• The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), monitored and influenced domestic COVID-19 speech through private sector partners, raising constitutional concerns.
• CISA partnered with organizations like the Atlantic Council DFR Lab, Media Matters, and the Center for Countering Digital Hate to flag and censor content, creating a “censorship industrial complex.”
• CISA censored accurate information, including President Trump’s comments on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and discussions about mask effectiveness and the Wuhan lab leak theory, delaying critical public health information.
• By using private entities, CISA circumvented constitutional protections against government censorship, undermining free speech and public discourse.
• The incident reflects a broader pattern of government surveillance and suppression of dissent, emphasizing the need to protect liberty and hold federal agencies accountable.

The revelation that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) monitored and influenced domestic speech on COVID-19 through private sector partners should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention over the past few years. Documents obtained by America First Legal (AFL) through litigation against CISA confirm what many citizens already suspected: The government, under the guise of combating misinformation, actively censored speech during the pandemic. This is not a new narrative but a continuation of a troubling trend that has eroded trust in government institutions and their private sector collaborators.

CISA, a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), began monitoring domestic speech about COVID-19 as early as mid-February 2020 — nearly a month before the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the pandemic and well before widespread shutdowns began in the United States. The agency’s Countering Foreign Influence Task Force (CFITF), ostensibly focused on foreign disinformation, expanded its scope to include domestic speech, raising serious constitutional concerns. To avoid direct government censorship, CISA enlisted private entities such as fact-checkers, bias raters, and NGOs to flag content, even when that content was accurate.

The list of private partners involved in this censorship effort is extensive and includes well-known organizations such as the Atlantic Council DFR Lab, Media Matters, Stanford Internet Observatory, and the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). These groups, often funded by foreign governments or globalist interests, were tasked with identifying and flagging speech that contradicted the evolving pandemic narratives promoted by the government. This collaboration between government agencies and private entities created what AFL has termed the “censorship industrial complex,” a network designed to suppress dissenting views under the pretext of public health.

One of the most egregious examples of this censorship was the targeting of President Trump’s comments on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Despite later studies suggesting that HCQ provided moderate protective benefits without serious adverse effects, CISA flagged these comments as misinformation. The justification for this censorship was based on hypothetical scenarios, such as the idea that “once-accurate information can become misinformation as it ages,” a rationale that undermines the very concept of free speech. This approach allowed CISA to censor even accurate information, creating a chilling effect on public discourse.

Controlling the narrative

Other narratives censored by CISA included discussions about mask effectiveness and the Wuhan lab leak theory. Both of these topics were heavily suppressed on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter but were later proven to have merit. The agency’s reliance on private partners to censor speech not only circumvented constitutional protections but also delayed the dissemination of critical information that could have informed public health decisions.

CISA justified its actions by claiming threats from foreign entities such as Russia, Iran, and China, as well as evidence from organizations like the George Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy. However, as AFL’s Reed D. Rubinstein pointed out, CISA’s reliance on these sources was “incredibly” anti-American. The agency’s partnership with a “dangerous” network of foreign and domestic entities raises questions about its true motives and the extent of its overreach.

The revelation that CISA monitored and influenced domestic speech during the pandemic is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of government overreach. The use of private sector partners to censor speech allowed the government to bypass constitutional safeguards, creating a system of censorship that undermined the principles of liberty and free expression. While the specifics of this case may be new, the underlying issues — government surveillance, private sector collaboration, and the suppression of dissent — are all too familiar.

As America First Legal continues its efforts to challenge government censorship practices, it is essential to hold federal agencies accountable for their actions. The pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in our system, but it also highlighted the need to protect free speech and resist the encroachment of government power. The story of CISA’s censorship is a reminder that liberty must be vigilantly guarded, even—and perhaps especially—in times of crisis.

Sources include:

ReclaimTheNet.org

LegalNewsline.com

STGReport.com