EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

Issued on: May 28, 2020

★ ★ ★
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers
protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express
and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number
of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. 
This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social
media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. 
They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content
creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals
of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the
news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social
media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st
century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape
the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what
people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such
debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is
essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens
of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms
“flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service;
making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the e ect of
disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no
rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly
reflects political bias.  As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on
another politician’s tweet.  As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schi was continuing to
mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not
flag those tweets.  Unsurprisingly, its o icer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his
political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless
justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online
platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign
governments like China.  One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the
Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data
unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for
surveillance.  It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the
Chinese military.  Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese
government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities,
thereby enabling these abuses of human rights.  They have also amplified China’s propaganda
abroad, including by allowing Chinese government o icials to use their platforms to spread
misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy
protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications
environment where all Americans can and should have a voice.  We must seek transparency and
accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve
the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2.  Protections Against Online Censorship.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear
ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules
governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States
that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text
and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open
speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive
or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform
restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all
the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c)
makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive
computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of
harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that
attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers
would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to
further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political
discourse.”  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be
construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies
that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in
“good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to
ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to
provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove
objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (o en contrary to their
stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended
to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national
discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those
behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints
that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to
content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial
conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited
liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and
publisher that is not an online provider.

(b)  To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and
agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose
of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date
of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and
acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a
petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the
FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and
determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that
restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also
not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall
not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not
address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii)  the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not
“taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly
whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A)  deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B)  taken a er failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful

(iii)  any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the
policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3.  Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free
Speech.  (a)  The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s
Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.  Such review shall include
the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory
authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the
Director of the O ice of Management and Budget.

(c)  The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by
each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess
whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint
discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4.  Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.  (a)  It is the policy of the United
States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting
the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.  The Supreme Court
has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most
powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”  Packingham v.
North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017).  Communication through these channels has become
important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected
leaders.  These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free
expression and debate.  Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b)  In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to
report incidents of online censorship.  In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000
complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their
political viewpoints.  The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of
Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c)  The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to
prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or a ecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of
title 15, United States Code.  Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by
entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’
public representations about those practices.
(d)  For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media
platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints
allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order.  The FTC
shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly
available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5.  State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.  (a)  The
Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State
statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The
working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where
existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The
working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate
and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group,
consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information
regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions
with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or

(iii) di erential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by
accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or
governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals,
with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform
compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6.  Legislation.  The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would
be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7.  Definition.  For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or
application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any
general search engine.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions. (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise
a ect:

(i)    the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)   the functions of the Director of the O ice of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments,
agencies, or entities, its o icers, employees, or agents, or any other person.