Judge Orders Defendants in CN v NewsGuard & USG to Respond to Trump Executive Order on Censorship

Shares

A U.S. federal judge has set a deadline of Thursday for the U.S. Government and NewsGuard to respond to an executive order banning government involvement in censorship.

Joe Lauria

Consortium News sued Cyber Command at the Pentagon. (Joe Lauria)

By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News

An executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Inauguration Day has figured in Consortium News‘ lawsuit against the U.S. federal government and NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. that alleges defamation and a violation of the First Amendment. 

Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York has ordered the government and the defendant to respond in writing by Thursday “addressing the impact of the January 20, 2025 Executive Order titled ‘Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship’ on the pending motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.”

Both the government and NewsGuard have moved to have the case against them dismissed. Consortium News filed suit against both in August 2023, with an amended complaint in October 2023, charging the Pentagon’s Cyber Command, an element of the Intelligence Community, with contracting with NewsGuard to identify, report and abridge the speech of American media organizations that dissent from U.S. official positions on foreign policy. 

In the course of its contract with the Pentagon, NewsGuard is “acting jointly or in concert with the United States to coerce news organizations to alter viewpoints” as to Ukraine, Russia, and Syria, imposing a form of “censorship and repression of views” that differ or dissent from policies of the United States and its allies, the complaint says. [Read the entire complaint and the exhibits.]

The Executive Order

On Jan. 20 Trump signed executive order, “Restoring Free Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” which reads:

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment essential to the success of our Republic, enshrines the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without Government interference.  

Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.

Under the guise of combatting ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation,’ the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.  Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society. ” 

The executive order sets out to:

  (a) secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech;

     (b)  ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen;

     (c)  ensure that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; and

     (d)  identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.

Significantly, the EO says the “Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies, shall investigate the activities of the Federal Government over the last 4 years that are inconsistent with the purposes and policies of this order.”  The period covered in Consortium News‘ lawsuit fails within these four years. 

In a letter to Judge Polk Failla regarding the executive order, Bruce Afran, Consortium News‘s attorney, wrote:

Afran went on:

Background to Case

On the background of Consortium News‘ case, Afran said previously: “The First Amendment rights of all American media are threatened by this arrangement with the Defense Department to stigmatize and abridge the speech of U.S. media groups.

“When media groups are condemned by the government as ‘anti-U.S.’ and are accused of publishing ‘false content’ because they disagree with U.S. policies, the result is self-censorship and a destruction of the public debate intended by the First Amendment,” Afran said. 

NewsGuard uses its software to tag targeted news sites, including all 20,000+ Consortium News articles and videos published since 1995, with warnings to “proceed with caution,” telling NewsGuard subscribers that Consortium News produces “disinformation,” “false content” and is an “anti-U.S.” media organization, even though NewsGuard only took issue with a total of six CN articles and none of its videos.  

NewsGuard’s labeling of Consortium News as publishing “false content” is challenged in detail in the substantial complaint. 

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.

Show Comments