America First Legal Foundation has obtained documents that reveal deep collusion between public officials, Big Tech allies, and the suppression of dissenting voices.
The documents reveal the efforts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials to push social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, to censor so called medical misinformation.
John Zadrozny (Deputy Director of Investigations at America First Legal Foundation, joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss how deep the collusion goes and what it all means.
These stories are also covered:
- Rep. Jackie Walorski (Republican-Ind.), died Wednesday in a car accident.
- Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suspends the state prosecutor who refused to enforce laws restricting abortion or prohibiting gender-transition treatment for minors like mastectomies and cross-sex hormones.
- Brittney Griner, WNBA Player, is sentenced after pleading guilty to trying to smuggle illegal narcotics into Russia.
- China launches five ballistic missiles during a military exercise near Taiwan that land inside Japan’s exclusive economic zone.
Listen to the podcast below, or read the lightly edited transcript.
Doug Blair: John Zadrozny is the deputy director of investigations at America First Legal Foundation. John, welcome to our show.
John Zadrozny: Doug, thank you for having me here. I truly appreciate it.
Blair: Of course. Blair: Of course. [and Prevention]Big Tech and officials over their attempts to censor misinformation around COVID-19
Let’s start by giving our listeners a brief overview of some of these revelations.
Zadrozny: Absolutely, Doug.
So basically, you may recall last year that when she was still White House press secretary, from the White House podium in mid-July, Jen Psaki basically admitted to the public that they were working, colluding, I guess you could say, with Big Tech to make sure that “misinformation” was not spread on the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
And we were immediately purged by this, so I believe we sent an a [Freedom of Information Act]You can request documents as soon as the next day to many agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They were not ashamed to release these documents, as they were so damning.
We filed a suit this year and have been able get documents since being in court with agency. They gave us a batch in July, and we were able last week to release 286 pages from an initial production.
Doug, what they show is pretty shocking. It basically shows exactly what we thought—file this under horrifying but not surprising. They worked closely with Google, Twitter and Facebook. For emphasis, we don’t know if other Big Tech companies were involved yet. This is all we were able get to date.
The communications revealed that there was close coordination between officials at Google, Twitter and Facebook. Officials from these three Big Tech companies were very excited to work with them.
In other words, it wasn’t a government strong-arming companies and them reluctantly going along. It was them saying, “We’re eager to work with you and help you.”
In some cases, the government instructed these agencies what to say about vaccine safety. They basically told them what to do and then concealed the origins by calling it federal.
The CDC reached out to … Twitter, saying, “Hey, we found these posts. These are misinformation.” And then Twitter immediately proceeded to not only pull them down, but then suspend the accounts of some of those users.
Doug is quite disgusting at the interaction, the level of interaction, and the type interaction. And it’s a reminder that we’re in a very dangerous time. It’s not just a question of an abusive government, but it’s an abusive government in cahoots with a large, monopolistic tech industry that has no interest in free speech for the public.
Blair: That sounds very dangerous. It sounds like the government is trying to circumvent First Amendment speech protections by kind of nudges, nudges, winks, winking to Big Tech companies and letting them do the dirty work. So it’s not the government doing the censorship, it’s Twitter doing the censorship or YouTube doing the censorship.
Zadrozny: Yeah. Doug, that’s a great point. But I would counter that and say the following: There’s obviously a debate on the right about the private sector’s discretion to do what it chooses as the private industry, as nongovernmental. Remember that the First Amendment, Bill of Rights, and all other amendments are intended to restrict government conduct.
But, there are two things. One, take out the government. In a vacuum, these companies have achieved a size and dimension that is now a reality in our digital age. These social media platforms are the only real public media forum.
And an argument could be made, it’s not uniform, there’s definitely disagreement on the right about this, but an argument could be made that they’re essentially, at this point, quasi-utilities.
Imagine a scenario where a phone company was cutting off phone calls of people when they didn’t like what they were saying. This would shock us, but somehow it is accepted.
But it’s even worse than that, Doug, because basically, I think the argument here is that the federal government, by interacting with these companies, whether voluntarily or not, has deputized them as an extension of the government. So, I believe the First Amendment argument is in play here.
They can’t say, “Well, we’re private.” Maybe, maybe they could have gotten away with that if they were doing this of their own volition. But it’s pretty clear they were working hand-in-glove with federal officials telling them what to say and not say.
Blair: How far and how long have these ties been? Are there any implications for Dr. [Anthony]Fauci and other government officials who were directly responsible?
Zadrozny: Well, that’s a great question, Doug. We also have other, more specific, letters to other agencies to help us determine the extent of their involvement in manipulating these Big Tech corporations and their speech.
Troublingly, if you go look at the documents that we’ve produced, remember it’s only 286 pages, I suspect we’ve only scratched the surface. Some of those communications do go back to 2020, and so I think some of the people might say, “Well, gosh, doesn’t that mean the Trump administration was doing this?”
The answer, I believe, is that based on what we saw during Trump’s administration, and I was part thereof, there were many secretive, evil actors who weren’t working in concert with the political leadership of Trump’s administration and doing whatever they wanted.
These ties between these officials and employees of these companies have been there for years, I suspect. … Gosh only knows what else they were doing behind the scenes, Doug, to undercut the administration while the administration was happening. But it picked up another few notches in speed once we were gone, in order to facilitate the Biden administration’s rollout of the vaccine.
The horrible part about all this, Doug, is that the Biden administration and the Big Tech companies, they wouldn’t need to do any of this if they had anything resembling credibility on any issue, including the vaccine issue. But the reality is, when you’re in a position where nobody believes anything you’re saying, you have to censor—at least if you think like the left does.
And that’s exactly why they’re doing what they’re doing. Instead of having a full and open public debate, saying, “Look, these people who are critical of the safety of the vaccines, they’re completely wrong. Here are the facts. We’re in the right. Trust us,” they can’t do that because the data don’t support them. And so, they’ve had to engage in this conduct.
And again, I really think we’ve only scratched the surface. Again, it’s only the first 286 pages and that’s just from the CDC, so there’s a lot more going on.
Doug, I can tell you some good news. We are sending a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services inspector General. [Christi]Grimm asking her to investigate. This is clearly illegal, and we think it’s inappropriate. And with any luck, we’ll get a serious response from the IG. We’re really hoping that we do.
Blair: Well, John, that’s incredible news. And I guess, if you could go a little bit more in depth about what you’re hoping to find with that letter, what you’re hoping to find with these sort of revelations here?
Zadrozny: Yeah. So, I think what we’re hoping is that the inspector general’s investigation is not only able to bring to light some of the other components of HHS that were involved in this—again, we only were talking about CDC, which is technically under HHS. We wrote letters to the National Institutes of Health. We sent letters to HHS Headquarters and other federal officials.
She might be able to put it all together during her investigation. But also, she’ll have access to documents that we don’t. And with any luck, she’ll actually bring to light the full scope of this.
We had to use what’s called the Freedom of Information Act to get the documents that we’ve got, and even then we had to take this all the way to a federal judge. She doesn’t have those constraints. With any luck, she’ll actually do her job. We’ll see.
Blair: Now, it sounds like she’s obviously not likely to do that, unless she’s forced to do so. What does it say about this administration that it seems like these revelations have to come out through the work of citizen journalists and organizations like yours, instead of them just saying, “Look, we have a vested interest in this policy going this one way”? What does this say about the administration’s view of this topic?
Zadrozny:Doug, it suggests that they see themselves as being on the wrong side of the issue and need to hide the truth. And they can’t have an open conversation and win a credibility-based conversation with the American public.
And I think you could, unfortunately, I think you can apply this to almost every issue area in their purview right now—energy production to national security and so on. They’re too busy throwing, I guess, American parents who attend school board meetings in jail as domestic terrorists to focus on actual medical safety and integrity.
I think another lesson, too, Doug, if I may, is I think we’re probably seeing what happens when we have a federal government that’s just way too large.
People on the right for years—and to their credit, it’s a good argument, it just hasn’t really fallen on ears and it hasn’t resonated—the small government argument has always been a fiscal one. The argument has always been, “We spend too much money. We spend too much money.” Well, that’s all true.
And this may be what we are actually seeing. We may be at the point where the United States is starting to see high inflation and other problems. But it doesn’t resonate.
And I think it’s partly, without getting too much into it, I think it’s because most Americans don’t deal with anything near those numbers of that type of money. Those numbers just kind of glaze over—a trillion here or a trillion there.
But I think the argument that really does resonate with Americans across the country at home in small communities is this is what happens when you have a government that’s too large, and has too much money, and has too many employees, it becomes too radical. You need to limit it.
And the only way to really rein it in, it’s not a bunch of old white guys wagging fingers at oversight hearings. It’s shrinking federal agency budgets, saying, “Look, you’re being punished for not doing your jobs. In fact, you’re being punished for using money for things that are dangerous, unconstitutional, and suppressing rights.”
I think it’s one of the most serious conversations we need to have over the next 10 years, Doug, is have we reached the point where we’ve seen too much? We’ve seen what a big federal government really means for the republic, it’s not good and it needs to be shrunk.
Blair: Right. John: That raises an interesting question. We have the information. It seems like you are taking action with this letter to IG. But, what can conservatives do instead? We now have the proof, the evidence to prove that there was collusion between these large government agencies and Big Tech. What should we do with all this information?
Zadrozny: That’s a great question. That’s the million-dollar question, right? I think for now, because Republicans, conservatives don’t run the executive branch, there’s nothing that can be done there.
The Republicans could cut budgets if they win control of Congress and are serious about it. Some oversight could be possible. They could suggest civil or criminal actions against those who might have violated federal laws.
That’s obviously not going to be acted on by this current administration, but you can put a file together and have it sit there and wait for the right time. And then say, “Look, this person should be looked at for civil violations. This person should be looked at for criminal violations.”
I believe this information opens up possibilities for states and private litigants to file their own litigation. And so I am tempted to say, I’m sure you are too, “Well, so what, John? Another lawsuit?” It does add up. It is a drain on people and attorneys to deal with lawsuits.
And if it’s not a frivolous lawsuit—and they shouldn’t be frivolous lawsuits, they should be legitimate lawsuits—you’re going to find a lot. There’s going to be a lot to talk about and there’s going to be a lot to answer for.
So for now, I think that’s the best-case scenario. But I would also say that the one thing everyone can do—public, anyone listening here, anyone who cares about this issue or any of these issues—just pay attention to all of this. Then, when the time comes to act, be sure to remember all of this. Many people will need to be fired.
Blair: Now, as we’re having this conversation, it seems so odd to me that there’s been no, I don’t want to say justification because it doesn’t really sound like it’s justifiable, but there’s nothing coming from the administration to say, “Yeah, we own up to this.” They’re almost trying to push back. Is Big Tech actually trying to justify it or are they just hoping that this will go away?
Zadrozny: It’s to be determined. I haven’t really seen anyone on the government side respond to this in any meaningful way. And I suspect that private companies, the Big Tech companies are going to say exactly what you mentioned in the beginning, saying, “Well, we’re private. We can do what we want.” Although at the same time, it’s interesting because they’re in an interesting spot.
There are some Republicans, not all, it’s not a uniform opinion, but some Republicans have proposed getting rid of Section 230 of the federal Communications Act, which would strip the Big Tech platforms who operate via the internet with some of their protections.
Don’t forget the whole justification for Section 230 is immunity from content. So they got a lot of benefits by saying, “Look, we’re just kind of the Wild West forum. We don’t police.” Well, now they’re policing, and they’re policing at government direction, and it changes the equation.
It may not be a good idea to get rid of Section 230. That is something I will defer to others. But I do think that the private sector’s going to say, “We can do what we want.” But then if you dare say, “Well, we have to change how you’re regulated,” I’m sure they’ll bristle at that.
I don’t expect the federal government to own up to any of this. This is only the tip of an iceberg. These people are very comfortable.
It’s pretty clear, too, by the way, there’s no concealment in these documents of their conduct. In other words, it’s not like we got five emails back and all of this happened by phone. They don’t see any problem with this. And so, I don’t suspect that they are willing to say [they’ve] done anything wrong, because they probably don’t think they’ve done anything wrong.
I’m sure they had couch it as, “We’re doing this for the right reasons.” But as you know as well as I do, Doug, the road to hell is in fact paved with good intentions. And so, just because you feel like doing something and you think it’s a good thing, it … doesn’t mean it’s constitutional.
Blair: Right, right. I wonder if it was even possible to achieve this. One of the arguments that I’ve almost heard a couple of different times from people on the right is that when you start to push censorship, it becomes much more difficult for you to justify yourself as the person in the right. To be super nerdy for a second, the quote from “Game of Thrones,” “If you rip a man’s tongue out, you’re afraid of what he has to say.”
It almost sounds like maybe there’s this sense of, “Well, we know we’re not in the right here, so we’re just going to do it anyway.” And that actually creates a backlash. What are your thoughts about that?
Zadrozny: No, I think you’re correct. But the problem is that I get the impression that the Biden administration is going for broke on everything right now. Because I think it’s a combination of things, at least that’s my theory.
One is, I believe they see the writing on Wall for the fall election. Now, Republicans can be weak at times, but I think at the end of the day, they’d still rather have control of Congress, and they’re not happy with the possibility of a wild card Congress asking a lot of questions, and obviously ruining their chances of winning reelection in 2024.
But I don’t think they see that they’ve done anything wrong. I think they’re just … going to double down or triple down. They must do a lot of these things, because I think that this issue and many other issues are up to some extent. The more that is exposed, the more it exposes the ineptitude of federal government and the need for more than just oversight hearings.
And I’m hoping that what this does is actually get people to realize we can’t just do things the way we used to. The same old, same thing old is not going to work in the future Congress or in a new administration. This federal government must be cleaned up and reassembled to the benefit of the American public.
Blair: Do you think it would be acceptable to remove Section 230 or take action against Big Tech companies who do such things?
Zadrozny:I believe that putting them in a position where they have to think about liability for removing people improperly or otherwise could be beneficial. Why is it that they have this protection that protects them from content?
In a way, you would think that if they had this immunity, this would be their way of responding to the federal government, “Look, sorry, Mr. President, we’re not going to work with you guys because we don’t want to lose our 230 status. We want this to be sort of a Wild West medium of communication.”
So yeah, I think that’s one thing that would make a difference. If you want to make a point, then point at their dollars. And their ability to make money here is something that’s a big deal.
I’ve often thought, one thing, if governments—and I don’t just mean the federal government, I mean the state governments, local governments—they want to make a difference, I think one thing you could do is just get rid of your Twitter accounts, get rid of your Facebook accounts. Why are these governments still claiming to be against the work of these platforms?
Now, the devil’s advocate argument is, well, you might as well use their medium against them. The truth is that once you use their medium against them in an effective way, you will be pulled off. Why give them the revenue? Get out of it.
And at some point I’d love to see the federal government deal with this when there’s an administration that is not interested in supporting these platforms anymore, and we’ll see what happens.
Follow the money. If you can make it painful for them economically, they’ll stop their behavior.
Blair: As we wrap up here, I want you to really focus in on what you think people should look at. First, where can people go if they want to examine these documents themselves? And then, what do you recommend they really pay attention to as they’re troving through these? As you mentioned, there’s quite a few of them. What should they be looking for?
Zadrozny: Well, Doug, one thing I would strongly recommend is if people do want to see the documents—and thank you for the plug—please come to aflegal.org. That’s aflegal.org. You can see the work we’ve done on this and also many, many other things, everything from immigration to national security to education.
But in terms of this trove, again, we’re going to need some eyes, and people’s expertise and thoughts based on their conduct. If you find anything of interest, please let us know.
For example, … you’ll see names in these emails, but not all of them, because some of them are redacted. So if anyone has any information about any of the names around those FOIA exemptions the agency used to cover other people’s names, let us know.
One thing I’m curious to know is, are there any professional or economic connections between the people in the federal government and these companies? It identifies, for example, people who work at Twitter, Facebook, or Google and who interact with federal government. But do they have a spouse at CDC? Are they married to a NIH spouse? These are often hidden things.
And it’s funny because the leftist administrations always tend to have couples involved in things. Sometimes, that manifests itself in the form of Mr. Jones working at Treasury Department and Mrs. Jones on the White House counsel team. But sometimes it’s not even all in government. For example, Mr. Jones might be dependent on Mrs. Jones tweeting what the federal government says.
If it’s the stuff that we don’t know—in fact, the best way I could say it, Doug, is, it’s the unknown unknowns in the production. And if anyone’s got any thoughts, and also if you happen to be one of these people who are working for these Big Tech companies who are familiar with some of this, come reach out to us.
You don’t exist, we will make sure you don’t exist, but we could use your help and information, and anything you’ve got to offer. Because really, it comes down to the people behind the scenes who say, “Hey, I know I’m part of this. I’ve seen this, it’s wrong. I want to help.”
If you’re willing to come check out those documents, please give us a shout and keep your eyes out for further tranches of documents and further information from these agencies and hopefully an honest inspector general’s report regarding the content of this whole scandal across the Department of Health and Human Services.
Blair: This sounds like a great opportunity for Americans to get involved. John Zadrozny is the deputy director for investigations at America First Legal Foundation. John, I appreciate your time.
Zadrozny: Thank you, Doug, for your time. I appreciate it.
Do you have a comment about this article? Send an email to let us know your opinion. letters@DailySignal.com, and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Make sure to include the URL of the article or the headline, as well as your name and hometown.
