Did the Biden White House Target Conservative Speech? Jean-Pierre: 'We Disagree With the Decision. I'll Leave It There' (July 5, 2023)

A federal judge in Louisiana had just issued an injunction limiting the Biden administration’s contacts with social media companies. At the White House the next day, a reporter asked the question at the heart of the case.

“Do you disagree with the judge’s ruling that — that this coordination was a form of censorship that specifically targeted conservative speech?” the reporter asked [1].

“Look, we disagree with the decision. I’ll leave it there,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre answered [1].

The video above shows the exchange from the July 5, 2023, White House briefing. Quotes are from the official transcript published by the American Presidency Project [1].

”The Most Massive Attack on Free Speech”

The ruling came up again and again. The first reporter to raise it asked for a response “to the judge basically saying that this is the most massive attack on free speech in the U.S. history” [1].

“So, as you know, DOJ is reviewing the decision, the injunction,” Jean-Pierre said. “If you’re asking me if we agree or disagree, we certainly disagree with this decision” [1].

Another reporter asked how often the White House contacted the platforms. “Can you speak to the frequency of contacts that White House officials or administration officials more broadly have with social media companies and the types of content that they would be flagging?” [1]

“So, look, I can’t speak to the amounts that contact has had. I mean, that is just not a possible thing to do from here,” Jean-Pierre said [1].

”Ministry of Truth”

A reporter read her the judge’s words. “He had a pretty strong statement: The U.S. government ‘seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.”’ Can you respond to that?” [1]

“I’m just not going to respond to the Attorney Gene- — or the judge,” Jean-Pierre said [1].

Asked whether the White House would change its approach now that the pandemic was over, she said: “We’re going to continue to promote responsible actions. I said this moments ago. That is something that we’re going to continue to do to make sure that we protect public health, to make sure that there is safety and security” [1].

Asked whether the ruling had any “immediate day-to-day impact” on the White House, she said the administration would keep going: “We are going to continue to promote responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our election” [1].

She also said the platforms decide for themselves. They “make independent choices about the information they present. They are a private, as you know, entity,” she said [1].

”Let DOJ Do Their Job”

One reporter noted that the injunction named specific officials and asked about a “chilling effect” on government employees. “Look, I’m just not going to speak to this any further. I’m just going to let DOJ do their job,” Jean-Pierre said [1].

The briefing ended on the subject. A reporter asked how the ruling would affect the administration’s “efforts to get its messaging out ahead of the election.” “I’m just not going to speak about 2024. We respect the rule of law, and I’ll leave it there,” Jean-Pierre said [1].

”He Will Travel to the Area”

A reporter asked about the train derailment. “Ohio Governor Mike DeWine is asking the President to declare East Palestinian a ‘major disaster area’ after the train derailment. He sent the President a letter on Monday. Is the President considering and will he fulfill that request?” [1]

“So I can say this: As it does with all of its requests, FEMA — it will expeditiously review the request — this particular request from the governor of Ohio, as well,” Jean-Pierre said [1].

“And why has the President not made the visit out there? And at this point, is he just not going to? He’s done a lot of travel in recent weeks and months,” the reporter asked. “So I’m just going to repeat what the President said. He — he will travel to the area, to East Palestine. Just don’t have anything to share on travel or upcoming dates that he’ll be there,” Jean-Pierre answered [1].

For the White House on East Palestine in February, see HYGO News’ page on Feb. 23, 2023.

”So It’s No Big Deal?”

Reporters also asked about the cocaine the Secret Service had found in the West Wing over the holiday weekend. “Can you give any more details on where the Secret Service found cocaine in the West Wing and how it got there?” a reporter asked [1].

“Where — where this was discovered is a heavily traveled area where many White House — West Wing — I should be even more specific — West Wing visitors come through this particular area,” Jean-Pierre said [1].

“Has the President said, ‘Hey, let’s get to the bottom of what happened here’ with the cocaine?” another reporter asked [1].

Later, a reporter said, “One thing that you’re not expressing is concern over the fact that this was found on the property, and I guess I’m wondering how expressing concern would somehow get ahead of the Secret Service investigation.” [1]

“I think this is being investigated. It’s under the purview of so- — of the Secret Service. We’re going to let them — let them get to the bottom of this and see what happened. I’m just not going to get ahead of it. I’m just not,” Jean-Pierre said. “So it’s no big deal?” the reporter asked. She called on someone else [1].

For what she said two days later, see HYGO News’ page on July 7, 2023.

By the Numbers

9: questions reporters asked Jean-Pierre about the ruling in that one briefing, by HYGO News’ count [1].
6-3: the Supreme Court vote in 2024 that reversed the injunction on standing grounds [2].
3: justices who dissented: Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch [2].
Months: how long, Meta’s CEO later said, Biden officials “repeatedly pressured” Facebook [3].

What Happened Next

The Supreme Court ducked the question. On June 26, 2024, in Murthy v. Missouri, the Court ruled 6-3 that “neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant” [2].

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissented, calling it potentially “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.” “For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” Alito wrote. “It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so” [2].

Zuckerberg admitted it. Two months later, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan that Biden officials, “including those from the White House, ‘repeatedly pressured’” Facebook “to take down ‘certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire,’” the AP reported. “I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote [3].

The White House stood by its record. “When confronted with a deadly pandemic, this Administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety,” it said in a statement to the AP [3].

Trump banned it. On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” It said: “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” [4].

For an earlier White House answer on Twitter and censorship, see HYGO News’ page on the Twitter account question.