Orwellian Doublespeak Persists in the National Security Establishment
Despite efforts to stop Administrative State censorship, the U.S. national security establishment continues to invite opportunities to further its reprehensible record of censoring speech from Americans with viewpoints disfavored by the regime in charge. In the name of fighting “foreign malign influence”—an ambiguous concept so broad it encompasses nearly everything, without actually meaning anything—the national security apparatus represents a grave threat to American’s liberties.
NCLA Fights Administrative State Violations of Civil Liberties
The New Civil Liberties Alliance has challenged various abridgements of the right to free speech under the guise of fighting so-called disinformation, in cases such as Murthy, et al. v. Missouri, et al., Dressen v. Flaherty, and The Daily Wire, The Federalist, Texas v. State Department, et al.
The Twitter Files exposed some of this misconduct that relied on the government inveigling censorship by social media outlets. Branded the Censorship Industrial Complex, the scheme used American tax dollars to execute state-sponsored censorship, largely through the country’s national security apparatus directing tech companies to flag and remove social media posts the Biden Administration deemed undesirable and labeled “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.” President Trump has sought to eliminate the vehicles for censorship revealed through NCLA’s litigation and journalists such as Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi.
Trump Administration Dismantling of Administrative State Vehicles for Censorship
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order on Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. Soon after, the Trump Administration dismantled both the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) and the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC). Also curtailed was the reach and authority of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Foreign Malign Influence Center (FMIC). Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security reduced staffing at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), to allow CISA to focus on its core mission—which, of course, does not include censoring Americans’ questioning government narratives.
The bureaucrats leading the FITF, GEC, FMIC, and CISA, among other governmental entities—all of whom justified their conduct under the guise of protecting Americans from “foreign malign influence”—led the Biden Administration’s censorship scheme to silence disfavored speech regarding Covid and the 2020 election.
The Persistence of “Foreign Malign Influence” in the National Security Establishment’s Parlance
Yet, even with the Trump Administration’s efforts to end federal government censorship, the term “foreign malign influence”—ambiguous and prone to abuse as it is—remains common jargon throughout the national security state and the Intelligence Community. Congress attempted to define “foreign malign influence” in 50 U.S.C. § 3059, but the national security establishment’s use of that term extends far beyond the attempted definition. This dangerously invites government abuse of legal authorities to fight “foreign malign influence” through enforcement actions that silence speech.
Significant reforms have increased transparency in the eighteen agencies or departmental divisions that comprise the Intelligence Community. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that the decades-old Intelligence Community which remains staffed with elitist professional bureaucrats—many of whom remain untethered to our Constitution and our founding principles—will abandon their Orwellian speak or the corresponding abuses of power.
Vigilance is Necessary to Restore Entities Responsible for Securing National Security & Deter Violations of Constitutional Freedoms
This reality suggests two pieces of advice for the current Administration:
First, question the credibility and authority of any “expert” in the national security state who employs terminology such as “foreign malign influence” or “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.” Ambiguous language of this sort is susceptible to abuse, especially by unaccountable bureaucrats. Such imprecise language, in a legal context, also fails to provide adequate notice to Americans concerning potential legal implications for their speech.
Second, law enforcement officials must not succumb to the temptation to abuse federal national security statutes to censor disfavored speech or political enemies. Rather, prosecutors should enforce federal laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) as intended and consistent with their text. Appropriate enforcement will provide legal accountability for influence operations from foreign adversaries that threaten Americans’ security and do so in clear violation of the law.
Proper Enforcement of National Security Laws Such as FARA
After all, FARA’s purpose is “to protect the national defense, internal security, and foreign relations of the United States by requiring public disclosure by persons engaging in propaganda activities for or on behalf of foreign governments, foreign political parties, and other foreign principals.”[1] Disclosures under FARA enable “the Government and the people of the United States [to] be informed of the identity of such persons and [to] appraise their statements and actions in the light of their associations and activities.”[2]
There are abundant opportunities for the Department of Justice to enforce FARA to advance U.S. national security interests vis-à-vis foreign adversaries and not to punish domestic political opponents and those suspect of mainstream medicine. DOJ should prioritize proper enforcement of national security laws and remember why it is doing so—a reason that dates back to our country’s founding, as captured in George Washington’s Farewell Address, when he cautioned Americans “[a]gainst the insidious wiles of foreign influence,” and proclaimed “that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.”
For lawyers charged with enforcing federal law on behalf of the United States, the only proper response to foreign adversaries’ influence operations is to uphold the rule of law, consistent with American interests. Foreign influence operations or not, abridging Americans’ foundational rights, is not in our country’s interest.
This self-evident truth should not need to be said, but the continuing life of the Censorship Industrial Complex suggests lessons have not been learned. Vigilance is necessary—for our liberty is at stake.
[1] Pub. L. No. 77-532, 56 Stat. 248, 248-249 (1942).
[2] Id.
March 13, 2026