Am I understanding that correctly?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. That is how I see it—and not to speak, but
to suppress others’ speech.
Ms. MALOY. Yeah. And it is not just about saying what some-
body can or can’t say, but they give a rating, and based on that rat-
ing, somebody may or may not be able to get sponsors.
Mr. WEINGARTEN. That is correct.
Ms. MALOY. So as a politician, I know how hard it is to get your
message out in front of people, and as a Member of Congress, I
kind of have a naturally built-in platform. In fact, I am using it
right now. But for a main street business, if they get a negative
rating because of their conservative views, that can have a real im-
pact on their ability to get their product in front of customers, not
necessarily a government program or government policy, but we
are talking about main street businesses struggling to get their
products in front of people because they hold a view that is un-
popular with the government agency. Am I off base here?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. No. That is correct.
Ms. MALOY. Okay. So I am most of the way through my time.
I just want to, before I am done, give each of you three a chance.
27

Is there anything you wanted to say today that no one’s asked you
the right question to get you to say?
Ms. YOUNES. The First Amendment says that the government
shall not abridge the freedom of speech, abridge. So the govern-
ment should not be using its power to censor ideas, whether it is
through coercion, collusion, any of those means. I think that is the
most important principle that I want to put forth.
Ms. MALOY. I agree. That is also how they taught it in my law
school.
Mr. WEINGARTEN. It is notable that in the opinion that came
down today, there is a footnote in the majority’s opinion which says
‘‘Because we do not reach the merits, we express no view as to
whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for
when the Govern-ment transforms private conduct into State ac-
tion.’’ So it is not a ruling on the merits, but the Court’s silence
on the merits I think speaks to the imperative for legislative action
to be taken, because the courts are not necessarily going to provide
a panacea on this issue.
Ms. MALOY. Yeah.
Ms. Sheffield.
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Yes. Being from Utah, great to connect with
you. My ancestors helped found Salt Lake City.
Ms. MALOY. Wonderful.
Ms. SHEFFIELD. So I mentioned earlier in my remarks about
the I think staggering ratio of eight-to-one when we are talking
about State Department employees donating to Democrats by an
eight-to-one margin versus Republicans. To me, this begs the ques-
tion to what extent is the unelected bureaucracy of the politburo
of the State Department and other government agencies, to what
extent do these unelected bureaucrats shape what happens in
terms of these funds and government taxpayer money for projects
like the University of Cambridge Social Decision Making lab, the
Moonshot CVE, the Atlantic Council Digital Forensic’s research
lab, who elected these bureaucrats at the State Department and
other agencies to take my tax dollars, your tax dollars, the people—
my cousins and uncles in Utah, their tax dollars to fund these sup-
pressive activities? I think——
Ms. MALOY. I don’t know if you are allowed to question me, but
the answer is nobody. And I am going to just cut you off so I can
use the rest of my time to point out, since you brought up Salt
Lake City, it was settled by people who were running from the gov-
ernment telling them they couldn’t exercise their First Amendment
rights, so this isn’t the first time this has happened. It is impor-
tant, and having this hearing is bedrock important to what we do
as Americans.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Lady yields back. I now recognize Rep-
resentative Alford from the great State of Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for holding this
all-important meeting, and thank you, Ranking Member Velázquez,
as well. The First Amendment is at the heart of what makes this
country great. The right, the freedom of speech, the prohibition on
government infringement, is what separates our country from the
rest of the world.
28

However, the Biden administration does not agree with this. This
administration has been using the power of the executive branch
to infringe upon America’s right to freedom of speech. While the
First Amendment prevents direct government intervention, the ad-
ministration has found a back door by finding and supporting so
called disinformation organizations. There have been more than
500 U.S. federal government contracts or grants awarded on
disinformation since 2020. This funding has been used to build a
network of government-backed nonprofits, so called fact-checkers,
organizations of foundations to push the left-wing narrative by de-
claring anything right of the New York Times is disinformation.
They have been successful in doing this.
As revealed in an email from a Meta executive to Mark
Zuckerberg, quote, We are facing continued pressure from external
stakeholders, including the White House, to remove more COVID-
19 vaccine discouragement content.
If the federal government is successful in moving companies as
large as Meta with a market cap well over $1 trillion, what can
they do to small businesses?
I was in the news business for 35 years. My goal was to tell the
truth. When we have organizations like this that are coming in and
telling us what the truth is and limiting the truth from getting out,
we are in a big world of hurt when it comes to the First Amend-
ment.
Ms. Younes, one of the most disturbing aspects of government-
backed censorship was the State Department’s support of the Glob-
al Disinformation Index, or GDI. The GDI’s mission is to catalyze
industry and government to defund disinformation. Can you please
explain the legal basis upon which your clients brought the case
against the State Department and its Global Engagement Center.
Ms. YOUNES. There are three main claims. First of all, it is a
First Amendment violation because by funding and working with
the Global Disinformation Index, which is effectively blacklisting
conservative news sites or disfavored news sites, the government is
interfering in the marketplace of ideas, and effectively censoring
our clients. There is—it has to go through a couple of levels. You
have to—it is not direct. It is through these mechanisms. And that
is what makes it kind of insidious and has been allowing them to
get away with it.
It is also a problem because the GEC is supposed to be fighting—
their mandate is to fight foreign disinformation. They operate
under the State Department, which is about foreign affairs. They
are not supposed to be dealing with domestic speech and they don’t
even pretend.
For instance, there was a presentation which you can look at on-
line in which the GEC’s technology and engagement representative
Alexis Frisbie said that they were having conversations to ensure
there is discussion occurring, so I think you know those are in
terms of interaction. That is talking about it at domestic level.
They are not even pretending this is about foreign disinformation
anymore.
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Weingarten, NewsGuard is another left-wing
organization supposedly ranking disinformation in the news. Let
me tell you, just because you have news in your title doesn’t mean
29

you are a news organization, or you are fit to call what are balls
and strikes in the news business. We have dealt with them on the
Armed Services Committee. We are getting them out of the busi-
ness of regulating speech for the DOD. It doesn’t only decide which
source of media are or not disinformation. They also have
partnered with the largest teachers’ union in the world to teach
students about disinformation. What does NewsGuard’s partner-
ship with the American Federation of Teachers, a top donor to
President Biden, mean for center right news?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. I think it means that the American children
are going to get a left-wing or left-wing-oriented diet of news con-
tent going forward to the extent the relationship persists, and what
is called media literacy education increasingly gets mandated in
States across the country.
Mr. ALFORD. How much of a danger are organizations like
NewsGuard to the foundations and principles of America?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. I think they pose an existential threat. It
would be illiberal for them to exist even if they weren’t government
funded, but the government funding makes it particularly chilling
and disturbing.
Mr. ALFORD. This is a very, very disturbing issue that we are
dealing with in all realms of government right now in the commit-
tees on which we serve. This is of utmost importance, because if
you cannot get information that is unfiltered and the truth to peo-
ple, we are going to be brainwashed into a liberal woke, broke,
ideal of what America truly is.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Gentleman yields back, and I would like
to thank our witnesses today for their testimony and for appearing
before us today. We had some good testimony. Without objection,
Members have 5 legislative days to submit additional materials
and written questions of the witnesses to the Chair, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses, so I ask the witnesses to please re-
spond promptly if that happens. If there is no further opinions,
without objection, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
30

APPENDIX
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79

File and source

File: CHRG-118hhrg55971.pdf
Size: 3,696,794 bytes
SHA-256: dc59c587c5da2a2391bc646b4357c6b8ed97043335f1b1cdf091a1785cf246b5
Our copy: CHRG-118hhrg55971.pdf
Original: www.govinfo.gov