Dr. Fauci's Amnesia


Decades ago, he drove a paradigm shift in pandemic response that focused on controlling the entire human population; his later advocacy of lockdowns and vaccine mandates implemented this vision.

What follows is my farewell homage to Anthony Fauci, on the occasion of his retirement, published yesterday in Compact magazine. Compact, founded by my friends Sohrab Ahmahri and Matthew Schmitz, is among the best journals out there—thoughtful, in-depth articles on the crucial issues of our time. Independent journalism is more important now than ever, so take a look at Compact and consider subscribing to it here.

Last week, The New York Times published a guest essay in praise of Dr. Anthony Fauci, written by Dr. Anthony Fauci. In this auto-hagiography, Fauci, who until recently served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or NAIAD, and as President Biden’s chief medical adviser, attempted to rewrite recent history.

“I never aspired to a major administrative position and relished my identity as a hands-on physician and clinical researcher,” wrote the man who at the height of the pandemic found time to pose for an InStyle fashion shoot. Fauci added: “I ‌‌always speak the unvarnished truth to ‌presidents and other senior government officials, even when such truths may be uncomfortable or politically inconvenient, because extraordinary things can happen when science and politics work hand in hand.” Just so: Extraordinary things certainly have happened under his watch when science and politics fused.

It was a remarkable piece of mainstream-media-powered mendacity—and a reminder of Fauci’s mastery of the ways of contemporary power. It’s that savvy that has allowed Fauci to maintain his unprecedented position of power and influence for almost four decades at the NIAID division of the National Institutes of Health, notwithstanding his failures and dangerous power-grabs during the AIDS epidemic and the Covid pandemic. And it’s what impelled me to join a lawsuit against him in Missouri v. Bidencharging that Fauci and other senior officials in the administration violated the First Amendment’s free-speech protections by colluding with social-media companies to censor information that questioned the government’s favored Covid policies.

When the pandemic arrived, we saw a concerted effort to anoint Fauci the public face of the nation’s health authorities. Many Americans, especially our media and tech gatekeepers, hoped that Fauci, the steady man of science, could play foil to the erratic President Donald Trump in those harried news conferences of early 2020. The nation—indeed, the world—looked to this man to keep his hand on the rudder and guide us calmly through the pandemic storm.

Fauci was ready for his moment in the sun. A consummate DC insider, he had cultivated a power base in Washington and the media for decades. He served in several administrations, under both parties, and craftily used the AIDS epidemic to increase funding for NIAID and gain enormous control over biomedical research in the United States. He also cultivated media allies, who were eager for access to Fauci’s insider scoop when the pandemic broke.

Fauci’s influence on the recent US pandemic response extends back decades. In 1989, Fauci organized a conference in Washington to introduce a novel concept: a biosecurity threat. People had worried about biological weapons prior to 1989, of course, but Fauci’s conference introduced a consequential reframing: The potential threat was no longer a novel pathogen, such as a virus or bacteria, whether of natural origin or developed as a bioweapon. Rather, the new paradigm focused instead on humanity as a microbial population vector. The challenge, in other words, was that people functioned as a conveyance apparatus for viruses or bacteria.

Grasping this point goes a long way toward helping us understand our disastrous Covid response. In Fauci’s frame, the human population itself becomes a dangerous problem to be solved by experts—by a new caste of technocrats who must be granted unprecedented powers to control their fellow human beings. This biosecurity model became America’s infectious-disease-response policy following the Anthrax attacks shortly after 9/11. That’s when we began to hear the language of pandemic “countermeasures”—which isn’t a medical term, but the jargon of spycraft and soldiering.

As Ashley Rindsberg has documented, contrary to popular opinion, far from being a public health expert, since 2003 Fauci has sat atop America’s bio-defense infrastructure—wielding the enormous post-9/11 powers and budget this brought to his previously obscure NAIAD, one of 27 divisions at the NIH.

In Fauci’s reconfigured agency, with no oversight structure above him, the distinction between biodefense and scientific research collapsed. As Rindsberg explains: “Biodefense projects that formerly would have fallen under the authority of military or intelligence agencies were now under his direct supervision.” This also explains why Fauci is the highest paid federal employee, earning more than the US president, our four-star generals, senators, and Supreme Court justices, and why he makes roughly double the salary of his nominal superior, the NIH director—a fact that indicates who really holds sway over biomedical research funding in the United States.

It took more than 20 years, but the biosecurity approach became the default strategy during the Covid pandemic. Over the last three years, the biomedical-security paradigm has been rolled out on a global scale, shaping what I dubbed our New Abnormal. Recall how the phrase “the new normal” emerged almost immediately in the initial weeks of the pandemic, and how many ordinary social norms and expectations were rebranded as dangerous. In the first month of Covid, Fauci even suggested that perhaps we would never again go back to shaking hands.

The Pulse is a reader supported. If you appreciate our work, please become a paid subscriber today.Click Here to Support.

Authoritarian lockdowns, school closures, vaccine and mask mandates, vaccine passports, and other assorted biosecurity measures proved ineffective at stopping the spread of the virus, and thus failed to achieve their intended goals. Instead, these previously untested policies inflicted enormous collateral damage. The full measure of these harms—the medical, psychological, and spiritual carnage—will take decades to unpack, though there is already plenty of available evidence to sift through.

The Missouri v. Biden case, in which I’m one of the plaintiffs, is a First Amendment free-speech lawsuit alleging that government officials across at least 17 different federal agencies leaned on social-media companies to suppress free speech, especially when it involves the government’s pandemic response. During his recent deposition in our case, Fauci confirmed what many suspected regarding the origins of lockdowns—namely, that the decision to lock down wasn’t based on empirical data, but on the word of the Chinese authorities as conveyed by Fauci’s deputy at NIAID, Clifford Lane. Indeed, in February 2020 there was no empirical data for this previously untested intervention, only flawed and now-disproved predictive computer models, like that of the Imperial College London, which were off by several orders of magnitude.

Tocqueville warned that democracy contains built-in vulnerabilities that can lead democratic nations into despotism. In our case, that vulnerability had a name and a representative figure: Anthony Fauci, an official who looked to a totalitarian state as the exemplar for managing a pandemic. The first state-ordered lockdown occurred in Wuhan and nearby Chinese cities. In mid-February 2020, the World Health Organization sent a delegation to China to investigate Covid. As the US delegate, Fauci dispatched Lane, his deputy.

Immediately upon returning, Lane convinced Fauci the United States should emulate China’s response. Given his adoption of the biosecurity model more than 20 years earlier, Fauci probably didn’t take much convincing. Chinese authorities told the WHO delegation that they had contained the virus through draconian lockdowns—a claim now clearly demonstrated to have been false. Had lockdowns worked in China as advertised in February 2020, we wouldn’t be seeing today record numbers of cases in China, notwithstanding the Communist Party’s increasingly terrifying and dystopian measures.

Given China’s historical pattern of falsified information, Lane and Fauci should have approached this intel with skepticism. After all, lockdowns were wholly untested and unprecedented. But as one of our lawyers in the case, Jenin Younes of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, put it, Fauci “was apparently willing to base his lockdown advocacy on the observations of a single guy relying on reports from a dictator.” Not exactly a double-blind randomized trial level of evidence for a man who identifies himself with The Science.

Days after Lane returned, the WHO published its report praising China’s strategy. Uncritically echoing Chinese propaganda, the report claimed: “China’s uncompromising and rigorous use of non-pharmaceutical measures to contain transmission of the COVID-19 virus in multiple settings provides vital lessons for the global response. This rather unique and unprecedented public health response in China reversed the escalating cases.”

Lockdowns were first imposed in the West in Italy, then adopted at the recommendation of Fauci and White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Deborah Birx in the United States. Within weeks, the whole world was locked down. From the outset, the evidential basis for this global policy catastrophe was paper-thin. Fauci knew this—or at least, he should have. But what China had done was aligned with his own reframing of public health as management of biosecurity threats through the control of entire populations. Indeed, to this day, he is prepared to support the ongoing Chinese lockdowns if they function as a useful fulcrum to coerce compliance with other public-health mandates.

After bringing China’s unprecedented authoritarian measures to the United States, Fauci next resolved that the entire population must be vaccinated. To this end, the psychological strain of prolonged lockdowns and school closures offered useful leverage: If you wanted to avoid further forced isolation, it was up to you to get the jabs. Pressing this logic to its logical conclusion, as recently as last month Fauci toldCNN that the continued lockdowns in China could be justified, at least for a period of time, if the goal was to force vaccine compliance: “If the purpose is, ‘Let’s get all the people vaccinated, particularly the elderly,’ then OK.”

Fauci’s promotion of mass vaccination was ideologically of a piece with his support for lockdowns. Rather than targeting the response at those most vulnerable to the virus, both policies sought a one-size-fits-all approach to control the behavior of the entire population. However, he likely had other reasons for aggressively pushing the vaccines. Most people are still unaware that NIAID, Fauci’s division of the NIH, co-owns the patent on the Moderna vaccine, among thousands of other pharma patents.

Rather than providing grants to university-based investigators to run the clinical trials on their own Moderna vaccine, the NIH conducted this research internally, a clear conflict of interest. NIAID will earn millions from this vaccine’s revenue, with several NIH employees (and their heirs) personally receiving up to $150,000 annually from Moderna vaccine sales. Indeed, the NIH went to bat in a lawsuit with the company to fight for its share of the patent. Big money is at stake: The Government Accountability Office estimated recently that the NIH has earned $2 billion in royalties since 1991 from its patents for FDA-approved drugs.

In May 2022, documents obtained by a FOIA request from Open the Books, a nonprofit organization dedicated to investigating and disclosing government expenditures, revealed that NIH director Francis Collins, Fauci, and Lane all received royalties from pharmaceutical companies between 2009 and 2014. Open the Books estimates that from 2010 to 2020, third parties paid more than $350 million in royalties to NIH and its scientists, who are credited as co-inventors. In the years they received payments, Collins, Fauci, and Lane were administrators, not researchers, at the NIH, with no plausible claim to serving as scientific co-discoverers. The exact amount they earned from royalties was redacted from the released documents.

Many people have asked me why more scientists failed to challenge our misguided Covid policies, which were often presented to the public without even the pretense of scientific rigor. The answer is that the vast majority of biomedical research in the United States is underwritten by the NIH, with funding controlled by a small group of NIH insiders like Fauci—many of whom stay in power for decades.

NIH sinecures allow the likes of Fauci to wield a vast power over primary investigators and their teams of university researchers, permitting one man to shape the entire research agenda of the field for a generation or more. University researchers and their institutions were thus easily controlled by the threat of losing grant money should they challenge Fauci’s preferred policies. For this reason alone, he should never have opined on public-health policies, a clear conflict of interest. His job as NAIAD director was always to fund research, never to make or advise on public-health measures. Efforts to enthrone him as America’s personal public-health czar were thus misconceived from the outset.

During his deposition in November, Fauci appeared to be suffering from a novel syndrome—perhaps a form of long Covid or a side-effect of multiple boosters—characterized by sudden-onset amnesia about much of what he had done during the pandemic. For example, he couldn’t cite a single study that influenced him changing his mind about masking. He was sure that there were many such studies, naturally, but the specifics were lost in the fog.

Recall that early in the pandemic, Fauci had repeatedly told the public not to wear masks. For example, he wrote in a Feb. 5, 2020, email that “the typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.” He later admitted in an interview with Mark Zuckerberg that this was a “noble lie” to save masks, which were in short supply, for front-line health workers. Two months after advising against masks, he changed his mind, promoting them for symptomatic and asymptomatic people alike on PBS News Hour and elsewhere in the media.

During the deposition, he demonstrated how thoroughly the mystery studies—none of which he could remember—had convinced him in favor of masks. According to the report of Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, when the court reporter sneezed, Fauci nearly jumped out of his seat. Nobody in the room was masked, including Fauci. The court reporter explained it was merely her allergies, but Fauci would have none of it. As another person who was in the room reported, Fauci “asked her to put on a mask and said that he was uncomfortable, ‘and the last thing in the world I want right now is to get Covid.’ So she had to wear a mask the whole rest of the time.”

While all this was unfolding in the deposition room, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry kept a copy of Robert Kennedy Jr.’s book The Real Anthony Fauci on the table in front of him, and occasionally flipped through it as he questioned Dr. Fauci. The book, which has sold more than 1 million copies, documents in excruciating detail the corruption of the public-health system under Fauci’s 38-year reign as director of NIAID, beginning with his disastrous tenure during the AIDS epidemic. No mainstream outlet has reviewed the book, even to attempt to discredit its claims. Fauci continues to have the legacy media eating from the palm of his hand, as this week’s self-serving essay in the New York Times attests.

Also during the deposition, Fauci showed foggy recall on his role in our case’s central allegation: He claimed he couldn’t remember many details about his involvement in the government’s social-media censorship campaigns, which have been described in detail in our legal filings and other recent investigative reports. By his own description, Fauci was too busy developing a vaccine that saved millions of lives to care about petty matters like what happens on Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube.

The amnestic tedium continued for seven hours. Fauci repeated the phrase “I don’t recall” 178 times during the deposition. Two of the other co-plaintiffs, my friends Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, were co-authors with Sunetra Gupta of the Great Barrington Declaration. Fauci couldn’t remember much about that signal document, either, which argued for focused protection instead of the one-size-fits-all lockdowns and school closures, and garnered 930,000 signatures from physicians, public-health experts, and other concerned health professionals and citizens in 2020.

But Fauci had little time to pay attention to such trivial matters, as he explained: “I have a very busy day job running a $6 billion institute. I don’t have time to worry about things like the Great Barrington Declaration.” However, records show that he did indeed spend considerable time worrying about it in 2020. On Oct. 8, 2020, NIH Director Francis Collins emailed Fauci asking him to coordinate a “quick and devastating takedown” to discredit the authors of the declaration (distinguished epidemiologists from Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford). Fauci replied to and acted upon Collins’s note right away. He later emailed Birx on Oct. 16, 2020, saying that he had “come out very strongly against the Great Barrington Declaration.” But last month in his deposition, his recall for these signal events of 2020 apparently failed him.

Fauci’s memory, then, appears to have declined over the past two trying years. If his faculties are indeed beginning to fade, then perhaps his recent retirement was well-timed. He had quite a run, and as he put it recently in an interview, he gave it his all and left everything on the field. He played his game right up to the final buzzer.

Farewell, Dr. Fauci.

Reposted from the Author’s Substack

The Evil of Coerced Medicine


Pause – set your Pulse…

Take a breath. Release the tension in your body. Place attention on your physical heart. Breathe slowly into the area for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The following is an adapted excerpt from my book “The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State” from Regnery Publishing.

In their understandable enthusiasm to roll out the novel covid vaccines as widely and quickly as possible in early 2021, the public health establishment succumbed to two dangerous temptations: Propaganda and coercion.

That their approach deployed these with the common good in mind (achieving herd immunity) and with good intentions (ending the pandemic as quickly as possible) does not alter the fact that such approaches were deeply misguided and represented deeply disturbing trends in public policy. Public pronouncements in the name of science could not be questioned, and behavioral outcomes could be achieved by any means necessary.

Coercive covid vaccination mandates rested on several unproven postulates, which mainstream opinion took to be axiomatic and unassailable: (1) the vaccines were safe for everyone; (2) the vaccines were necessary for everyone; therefore, (3) any vaccine hesitancy is a public relations problem that must be overcome.

The “needle in every arm” goal was set in advance; the only deliberation permitted was about the most efficient means toward this predetermined end. Any scientist, physician, or policymaker who broke ranks to question one or more of these axioms was at best a nuisance or at worst dangerous — someone to be ignored as backward or dismissed as a threat to public health. People who asked inconvenient questions were labeled with the dismissive “anti-vax” epithet, a term that functioned to exclude them from the realm of reasonable discourse.

Some of the vaccine propaganda would have been laughable if it wasn’t so clearly displaying sanctimonious contempt for its audience. Consider a televised public service announcement from Ohio’s Department of Health: a friendly immunologist clears up misinformation about what’s in a covid vaccine by explaining, “There are just a few simple ingredients: water, sugar, salt, fat, and most importantly, a building block for protein. … That’s less stuff than a candy bar or a can of pop.” 

The absurd message suggests that vaccine risks are no different from the risks of eating a candy bar or drinking a soda — clearly government-sponsored misinformation if that word means anything. The condescension on display also tells you all you need to know about what Ohio’s public health officials think of the intelligence of the average citizen.

Aside from what was said, the most egregious form of propaganda was the vaccine-related information that was deliberately withheld or deemphasized. As mentioned earlier, the New York Times reported in February 2022: “Two full years into the pandemic, the agency leading the country’s response to the public health emergency [the CDC] has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected.” 

For example, when the agency “published the first significant data on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65 … it left out the numbers for a huge portion of that population: 18- to 49-year-olds, the group least likely to benefit from extra shots.” The CDC’s stated reason for withholding much of its data was that it did not want to increase vaccine hesitancy.

The result was messaging from public health officials that sounded indistinguishable from the marketing departments of Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Granted, public health communications must be simplified for broad consumption; but there is a key difference between simplifying information for the layperson and dumbing it down to manipulate the masses, or deliberately suppressing information that might undermine a predetermined public policy. 

This was not public education but a manipulative effort at behavioral control. In the most precise meaning of the term, it was propaganda. Large swaths of the public who were not hypnotized by the repetition of memes could sense, even if they could not explain, that they were subjected to manipulation.

As vaccination rates approached 50% in the United States, vaccine updates slowed by April 2021. Reports began to emerge of serious side effects, and studies from Israel, which started its mass vaccination campaign before the US, suggested that vaccine efficacy waned rapidly. 

Public health efforts pivoted from propaganda to heavy-handed nudges and bribes. Several states entered vaccinated citizens into lotteries awarding cash prizes of $1 million or more. Other states and cities launched promotions for vaccination ranging from free beer in New Jersey to raffles for full-ride college scholarships in New York and Ohio to a free marijuana joint in Washington for those who took the jab. (The latter brought to, naturally, by people who sincerely care about your health.)

When these nudges didn’t work, officials simply mandated the vaccines, with severe penalties for those who declined. As my own institution, the University of California, prepared to issue its vaccine mandate, I argued publicly in the pagesof the Wall Street Journal in June 2021 that university vaccine mandates violated foundational principles of medical ethics, including the principle of informed consent. 

Although the minimal conditions for justifying vaccine mandates were never close to being met, institutions embraced these misguided policies with little meaningful public discussion and no debate.

Article republished via the Brownstone Institute.

The Confinement of the Healthy


Take a breath. Release the tension in your body. Place attention on your physical heart. Breathe slowly into the area for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

COVID-19 represents the first time in the history of pandemics that we confined healthy populations. While the ancients did not understand the mechanisms of infectious disease—they knew nothing of viruses and bacteria—they nevertheless figured out many ways to mitigate the spread of contagion during epidemics. These time-tested measures ranged from quarantining symptomatic patients to enlisting those with natural immunity, who had recovered from the illness, to care for the sick.

From the lepers in the Old Testament to the plague of Justinian in Ancient Rome to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, lockdowns were never part of conventional public health measures. The concept of lockdowns arose in part from a public health apparatus that had become militarized over the previous two decades. We now routinely hear of “countermeasures,” but doctors and nurses never use that word, which is a term of spycraft and soldiering. 

Love reading The Pulse? If you’re a regular reader of our work and love what we do, consider becoming a paid subscribing member and help us expand our work. You can support for as little as $5 a month and enjoy multiple member benefits. Click Here to Learn More.

In 1968, while an estimated one to four million people died in the H3N2 influenza pandemic, businesses and schools stayed open and large events were never cancelled. Until 2020 we had not previously locked down entire populations, because that strategy does not work. In 2020 we had zero empirical evidence that lockdowns would save lives, only flawed mathematical models whose predications were not just slightly off, but wildly exaggerated by orders of magnitude.

When Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, leading the president’s coronavirus task force, decided in February 2020 that lockdowns were the way to go, the New York Times was tasked with explaining this approach to Americans. On February 27, the Times published a podcast in which science reporter Donald McNeil explained that civil rights had to be suspended if we were going to stop the spread of COVID. The following day, the Times published McNeil’s article, “To Take On the Coronavirus, Go Medieval on It.”

The piece did not give enough credit to Medieval society, which sometimes locked the gates of walled cities or closed borders during epidemics, but never ordered people to stay in their homes, never stopped people from plying their trade, and never isolated asymptomatic individuals from others in the community. 

No, Mr. McNeil, lockdowns were not a Medieval throwback but a wholly modern invention. In March of 2020, pandemic lockdowns were an entirely de novo experiment, untested on human populations.

Although these measures were unprecedented, there was virtually no public conversation or debate about lockdown policies. Wise solutions to vexing policy questions always involve prudential judgments that no single epidemiological model can provide. 

Our politicians abdicated responsibility by hiding behind “The Science” or “The Experts,” as though these trademarked phrases conjured a single monolithic table of all-encompassing data. They should have considered the various complex risks and harms—not to mention a thousand other imponderables—of decisions like lockdowns or mask mandates.

This term “lockdown” originated not in medicine or public health but the penal system. Prisons go into lockdown to restore order when prisoners riot. When the most tightly controlled and surveilled environment on the planet erupts into chaos, order is restored by asserting swift and complete control of the entire prison population by force. Only strictly surveilled confinement can keep the dangerous and unruly population in check. Prisoners cannot be permitted to riot; inmates cannot run the asylum.

In February of 2020 our society believed that chaos was coming, and we embraced the idea that this penal solution was the right, indeed the only sensible, response. Lockdowns met remarkably little resistance when initially implemented. “Fifteen days to flatten the curve” seemed reasonable to most people. One after another in rapid succession, governors ordered us to stay at home. 

We readily obeyed. To refuse, we were told, was to recklessly court death. Any small pockets of resistance were swiftly stigmatized. As one journalist described it, “Appeals to science were weaponized to enforce conformity, and the media portrayed anti-lockdown protesters as backwards, astroturfed white nationalists bent on endangering the public.” Who wanted to be classed in that camp?

Reports about COVID had already mesmerized the world for a few months leading up to lockdowns. We stayed glued to screens, watching case counts rise as we tracked coronavirus deaths in foreign countries. Not yet seeing cases in the US and UK, we relied for guidance on mathematical modeling. 

Because we were primed for panic, the model chosen was not one of the many sober statistical predictions, but the terrifying numbers published by Neil Ferguson’s group at the Imperial College London, which predicted 40 million deaths in 2020. We conveniently ignored Ferguson’s dismal track record of wildly overestimated predictions in prior epidemics, and sidelined critics like the legendary biostatistician John Ioannidis of Stanford, who warned that the Imperial College model was grounded in seriously faulty assumptions.

No matter—this time, surely, Ferguson’s dire prophecies would be vindicated. As it turned out, the model was proven more wildly wrong than any of the other leading models on offer. The Imperial College model predicted that if it did not lock down, Sweden would have 80,000 deaths by the end of June. 

It remained one of the few countries that did not lock down and had 20,000 deaths, even using methods resulting in overcounting. Ferguson’s model was testable and was clearly proven wrong, but that fact did nothing to shift our trajectory.

It’s hard to overstate the novelty and folly of what happened worldwide in March of 2020. What descended upon us was not just a novel virus but a novel mode of social organization and control—the beginnings of a new biomedical security state that I describe in my book, The New Abnormal.

Article published via  The New Abnormal.

Uncovering the Army of Federal Censors


I’ve recently posted twice on the case of Missouri v. Biden, in which the states of Missouri and Louisiana — along with four private plaintiffs (Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, the non-profit Health Freedom Louisiana, and yours truly) represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance — are suing the Biden Administration for alleged free speech violations.

Specifically, the executive branch of the federal government has been colluding with social media to censor any content on social media platforms — Twitter, YouTube (owned by Google), and LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft), Facebook and Instagram (both owned by Meta) — any content that questions, challenges, or contradicts the government’s covid policies.

Love reading The Pulse? If you’re a regular reader of our work and love what we do, consider becoming a paid subscribing member and help us expand our work. You can support for as little as $5 a month and enjoy multiple member benefits. Click Here to Learn More.

While private companies might arguably choose to censor content on their platforms, the government cannot pressure or coerce private companies to censor disfavored content. Any such action is clearly a violation of the free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

As we articulate in our latest legal brief:

“Under the First Amendment, the federal Government should have no role in policing private speech or picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. But that is what federal officials are doing, on a massive scale.”

Our joint statement on discovery disputes legal brief, filed with the court and made public today, revealsscores of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies have secretly communicated with social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech federal officials disfavor.

This unlawful enterprise has been wildly successful. Here are just a few excerpts from this document, which includes attachments of hundreds of pages of emails and other governmental and Big Tech internal communications as supporting evidence. These documents were obtained after we requested the following information on discovery:

Plaintiffs served interrogatories and document requests upon the Government Defendants seeking the identity of federal officials who have been and are communicating with social-media platforms about disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, and/or any censorship or suppression of speech on social media, including the nature and content of those communications. Plaintiffs also served third-party subpoenas on five major social-media platforms – Twitter, Facebook and Instagram (both owned by Meta), YouTube, and LinkedIn. On August 17, 2022, the Government Defendants provided objections and responses to the Plaintiff States’ discovery requests, and began a rolling production of documents that was completed on August 26, 2022. 

Here’s some of what we found so far in the documents that have been turned over, as described in our latest legal filing to the court:

Secretary Mayorkas of DHS [Department of Homeland Security] commented that the federal Government’s efforts to police private speech on social media are occurring “across the federal enterprise.” Doc. 45, ¶ 233. It turns out that this statement is true, on a scale beyond what Plaintiffs could ever have anticipated. The limited discovery produced so far provides a tantalizing snapshot into a massive, sprawling federal “Censorship Enterprise,” which includes dozens of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies and components identified so far, who communicate with social-media platforms about misinformation, disinformation, and the suppression of private speech on social media—all with the intent and effect of pressuring social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech that federal officials disfavor.

The discovery provided so far demonstrates that this Censorship Enterprise is extremely broad, including officials in the White House, HHS, DHS, CISA [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency], the CDC, NIAID, and the Office of the Surgeon General; and evidently other agencies as well, such as the Census Bureau, the FDA, the FBI, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the US Election Assistance Commission. And it rises to the highest levels of the US Government, including numerous White House officials. More discovery is needed to uncover the full scope of this “Censorship Enterprise,” and thus allow Plaintiffs the opportunity to achieve fully effective injunctive relief. Defendants have objected to producing some of the most relevant and probative information in their possession—i.e., the identities, and nature and content of communications, of White House officials and officials at other federal agencies who are not yet Defendants in this case because they were unknown when Plaintiffs served their discovery six weeks ago. Defendants have objected to producing discovery that would reveal both the height and the breadth of the federal “Censorship Enterprise.” The Court should overrule these objections and order Defendants to provide this highly relevant, responsive, and probative information.

Our brief continues:

First, the breadth and extent of the federal Defendants’ censorship activities is massive. In their initial response to interrogatories, Defendants initially identified forty-five federal officials at DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, and the Office of the Surgeon General (all within only two federal agencies, DHS and HHS), who communicate with social-media platforms about misinformation and censorship. Ex. 1 (Defendants’ Redacted Interrogatory Responses), at 15-18.


The third-party social-media platforms, moreover, have revealed that more federal agencies are involved. Meta, for example, has disclosed that at least 32 federal officials—including senior officials at the FDA, the US Election Assistance Commission, and the White House—have communicated with Meta about content moderation on its platforms, many of whom were not disclosed in response to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories to Defendants. YouTube disclosed eleven federal officials engaged in such communications, including officials at the Census Bureau and the White House, many of whom were also not disclosed by Defendants. Twitter disclosed nine federal officials, including senior officials at the State Department who were not previously disclosed by Defendants.

As I will write about more in a future post, the government is protecting Anthony Fauci and other high level officials by refusing to reveal documents related to their involvement. Stay tuned for more on that issue. For now, as our brief explains here, those implicated include many officials at the highest level of the current administration:

Second, these federal censorship activities include very senior officials within the US Government, i.e., “members of our senior staff,” in former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s words. Doc. 42, ¶ 174. Defendants have steadfastly refused to respond to any interrogatories or document requests directed to the White House officials, such as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Dr. Fauci in his capacity as Chief Medical Advisor to the President. But their own document production provides a glimpse into the involvement of several senior White House officials in communications with social-media platforms about censorship – including White House Senior Covid-19 Advisor Andrew Slavitt, Deputy Assistant to the President Rob Flaherty, White House Covid-19 Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement Courtney Rowe, White House Digital Director for the Covid-19 Response Team Clarke Humphrey, among others. See Ex. 3.

Further, the social-media platforms have independently disclosed the identities of senior White House officials involved in such communications. For example, Meta has disclosed the involvement of additional White House officials as White House Counsel Dana Remus and White House Partnerships Manager Aisha Shah, as well as Deputy Assistant to the President Rob Flaherty. YouTube has disclosed the involvement of White House officials such as Rob Flaherty and Benjamin Wakana, the Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement at the White House COVID-19 Response Team. Twitter has disclosed the involvement of Andrew Slavitt.

Our lawyers then cite a few examples of how this government censorship regime has been functioning, as revealed by internal communications:

The limited communications produced so far from these high-level officials are particularly relevant and probative, because they provide revealing glimpses into the intensive oversight and pressure to censor that senior federal officials placed on social-media platforms. For example, after President Biden publicly stated (about Facebook) on July 16, 2021, that “They’re killing people,” a very senior executive at Meta (Facebook and Instagram) reached out to Surgeon General Vivek Murthy to engage in damage control and appease the President’s wrath. Ex. 4, at 1. Soon thereafter, the same Meta executive sent a text message to Surgeon General Murthy, noting that “it’s not great to be accused of killing people,” and expressing that he was “keen to find a way to deescalate and work together collaboratively.” Ex. 5, at 1.

Such “deescalation” and “working together collaboratively,” naturally, involved increasing censorship on Meta’s platforms. One week after President Biden’s public accusation, on July 23, 2021, that a senior Meta executive sent an email to Surgeon General Murthy stating, “I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken to further address the ‘disinfo dozen’: we removed 17 additional Pages, Groups, and Instagram accounts tied to the disinfo dozen….” Ex. 3, at 2. Again, on August 20, 2021, the same Meta executive emailed Murthy to assure him that Facebook “will shortly be expanding our COVID policies to further reduce the spread of potentially harmful content on our platform. These changes will apply across Facebook and Instagram,” and they included “increasing the strength of our demotions for COVID and vaccine-related content,” and “making it easier to have Pages/Groups/Accounts demoted for sharing COVID and vaccine-related misinformation.” Ex. 4, at 3. In addition, that senior Meta executive sent a “Facebook bi-weekly covid content report” to Surgeon General Murthy to White House official Andrew Slavitt, evidently to reassure these federal officials that Facebook’s suppression of COVID-19 “misinformation” was aggressive enough for their preferences. Ex. 4, at 6-19.

The brief then goes on to explain how this amounts to more than just collaboration or cooperation between government and Big Tech, but coercive use of power dynamics to pressure Big Tech to do the government’s bidding:

Such communications from the White House impose maximal pressure on social-media companies, and they clearly get results when it comes to censorship. And federal officials are fully aware that such pressure is necessary to induce social-media platforms to increase censorship. CISA [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] Director Jen Easterly, for example, texted with another CISA official about “trying to get us in a place where Fed can work with platforms to better understand the mis/dis trends so relevant agencies can try to prebunk/debunk as useful,” and complained about the Government’s need to overcome the social-media platforms’ “hesitation” to working with the government: “Platforms have got to get more comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain.” Ex. 5, at 4 (emphasis added).

Perhaps these companies were hesitant because they knew that the government pressure and coercion was clearly unlawful, not to mention the fact that private companies and publishers don’t want to be told what to publish and don’t want their policies dictated by government officials. Our legal brief goes on:

In fact, such pressures from government officials on social-media companies, along with the many public statements alleged in the Complaint, have succeeded on a grand scale. Discovery received so far indicates that a veritable army of federal bureaucrats are involved in censorship activities “across the federal enterprise.” They include the 45 key custodians identified in Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses so far, 32 federal officials identified by Facebook so far, eleven officials identified by YouTube, and nine identified by Twitter (many of which do not overlap, either with each other or Defendants’ disclosures). And Defendants have not yet received interrogatory responses reflecting Defendants’ knowledge of federal officials at other agencies who communicate with social-media platforms about censorship — but apparently there are many. So many, in fact, that CISA Director Jen Easterly and another CISA official apparently complained, in an internal text messages, that “chaos” would result if all federal officials were “independently” contacting social-media platforms about so-called misinformation: “Not our mission but was looking to play a coord role so not every D/A is independently reaching out to platforms which could cause a lot of chaos.” Ex. 5, at 4.

These federal bureaucrats are deeply embedded in a joint enterprise with social-media companies to procure the censorship of social-media speech. Officials at HHS routinely flag content for censorship, for example, by organizing weekly “Be On The Lookout” meetings to flag disfavored content, Ex. 6; sending lengthy lists of examples of disfavored posts to be censored, Ex. 6, at 21-22; serving as privileged “fact checkers” whom social-media platforms consult about censoring private speech, Ex. 7; and receiving detailed reports from social-media companies about so-called “misinformation” and “disinformation” activities online, Ex. 4; among others. CISA, likewise, has aggressively embraced its “evolved mission” of screening complaints of social-media disinformation and then “routing disinformation concerns” to social-media platforms, Doc. 45, ¶¶ 250-251. CISA routinely receives reports of perceived “disinformation” and forwards them to social-media companies, placing the considerable weight of its authority as a federal national-security agency behind other parties’ demands for suppression of private speech. Ex. 8.

Moreover, many of these substantive communications from federal officials flagging specific posts and content for censorship seem to occur through alternative channels of communication that Plaintiffs have not yet obtained (as the third-party social-media platforms contend they are shielded from discovery by the Stored Communications Act). For example, Facebook trained CDC and Census Bureau officials on how to use a “Facebook misinfo reporting channel.” Ex. 9. Twitter offered federal officials a privileged channel for flagging misinformation through a “Partner Support Portal.” Ex. 9, at 69. YouTube has disclosed that it granted “trusted flagger” status to Census Bureau officials, which allows privileged and expedited consideration of their claims that content should be censored.

In the face of these and many other disclosures, Defendants are refusing to provide some of the most relevant and most probative evidence of the most egregious First Amendment violations.

Our legal team will continue to press for full disclosure of the requested content that the government still refuses to hand over to the court. And yes, we brought the receipts for all these allegations — the entire document is available here, and the supporting evidence is included on pages 142 – 711 for those who want to dig into the gruesome details. For those who want the shorter version, the NCLA press release is available here.

I suspected all this was happening but didn’t imagine the sheer scope — the breadth, depth, and coordination — suggested by the evidence that our legal team has uncovered so far during the discovery phase of the legal proceedings. To see this evidence on the page, which we know is just the tip of the iceberg, is simply shocking — and I’m not an easy person to shock. Likewise, the deep involvement of many of our national security agencies is revealing and disturbing, even for this author who just wrote a book with the subtitle, “The Rise of the Biomedical Security State.”

Hyperbole and exaggeration have been common features on both sides of covid policy disputes. But I can say with all soberness and circumspection (and you, kind readers, will correct me if I am wrong here): this evidence suggests we are uncovering the most serious, coordinated, and large-scale violation of First Amendment free speech rights by the federal government’s executive branch in US history. Period, full stop. Even wartime propaganda efforts never reached this level of censorship, nor did the government in days past have the power of today’s social media at its disposal. 

Stay tuned for more updates as this case unfolds.

Republished from the author’s Substack