CITIZENS NEWS

Federal documents reveal decade-long pattern of government censorship, which had egregious chokehold on journalism and democracy

By ljdevon // 2025-02-10

Federal documents and court filings have uncovered a decade-long pattern of government censorship, revealing how federal agencies pressured social media platforms to silence critics and suppress dissent on issues ranging from COVID-19 lockdowns, to government money laundering scandals, to the damages wrought by vaccines. The censorship, which began under the Obama administration and continued under President Biden, has ensnared independent journalists, medical experts, and small businesses, raising concerns about the erosion of free speech and democratic discourse in the United States. Key Points:

• Federal censorship efforts trace back to at least February 2020, with evidence showing deliberate violations of transparency laws like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
• The National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) were central to these sordid agendas, often using taxpayer-funded shell organizations to avoid directly violating First Amendment protections.
• Journalists and researchers, including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Alex Berenson, were targeted for scrutiny or de-platforming due to their skepticism of government narratives on COVID-19 and vaccines.
• The censorship and shadow banning has led to further self-censorship and exclusion, harming small businesses and independent voices, while undermining public trust in government and distorting democratic discourse.

A decade of suppression: How federal censorship became normalized

The suppression of dissent did not begin with the COVID-19 lockdowns and subsequent tyranny and suppression, but can be traced back to the Obama administration, according to court filings in Missouri v. Biden. Federal agencies, including the NIH and NIAID, began leveraging their influence to silence critics long before the 2020 lockdowns. In December 2023, court documents revealed that federal employees intentionally evaded FOIA requests by misspelling keywords, deleting emails, and using private accounts to communicate with social media platforms. This pattern of concealment continued under President Biden, with former Obama official Andy Slavitt reportedly pressuring Twitter to de-platform journalist Alex Berenson over his skepticism of mRNA vaccines. The documents also show how federal agencies targeted independent researchers and medical professionals who questioned the government’s COVID-19 narrative. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and Trump-appointed NIH nominee, was singled out for scrutiny after his early studies contradicted official fatality rate claims. Despite his findings being later replicated dozens of times, Bhattacharya faced professional backlash and censorship, highlighting the government’s willingness to suppress inconvenient truths. “Never before in this country’s history has a government censorship regime coordinated at the highest levels been exposed through litigation,” argued Missouri plaintiffs, who include states, journalists, and medical experts.

The role of federal agencies in pushing corporate propaganda

The federal government did not merely silence critics; it also weaponized public communications channels to spread their own version harmful misinformation and discredit opposing views. Documents obtained by America First Legal reveal that federal agencies, including CISA, actively flooded online spaces with false narratives while claiming to combat “foreign disinformation.” For example, federal officials propagated the unsubstantiated claim that COVID-19 definitely did not originate in a lab, even as scientific uncertainties persisted. They also demonized critics who questioned the financial motives of pharmaceutical companies, labeling such concerns as “pro-Kremlin disinformation.” CISA and other agencies relied on discredited actors, such as the Stanford Internet Observatory, to facilitate censorship. These quasi-private entities, funded and staffed by federal officials, effectively laundered unconstitutional actions by moderating content on behalf of the government. The documents further expose a pattern of deceit and manipulation. Federal officials repeatedly lied to courts, destroyed evidence, and obscured their activities through shell corporations and fake think tanks. Even Anthony Fauci, the pandemic’s most prominent figure, exhibited a pattern of evasion during depositions, claiming “I don’t recall” 174 times.

The broader implications for free speech and Democracy

The censorship regime has had far-reaching consequences for American democracy. By pressuring social media platforms to suppress dissent, the federal government created a chilling effect that discouraged many from engaging in public discourse. Shadow banning and algorithmic suppression ensured that only government-approved narratives could thrive online, marginalizing independent journalism and small businesses that relied on digital platforms to reach customers. The erosion of free speech has also weakened public trust in government. Federal documents reveal that only 17% of Americans trust their government to do the right thing, yet officials blamed this distrust on Russian propaganda rather than acknowledging systemic corruption and censorship. “The censorship industrial complex has become a hallmark of the administrative state,” said Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger. “By outsourcing repression through shell organizations, the government has gutted constitutional safeguards while maintaining plausible deniability.” The federal government’s decade-long campaign to suppress dissent and control public discourse represents a fundamental challenge to American democracy. While the legal battle in Missouri v. Biden continues, the discovery process has already exposed a disturbing pattern of censorship, deceit, and malfeasance. The implications are stark: if the government can silence critics with impunity, what does this mean for the future of free speech, free press, free markets, secure elections, the pursuit of truth, and self-government? As the shadows of censorship lengthen, the question remains: Can the United States preserve its democratic ideals, or will it succumb to the silent chill of government-enforced conformity? Sources include: Brownstone.org TheFederalist.com AFLLegal.org

surveillance free press free speech First Amendment censorship free market democracy shadowbanning Independent journalism false narratives government collusion corporate propaganda evasion election interference de-platforming official stories self-censorship content moderation government narratives self-government