Kamala Harris Vows a “Misinformation” Crackdown. Trump Wants Robust First Amendment Protections

• Trump aims to apply First Amendment protections to the internet

• His administration pushed for online censorship on his watch, but he promises to stop such activity in a second term

• The Biden-Harris administration embraces the suppression of dissenting viewpoints from the top down

Where Trump stands

Donald Trump has pledged to protect free speech if re-elected, targeting what he describes as censorship under the current administration.

Trump’s own officials were at the forefront of censorship during the 2020 election and at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2018, he even created an agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that went on to police online speech. Now, he promises a massive change in course.

During his 2024 campaign, he’s promised to fire any federal employees engaged in “domestic censorship” and to issue an executive order preventing government collusion with tech platforms to limit speech.

Trump’s policy plan also proposes a sweeping rollback of federal involvement in social media content moderation, aiming to prevent agencies from influencing information shared online.

In a 2022 Free Speech Policy Initiative, Trump spoke on protecting free speech and dismantling federal and corporate censorship partnerships, starting with an executive order to prevent agencies from suppressing lawful speech. Specifically, Trump called out “Silicon Valley tyrants” and the corporate media for colluding to “manipulate and silence” Americans.

Trump’s current plan includes stricter requirements for social media platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, criminal penalties for federal employees engaged in censorship, and a proposed digital Bill of Rights to ensure transparency and accountability in content moderation.

Section 230 is a law that protects online platforms from liability for user content while allowing them to moderate in "good faith," though it enables Big Tech companies to target conservative views with impunity, so Republicans have called for it to be repealed or reformed.

During his administration, Trump signed an executive order targeting Section 230, directing the Federal Communications Commission to review and narrow the protections granted to online platforms. This order was signed in May 2020 in response to censorship of voices online questioning the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

He also signed an executive order that required colleges receiving federal funds to protect free speech, threatening the removal of federal funds for those that didn’t allow diverse viewpoints to be expressed.

Trump’s supporters, including some of his tech-industry allies like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, view his track record as having demonstrated a commitment to dismantling what they see as bureaucratic overreach in policing online content.

Where Harris stands

In her current role, Kamala Harris has faced criticism for supporting government interventions against “misinformation,” particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled with the Biden-Harris administration's efforts to “communicate” with social media platforms to monitor content. Writing as one of the three dissenting voices, Justice Samuel Alito deemed that “the White House coerced Facebook into censoring” information on COVID-19.

Documents brought to light by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) revealed that the Biden-Harris White House pressured Facebook to suppress content that questioned COVID-19 vaccines, often by demoting or limiting the reach of conservative voices, including those of The Daily Wire, Tomi Lahren, and Tucker Carlson.

Harris’ vice presidential candidate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), has drawn further scrutiny for his stance on free speech. Walz has said publicly that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” a view that aligns with Harris’ position but contrasts with the First Amendment.

Additionally, Walz’s comments during a recent debate comparing misinformation to "shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater" reflect his more restrictive stance on speech rights — not to mention that it actually is legal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

Harris has made clear that she believes unchecked content on social media threatens the established consensus on a variety of issues. In 2019, Harris promised to sic the Justice Department on social media companies “profiting off of hate.”

More recently, she made a similar statement on how platforms like Facebook and X need additional oversight and regulation to curb disapproved speech.

If elected, Harris’ administration can be expected to pursue expanded federal control over “misinformation” and “hate speech” online, and may risk clashing with the First Amendment.

Why it matters

The future of free speech in America could take two vastly different paths depending on which candidate is elected this year.

Although online social media platforms have become the de-facto public square, many politicians won’t apply the First Amendment to online spaces. The left is more comfortable suppressing perspectives that challenge its worldview, while the right often allows free speech to flourish.