Republicans Seek Permanent End to DHS Disinformation Board
The Department of Homeland Security should permanently shutter its disinformation board, Republicans told us last week after the director resigned (see 2205180051). Democrats also had critical comments about the board’s rollout, following free speech objections from Republicans (see 2205050048).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
“It will go down as one of the worst rollouts,” Senate Intelligence Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., told us. The board’s suspension is a potential public policy case study on “how not to roll out.” Now the question is how DHS approaches the problem of disinformation, which is a legitimate issue that deserves attention, said Warner. He noted lawmakers from Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand met with U.S. officials last week about the issue.
“It’s a great day for free speech,” House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told us. The board was “so Orwellian, so contrary to our Constitution and free speech. It was a dumb idea. It was a wrong idea. It’s dangerous, and I’m glad it’s being disbanded. I hope not just a pause, as they said, but” a “permanent” closure. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr also sought a permanent end last week.
Republicans asked Senate appropriators to defund the board in the FY23 appropriations bill. “A fine line exists between tackling disinformation and government censorship,” they wrote last week. “Exactly where the Disinformation Governance Board falls on this line remains unclear and the potential for abuse is so egregious that we urge any and all funding for the board be prohibited.” Senate Homeland Security Committee ranking member Rob Portman, R-Ohio, signed the letter with nearly 20 other Republicans. The office for Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Chris Murphy, D-Conn., didn’t comment.
“The idea of a government agency determining what is and isn’t disinformation, policing free speech, and doing it with so little transparency was rightfully alarming to me and my constituents,” Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said in a statement Monday. “I hope it puts to rest any future ‘disinformation boards’ for good, but through my subcommittee that funds the entire department, I will be keeping close tabs on it.”
“It was surreal, beyond belief that they would do it,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told us last week. “At least they had the common sense to stop that.” Asked if the board should be permanently dissolved, Johnson said, “Hell yeah.”
“There’s an issue” with disinformation, but it needs to be handled “correctly,” Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Gary Peters, D-Mich., told us. “You have to think it through to make sure you do it correctly and have proper safeguards.” Even Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas “didn’t have good things to say about the rollout. He also thought it was not handled very well.”
The department last week said the board’s purpose was “grossly and intentionally mischaracterized.” The board was never intended to censor or police speech, DHS said: It was created to ensure DHS’ work protects speech and civil rights. The “false attacks” became a “significant distraction,” though, and the department said it suspended the board’s work in favor of a bipartisan review directed by former officials.
“I had concerns about it, so I’m glad they made the decision to back off,” Portman told us. “I never understood the purpose. I’m a big fan of confronting disinformation.” He noted the legislation he co-authored with Murphy that created the State Department’s Global Engagement Center to combat foreign disinformation campaigns. That’s what the Global Engagement Center is for, said Portman: The new board “didn’t seem to have a purpose that seemed legitimate. I’m pleased they made the decision.”