Breaking: DHS Suspends ‘Disinformation Board’

Breaking news today on Sekulow as the DHS suspends the Disinformation Governance Board. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. The Washington Post today has just reported that the Administration's Controversial Disinformation Governance Board is being paused.

We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. The Department of Homeland Security, instead of going out and securing the border, this is where they were spending the time and they botched this one as well. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. This is breaking news and of course the online doesn't like it, the social media companies obviously don't like it.

Except Rumble. Yeah, I have a bit of Facebook, certainly not. But this has just come in in the last hour, folks, right before we were on air. Just three weeks after its announcement, it's the Washington Post reporting as well, which is interesting, the spin they try to put on it. But the Disinformation Governance Board, the truth police, the speech police.

I was speaking last night at an event, a Constitution event, and that's what we talked about most. The attack on freedom of speech is being, quote, paused, according to multiple employees at DHS, capping a back and forth weekend. On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security decided to shut down the Disinformation Board. Then on Tuesday morning, Nina Jankowicz drafted her resignation letter in response to the board's dissolution. They then came back Tuesday night, said you can stay on at the Department of Homeland Security, but we are suspending all of our working groups within DHS, focusing on mis, dis, and mal information. They've all been suspended and shut down, pending a review by the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

So Jankowicz herself is just evaluating whether she even has a role inside DHS. Folks, we told you if we stood up here and fought back here, that this would be unacceptable in the United States of America. You don't have Disinformation Governance Boards. I'll tell you this, on April 29th, as soon as we got word of this, I'm holding up my hands, let's put it up on the screen for those that are watching. This was the demand letter we sent to the Department of Homeland Security. A Freedom of Information request to DHS for records regarding the Disinformation Governance Review Board. We have not gotten a response to that letter yet.

In fact, it's not even due yet. We were extensive in what we asked for. We pointed to the fact that Nina Jankowicz posted that the cat was out of the bag.

Here's what I've been up to the past two months and why I've been quiet on here. She tweeted, honored to be serving on Biden administration's DHS government and helping shape our counter disinformation efforts. And then she listed two other people that were named. This news of the Disinformation Governance Boards came two days after, remember, Elon Musk put in his bid for Twitter. Now, it is a complete violation of the First Amendment. It is the government exercising viewpoint discrimination, which is, let me be clear, totally unconstitutional.

You can't do it. When a government engages in choosing sides in speech of American citizens, that is classic viewpoint discrimination, and it is totally 100% unconstitutional. We said this board needed to be disbanded. We initiated a legal proceeding to start it.

Now, folks, this is why your American Center for Law and Justice doesn't just talk about these issues and we take action. It is not May 29th yet. Folks, this letter went out April 29th. We are, what, April 17th, 16th, whatever it is today. May, when I say April, May. May 18th, on May 18th, two and a half weeks, really, after they got our letter, it is being paused.

This is how it actually reads. Now, just three weeks after its announcement, the Disinformation Governance Board is being paused. And then it says, in the headline, it says how the Biden administration let right-wing attacks derail its disinformation efforts. In other words, right-wing, that is constitutional conservatives that said the government can't violate your free speech rights.

My free speech rights. Yeah, I mean, they're trying to salvage this in The Washington Post. When we get back, of course, it's an attack on you, you know, because you shut this down, because you spoke up.

Again, it's this attack on speech. You will not believe even what's in The Washington Post about how they characterize why DHS. You know, the idea, one, that they're saying it's just because of conservatives. This is a Democrat-run administration.

It was because Americans, some issues, are getting bolder than just Republican and Democrat. It's un-American to have a disinformation board. Give us a call.

I want your reaction. 1-800-684-3110 will be part of the show. 1-800-684-3110. There's more breaking news here. Nina Jacobowitz is gone from the U.S. government. She has resigned. The reporter who wrote this story for The Washington Post says Nina Jacobowitz has officially resigned from the Disinformation Governance Board and the Department of Homeland Security three weeks after its announcement, and she already was resigning on Monday.

Then there was some confusion there. This is what's interesting, one to point out, is that they didn't just have a disinformation governance board. They were also working on a misinformation and a malinformation working group.

So there were multiple groups like this in DHS. They've suspended all of this work. I guarantee you the reason why is because when you file the FOIA and you file the legal documents, they did not want you to know, and they're hoping by shutting this down you don't find out, that they were creating this because of conservatives and because of, quote, as they say, the right wing.

Do you want more proof? Here's The Washington Post journalists who broke the story explaining what happened here, trying to explain. Jacobowitz's example is a prime example of how the right wing Internet apparatus, whatever that means, operates. We're far right influencers, far right. I mean, you're talking mainstream folks, mainstream people who are – there was such outrage on this from the Republicans from the middle of the road to the right wing, an attempt to identify a target, present a narrative, and then repeat mischaracterization. So supposedly misinformation and disinformation is the reason why there's no disinformation governance board, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. But they do admit this, The Washington Post. It shows what happens when institutions, when confronted with these attacks, don't respond effectively.

Remember Mayorkas said we could have done a better job of rolling this out? There is no better way to spin a speech police in the United States of America. I said this idea of being a free speech absolutist is a good thing in the United States of America. We are not – the awful speech that's lawful speech is protected speech. The government doesn't get a say in awful speech that's lawful speech. And we see the war on trying to scare you and silence you. But when we all speak up and we all fight back and say this is un-American, this is like – I mean, I don't say this lightly.

This is what, like, Stalin does, this is what Hitler does. There's only a few examples, and it's what also these left-wing dictators in the current world, this is what the Chinese do, is trying to control every narrative that is out in the public and all the news. We don't do that in the United States of America. We protect minority opinions. We protect out-there opinions. We protect opinions we don't like. We protect opinions that offend us. We protect opinions that offend other people. We protect all speech. That's the starting point with any time you look at law is why are we restricting this speech?

And in most times, you don't respect it. And let me tell you something else here. Let me tell you what we're not going to do. We're not dismissing our Freedom of Information Act case.

Because I wonder if this was the reason maybe they decided to shut this down. Because the American Center for Law and Justice said this. We want records of information within an email, memorandum, visual presentation, briefing, or talking points within the custody of any DHS official. We also want records of communications information between DHS and all other appointees and members of the Senate or House. We said we want all emails of Nina Jankowicz, Under Secretary for Policy Rob Silvers, and Principal Deputy General Counsel Jennifer Gaskill regarding the Disinformation Governance Board, revealed by Secretary Marrakis on April 27th when they announced it. We also want all final reports or memorandums regarding the Disinformation Governance Board issued by Secretary Mayorkas at the Congressional hearing on April 27th.

So we ask for everything. Because here's what you had happening. The federal government was setting up a governance review committee that was going to determine which of our speech is misinformation or disinformation. Whether it was constitutionally protected or not, they didn't care. If misinformation is disinformation, then they were going to go to the tech companies, big tech, and say take these groups off.

Not like we don't already have an issue with, for instance, let me just say for today, Facebook. It'd be very interesting to know that I thought I got an alert that we were on. Actually, I did not. And obviously, many of you did not. Because our number of people watching is down 40% from where it normally is.

Of course, we're thrilled that we're on, and we really are thrilled that we're on, a rumble where we don't have to worry about this. And our numbers there continue to grow right through the broadcast. In fact, I will say even YouTube has been better than these other groups. Yes, but this was the idea here. Remember they said, well, they don't really have any enforcement role. One, it's a law enforcement agency. DHS has lots of enforcement roles. But two, these content platforms, like Facebook, survive because of federal law that protects them, the Section 230 law that protects them from liability. So if someone does put up their manifesto and ends up shooting people, they don't have liability for managing all of the content. So to keep that protection, which they so desperately want, they are going to follow whatever the federal government dictates of them.

Here's the issue. I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat, you do not want the federal government policing American speech. It is what separates us from the rest of the world. Our true freedom is our ability to organize, our ability to speak out when we want to speak out, our ability to be the opponents, to be the dissenters, to be sometimes in the majority, sometimes in the minority, to share views that may be radical. It's been radical. I would wonder then this question, is it still radical to them to be pro-life?

I think so because you know what they're saying? Oh, now if the Supreme Court, the other break of the day was if the Supreme Court opinion holds and they overturn or over-suade violence in the streets in America. But they didn't say who the violence would be by. It's not going to be pro-lifers. So the violence is going to be by left-wing activists. That's who DHS is actually worried about. But they never want to talk about the Antifa violence, the BLM violence. Again, obviously it's enough of a concern, but they're trying to threaten the court. It's another way to threaten the court.

That's exactly right. Now let me say a couple of things here. I'm going to call a couple of audibles here to our team. Let's make sure that we get out on all of our social media platforms, especially Truth Social, that we've had this victory. This pause in the DHS and that Nina Jankowicz is now no longer an employee of the federal government.

That's huge. And by the way, that means that pause now is going to be permanent. They're getting rid of the staff. Yes, she's gone.

Okay, so your staff director's gone. You know what's happening there. Let's make sure, Will, that all of our teams are getting that out immediately on our social media platforms, especially Truth Social. And like I said, if you're watching on Facebook, go over to Rumble where we're not going to be censored for what we're going to say today.

There's a link to Rumble right on the YouTube site, on the Facebook site rather, so I encourage you to do that. That's number one. Number two, I want to play the Jankowicz bite where they talk about lawful-lawful because this is a complete violation of the First Amendment.

Take a listen. We need the platforms to do more, and we frankly need law enforcement and our legislatures to do more as well. And in other countries, they're looking at this. You know, the UK has an online safety bill that's being considered right now where they're trying to make illegal this currently, quote, awful but lawful content that exists online where people are being harassed. Okay, well, here's the problem with that.

That sounds really nice. But first of all, let me tell you what the United Kingdom doesn't have, a First Amendment free speech clause or any version of a free speech clause in their governing documents. Okay, so it's a completely different system. Number two, this is going to be used, was going to be used to silence dissenting viewpoints. We know that.

So I think what we have to do is get beyond all of the fallacies. I'm looking at another one of our statements. We're not in the opinion police.

This is Mayorkas. We're not the opinion police. Of course they were the opinion police.

Who do they think they're kidding? They are exactly the opinion police. They thought that they could control the content of what Americans were saying. Now, they want to do all this while they have total protection from liability. So when they talk about harassing speech or someone doing something awful because of what they post, well, maybe if you hold them liable, they'd actually would do the kind of policing that would prevent that kind of speech. Yeah, but see, when they say it's awful but lawful, it's not real harassment.

Because, again, if it's lawful, it's protected in the United States of America. You're the person who holds the sign on the street corner that you drive by on your way to work or dropping off your kids to school or every day that has their sign about the end times or this. That person's protected. They get to stand out there with their sign. You get to decide if you want to engage them or not.

But they can stand out there with their sign. And, again, you can organize political movements in the United States against the government. You can organize and say, I disagree. And you know what is scary to me is, again, there's groups think in Washington. They think we are all extreme. They think we are all this far-right extreme movement. And so everything they couch is a tip to get average folks, it's people who would not normally engage the process, who decided, I am so fed up, I'm so angry, I am going to join one of these groups.

So I'm going to organize my own group. We're going to go defeat the school board candidates. And then you had DOJ coming after them.

Homeschool mom. So we need the FBI counter-terrorism unit to go after them. We're not even getting into the trial that's going on right now in Washington. We'll do that tomorrow on the Russia hoax.

And you talk about a hoax. They're worried about the homeschool mom, worried about what was going on inside the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As one of the agents said, testified yesterday at the trial involving Michael Sussman, they knew within hours that the Russia bank relationship that they alleged with Trump was totally false. In hours they said.

But Bob Mueller took him two and a half years. This is the issue. They're not going to stop. You have to keep catching them. Keep catching them and push hard. And you see, even when they're in control, you can get victories.

You can defeat these horrible anti-American policies like a disinformation governance board. We'll be right back. Take your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110. Welcome back to Secchios.

In case you're just joining us, I want to announce this and make sure it's clear. DHS has suspended the disinformation governance board. Nina Jankowicz has resigned from the Department of Homeland Security and the federal government. They have also suspended their mal-information, other disinformation governance boards. Indefinitely, they are going to have a review from the Homeland Security Council. Again, what we also know is it was bigger than just the disinformation governance board.

There was a whole team being put together. She is gone from the federal government, folks. This idea, again, it's a good reminder that even when you don't have the White House, you don't have the House, you don't have the Senate, when you speak out on issues that are American and they're taking actions that are literally anti-American. Policing speech right out of Orwell, right out of the playbook of Hitler, right out of the playbook of Stalin, right out of the playbook of the Communist Chinese.

What Putin tries to do, but he's not as capable to do, is limit the ability for differing viewpoints and people to take a view that the government, like a pro-life view, which they think is so radical, or an ultra-mag of view. They don't really understand the left. They still haven't learned their lesson, but what they do understand is that when they are getting clobbered politically, they will take some action. Again, there was no industry that owns them on this.

This isn't like the abortion issue where they're owned by some lobbies. Facebook was not saying we want more, tell us more what we have to do. But they weren't going to fight back. It was us that had to fight back. We did, big time.

And because of that, they're running scared. A few days after the announcement was made about the formation of the Board of Governance for Misinformation and Disinformation, the American Center for Law and Justice, the ACLJ, executed a Freedom of Information Act demand to the Department of Homeland Security. That was regarding FOIA requests to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records regarding Disinformation Governance Review Board. That is what we demanded to get answers to. So I want to be clear what we asked for. We believe they were engaged in content-based and viewpoint discrimination. We were prepared to go to court on that. We were looking at legal remedies even beyond a Freedom of Information Act request. Senior Counsel Andy Akonma was with us in our Atlanta studio today. And Andy, the fact that this has now been paused, which means it's over, but you're never over until they're over, but paused, and that Nina Jankowicz has, after being offered a position elsewhere evidently in Homeland Security, has resigned, shows that what the government was about to engage in was completely and totally a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Jay, that's exactly correct. It was a violation of the Constitution of the United States and of the traditions of free speech and non-government control of our minds. It was the attempt to create a ministry of truth. It was, as Jordan alluded to, Orwellian, read the novel 1984 by George Orwell, where the government tries to establish a Bureau of Truth so that they can tell you what to think, newspeak, how to talk, how to think, what is right, what is wrong, emanating from the federal government, from the central government. Our FOIA request, our outspokenness with respect to this, our assertion of traditional United States and American values, I think instilled a great fear in the central government, in the left-wing government that we have in Washington, and they said they're on to us, they're coming after us, the spirit of the American people is not going to be fooled by these kinds of tactics, and so what did they do? They suspended their operations, their leader, the person that was the point person, Nina Jankowicz, resigned and is out of this thing because the fear of what is being done to the American people was expressed by us in no uncertain terms, and we have in many ways prevailed on a very serious, serious matter, and that's the doing away with this horrid, unbelievable ministry of information, ministry of truth, bored, call it what you will, Jay.

The propaganda committee is what it really was. Now, Thanh Bennett is our director of governmental affairs, and I want to follow up from what Andy just said. We went after this legally immediately. Within 48 hours, we launched a Freedom of Information Act demand, and we're prepared to go to court, and we still will. We're going to get all the answers, because that's how you make sure it doesn't happen again, but Thanh, we also went to the halls of Congress. Yeah, this is a classic example, Jay, of why we always engage in a multi-pronged effort on this. Andy talked about the FOIA litigation, the propensity to expose what they're doing in a court of law.

That's always one prong. We always go to the United States Congress as well, Jay. Obviously, they have access to more information.

Senator Josh Hawley was very influential on this, also acting quickly, really in about the same time frame that we did, and then Jay, the third prong is always the court of public opinion here, and I really think that's the most significant one. They were shamed into shutting this board down, but Jay, I do want to say, all of what Andy said and everything that you said about the win is absolutely true. It is a classic example of how we get a quick victory, but I want to say this, Jay. They were operating behind the scenes long before this announcement. The reason we're not going to pull this FOIA back is we want to make sure they don't operate behind the scenes using a different figurehead going forward, waiting for all of this to blow over, and then just implementing the exact same thing. Jay, they will try it again one day, and we are going to be there when they do, and the information that we get out of this FOIA, Jay, that is going to be the most significant weapon in making sure that the next time they try it, they don't succeed either.

You have to stand up every time. This idea, again, to criminalize political speech, to criminalize being a conservative. Law enforcement agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security, feeling like they can go and start censoring speech, that they can make speech that's legal but they don't like it somehow, and they're going to say that she was bullied. First of all, it wasn't even about her. The idea that Mayorkas is talking about a 31-year-old or a 32-year-old is some expert in anything?

Let's be honest. She was an expert in disinformation. She held a fellowship in disinformation. Because it's made up. It's made up. Disinformation is what you don't like of your political opponents. I mean, this is real disinformation, saying that it was disinformation and misinformation that caused them to get rid of the board, because if they really believed that, they wouldn't get rid of the board. Of course not. This is the circular reasoning.

But Andy, I want to say this. We felt like this was perhaps the greatest encroachment on freedom of speech that you and I have seen in about 40 years of you and I doing litigation on these kind of issues. And we've seen a lot of encroachments on free speech. But to have the federal government create a board of governance for misinformation and disinformation, I never thought we would see it. But I think it was that big of a threat.

Jay, I've been practicing law for 47 years. I have never seen any attempt at overreaching by the federal government into our minds, into our thoughts, into our brains. Then the establishment of this board of information, board of propaganda, as you correctly called it, board of truth or whatever you want, phrase you want to put on it. The left decided we're going to overreach. And the right, the conservatives, the traditionalists, the constitutionalists, those of us who believe in traditional values, who believe in the sanctity of the Constitution, raised cane about it. Filed FOIA requests, told them we're coming after you because we're not going to permit this to happen in the United States of America.

And what happened is they turned tail in fear and trembling and ran. But as Sam said, we don't stop here. We persist in our FOIA requests. I want to find out the information that we requested in our Freedom of Information Act request.

I want to find out who was responsible and who did this so that they can be identified and not hide behind the shield of whatever it was that they were trying to do. All right, folks, we'll be right back, second of hour on Sekulow. We will fight for the right to live in freedom. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow.

I just want to update everybody in case we have people that are just joining us or just watching or listening to the broadcast right now. You know, about three weeks ago, there was the announcement of the Disinformation Governance Board by the Department of Homeland Security. We had this official, Nina Jankowicz, who was part of the nonprofit world. She was supposed to be an expert in disinformation, which, by the way, is usually other foreign governments. I mean, if you're talking about real disinformation, you're talking about bad actors. But her commentary did not add up to that. Remember, they said it was about drug cartels and Russia, not like the Russia hoax stuff, but like Russia really trying to hack into our system, banking systems.

You don't put a 32-year-old who's an expert in political disinformation in charge of dealing with drug cartels and Russian hacking. So it didn't add up. They're misinformation and disinformation about their own committee. People were outraged. We filed our FOIA.

Again, this board was just in formation. It has been shut down by the Department of Homeland Security, suspended indefinitely, under review. Nina Jankowicz is gone. She is no longer working for the Biden administration. She is no longer with the federal government.

She's out. And the idea that they want to say, well, it's the right-wing media and look how strong they are. First of all, if that's true, great. Because if it took right-wing media folks like us to protect freedom of speech to the United States of America, that's fine with me because it also protects the speech of the left-wing host and the left-wing activist out there. They're also today announcing better prepare because when we stop killing kids with abortion in America, there's going to be massive violence in the streets this summer. But who is going to be engaged in that violence? Because it will not be pro-life activists who are celebrating the victory. They know it's themselves. They're egging it on.

They want another summer of burning cities. And this idea – again, that is disinformation. That is misinformation. And that, again, is coming out of the government.

So here's what we have. So you have this government agency, Department of Homeland Security, which set up a board of governments for misinformation and disinformation. And we attacked it. And now it's fair to say, as one of our producers said this morning, it is completely falling apart.

It is falling apart. And then to add to that, Nina Jankowicz, who is running it, is now gone. But as Than will point out, and I'm thrilled with this, and I'm glad we took the illegal action we did, but the fact is, folks, buckle your seat belts. They will try this again. And maybe they don't announce it this time. Right, Than?

A hundred percent, Jay. And in fact, I'm not sure they meant to announce it this time. I mean, I think Secretary Mayorkas kind of accidentally spilled the beans, and then Nina Jankowicz confirmed it on social media. Jay, I think if they had their preference, they'd still be operating behind the scenes. And I want to reiterate this.

I want to double back to this. Even though this is a tremendous victory, and as of now I completely agree with you, a hundred percent disbanded, I actually think this makes the information that we're pursuing in this FOIA request even more important, Jay, because I don't think, the next time they do it, I'm not sure there will be an announcement. And we need to know where the skeletons are, so to speak. Who was involved in this? Who skirted the constitutional requirements?

And who pushed forward with this anyway? Jay, we're going to find that out so the next time, when they don't announce it, we're going to discover it anyway. Andy, I just did the math between you and me.

We've been practicing law a hundred years. Okay. In a hundred years of combined practice, did you ever think, and we only got a minute left here, did you ever think you would see the government put a governance board to monitor our speech and then to notify companies, hey, this group's speaking out about this issue, you better tell them to stop?

No, I can't. I'm appalled, Jay. I'm appalled and I'm just, I'm so disheartened that this is happening in America. I have never seen this. I never thought I would see this.

I never thought I would live to see this day. It is appalling. It terrifies me. I'm glad it has fallen apart. It needs to fall apart. We were instrumental in seeing it fall apart.

May the Lord never let it come upon us again. All right, folks, again, this is a great example. You can feel like you don't have the political power because the Democrats in charge of the White House, the House, the Senate. When you speak out on issues that American people understand that bypass partisan politics, the idea of freedom of speech in our country, the idea that the awful speech that's lawful speech is protected speech, because who's getting to determine that?

We don't want the government deciding what's awful lawful. That's up to us, and we win. All right, welcome back to SECIO. We're going to take your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. If you want to join this discussion, that's 1-800-684-3110. Let's go right to the phones. Rod called in from Oregon on Line 5. Hey, Rod, welcome to SECIO.

Hello, thank you for taking my call. Yes, when I heard that the Disinformation Governance Board had been suspended, my first thought was that they'll bring it back again underground where it's not visible, only next time they'll pick a director that knows how to keep their mouth shut and be able to work quietly behind the scenes. You know, listen, that could happen, and we're going to be prepared for that.

But I think there's something, I said this earlier and I'm going to say it again, because I think the framing of this is the right way to frame it. It's falling apart. The entire, their entire framework of this Board of Governments and disinformation and misinformation is falling apart. And the falling apart continued 10 minutes after we got word on this, the next falling apart was Nina Jankowicz was out. So, you know, this is what's happening. Meanwhile, I want to say this, though. If you're watching on YouTube, okay, great.

If you're watching on Rumble, even better. If you're watching on Facebook, and this is disheartening, Facebook did not, most of us did not get a notice that our subscribers to Facebook on what is a huge breaking story on misinformation and disinformation. Now, maybe Facebook's falling apart.

I don't know. But it sure seems that way. So if you're on Facebook right now, share it with your friends, but then move them over to Rumble, because this is an outrage with these social media platforms. Yeah, this is, again, the throttling, de-throttling we talk about. It's why we have to continue to speak out. Why many of these companies, again, the regulations that are in place, or the non-regulations that are in place, but that they take, again, their marching orders from the government on what to, and they were willing to do that here. They were willing to say, government, just tell us what you want, tell us the speech we like, tell us the speech you don't like, tell us the people you want to talk about. This whole idea, again, there's got to be violence if you overturn Roe vs. Wade.

That's a threat. Imagine if conservatives said that. Imagine if conservatives said, if you don't overturn Roe vs. Wade, we're going to burn down the country. We're going to just go to war.

Literal. That's what they put out today. But even the headline doesn't say who they're talking about. Right, but of course you know who they're talking about, because the people who are going to be upset.

Well, the people that are already doing it already. Of course, these are people that were thrilled that someone leaked a Supreme Court opinion. But Professor Hutchinson, our director of policies here, and Harry, we said from a policy standpoint, a board of governance was a complete violation of the Constitution.

It violates the viewpoint discrimination, content neutrality. It is a complete violation of the law, and it was a federal government agency doing it. You are precisely correct, Jay, but it's also important to keep in mind that the elites who are at the very top of our deep state, they do not necessarily believe in the Constitution. Rather, they are focused on governing the American people through what might be called a permanent state of a state of emergency. Under this state of emergency, they want to suspend the Constitution.

Why? They want to then label all of their political opponents as a threat to democracy. And so that includes citizens who question, for instance, Dr. Fauci.

Individuals who still admire former President Donald Trump. All of those individuals, in the view of our elites, are now labeled threats to our democracy. And so we then claim that there's a necessity which requires the imposition of extra constitutional measures designed to tamp down dissent. And you will see the same thing with respect to climate change, social justice initiatives. In Canada, for instance, they declared literally a state of emergency under their law. Why? Because you had truck drivers honking their horns in Ottawa, and they had bouncy castles, and they claimed that that was a threat to the Canadian democracy. This is nonsense on stilts by global elites.

But here – and take it a step further, Annie, though. This was – they took a – and you served in the Department of Justice. I served in the Department of Treasury. They took law enforcement agencies and decided we're going to vest this group with this Board of Governance of Missing Disinformation, which is now, again, I'll use the word, falling apart, suspended.

Nina Jankiewicz is out. But they vested it in a law enforcement agency, Homeland Security. That's what makes it particularly appalling and outrageous, Jay, that they would take the instrumentalities of government, not just any instrumentality of government, but a law enforcement agency like Garland – Merrick Garland did with the Department of Justice against parents who were outraged and speak out at public meetings of school boards with respect to their children. They weaponized government agencies who are law enforcement entities, Homeland Security in this case, Justice in other cases.

We have the IRS before, and they used those agencies to enforce a political point of view, a political stance, a political ideal. That's what makes this so completely distasteful and so completely scary. We ought to be frightened to death when something like this is created, and we ought to rejoice in the fact that it's falling apart. I think this is – that is what happened, is that American people – and you keep the throttle on that. I think this is important because when you've got the administration running, keep them running. Keep them – first of all, DHS should be figuring out what's at the border.

They shouldn't be involved in speech, not American speech. But then I think what you've got to do is you have to keep the pedal down now, and you've got to make sure you disrupt any of their plans, because we now know that there was a bigger plan going on in DHS. They don't spend a lot of time on this, the article, but there were these other boards.

There was a misinformation, but there was a disinformation. There was also a malinformation, and they say all of these working groups, not a working group, Dan, but multiple working groups were going to be put in place on this, and they've all been suspended for now. And it's a key word, suspended. We have to make sure it ultimately is totally shut down. Yeah, we may not even know the magnitude of this win at this point, Jordan, because I think there are probably a lot of those boards that were doing equally dangerous work.

Look, I would say a lot of this folds together as well. I mean, the proof that this board is falling apart, as Jay has said, and I would say sort of the best part of this win, Jordan, is the fact that they've really lost their own people on this. I mean, people all across this country, whether they're left, right or middle, this is something that they cherish, their ability to disagree with the government. You know, maybe you like the government that's in power. Maybe you don't. Maybe you will like the next one.

Maybe you won't. Americans of all political strikes want the freedom to disagree with their government, and so they really lost their own base on this. But here's who they didn't lose, Jordan. They didn't lose the left in Washington, D.C., and I'm going to just keep saying this. The left in Washington, D.C., even though they lost their own people on this, they will try it again, Jordan, and that's why we're going to stay with it.

It's a tremendous win, but we're going to use our success here as sort of the blueprint for how we're going to win it again in the future. This is the issue here, is they were not willing to die on this hill for this kid. That's exactly right. But the idea in Mayorkas, again, he said that they could have figured this out, but I think when they realized that they realized this was going to be a huge political liability, and so if they actually think something, this is what you know, if they actually think something is a danger to America, you don't shut it down because it's a political liability. You defend it and go figure out, okay, maybe we were wrong on this or maybe we put the wrong people, but we really have this problem from cartels. We really have this problem from Russia trying to actually hack banks, not disinformation, not Russia hoax, but real intel issues. But we have a former C.A. director and a former director of national intelligence on our staff at the ACLJ. Do we really need another committee run by a 30-year-old at the Department of Homeland Security to handle cyber attacks from Russia? But this is not what her specialty was.

Her specialty was in online bullying. Yeah, well, this is where they made, I think, Harry, a strategic miscalculation of what the reaction of the American people were going to be like. And we responded within 48 hours.

The American Center for Law and Justice responded to this within 48 hours. That they did not anticipate. I think that is correct, but they've also been handicapped because they have been led by what might be called audacious arrogance. They believe they know what's best for the American people. They consistently underestimate the willingness of the American people to fight back. And so I think it's important, though, to reemphasize fans point, which is that the left is consistent. The left is persistent. They will attempt to do this again.

Why? Because they are driven by one thing, and I think one thing only, the pursuit of absolute power. So they will mine social division in order to gain power. And I think we should expect some type of new ministry of truth to emerge down the road. Yeah, that's why, again, you keep the pedal down. You don't let up on this administration. You got them running. You got them admitting that there were free speech concerns, that there were issues. So keep them running.

Let's run them all the way through the midterms. Hold on, I'm going to say a word here. Let's defeat them. Oh, no, is that going to be censored now?

Because the word defeat is a bad word. Oh, that's mean to them because you want to take their job? Yes, I want to fire Nancy Pelosi. I want to take her job. Are you going to censor that?

Because you want someone fired? Is that bullying now? This is politics in America. It's rough and tumble, and it always has been.

Let's keep it that way. Again, I think this goes back to, it's a country, we have rough and tumble politics. We don't have one party in control. We have multiple opinions. We have differing views. We are tough on our views.

I gave a speech last night, people assembled together, they share a common view. A view which is very outside the mainstream of the Democrat party. Because they think if you're pro-life, you're somehow part of this fringe, and we're going to burn the cities down if you overturn Roe vs. Wade. That's literally what they put out today, which sounds a little bit like misinformation and disinformation, and sounds a bit like trying to threaten the judiciary.

A lot more than protesting in front of their house, by the way. When you say the country will burn because of a court decision. You're trying to influence that decision. You're trying, one, to set the country on fire, and two, maybe scare one of those justices into not making that decision. Exactly.

No, it's exactly what they're doing. And then we already have, we've got existing censorship. And Logan, this thing with Facebook today, to me, because I saw how our other social media platforms, Rumble especially, YouTube even, just, you know, lit up. And Facebook, we were at 700 for the first 20 minutes of the broadcast. And then it's not any announcements, at least I didn't get one.

Yeah, I got one, but I think that's just, it's selective. But when you do look at how things run, and you look at our situation right now as we broadcast live, there's about 1,200 people watching right now, according to the numbers. Now, I believe those numbers are not necessarily accurate. There's about 1,200 people watching on Facebook. There is another couple thousand watching on the other collective platforms, almost 2,000, 1,700 on Rumble alone. Now, you look at Rumble, we have about 170,000 subscribers over at Rumble. You look at Facebook, we have 4 million likes.

So I think that is the main difference. 8 million with the other. Yeah, but 4 million people specifically. Now, a lot of people left on the platform. A lot of people have moved on. Facebook, we know, is moving back towards more of a platform that's trying to go away from news and going more towards, you know, pictures of your grandkids and that kind of thing.

And I don't necessarily have a big problem with that. But when there is breaking news, when there are things like this, yeah, there's very little transparency. Basically, if you get shadow banned, there's no real way for you to know. There's no customer service, really, at Facebook. And it's unfortunate to see the people who use these platforms.

It's like we're seeing right now with Twitter and Elon Musk. They're trying to audit how many people they even know are real. And they're finding them. And the numbers are coming in staggeringly high. It could be two-thirds. It could be. Two-thirds fake on Twitter. I mean, so all these numbers and all these, they've never been able to turn a profit.

They've never been able to figure out how to monetize the program. But even if you thought it was a good idea to have for the world this speech platform, that's the real problems. Those are the real issues.

But what happens? Not my view on abortion. But what happens when you have these platforms and we're, like we said, we're very thankful for Rumble and encourage people to go to Rumble where they highlight us. We could speak without being censored.

But Facebook, like you said, Logan, between my page and the ACLJ page and Jordan's page and your page, we had probably 9 million people. Now, look, there is something to say that they may know that you're promoting people to go off their platform. So there is that part of the conversation.

Well, that's because they have not been reliable as a platform. Right. I'm just saying there is a give and take in this. The algorithms are a lot smarter than we think.

It's a lot more detailed than we think. So just little things are what could send, not necessarily a person who is sitting there going, nope, we're not allowing it, but what is allowing an algorithm. As you said, the mainstream culture would lead you to believe that a lot of people have the views of Hollywood or have the views of this. And it's simply not the case.

It's why you haven't seen cities burn with these things. You haven't seen these issues arise because when there's real public outcry, you know about it. But when there is manufactured, all it is is showing, sure, the algorithm is showing you a point of view of which to promote what they'd like you to see. That doesn't necessarily represent the majority of the country or even half the country. What we have to support is the wild west of speech. And they're starting to, they're criminalizing that idea. The idea that you can be a free speech absolutist, which means you will see horrendous things that you don't like. There's criminal activity and then there's awful but lawful speech.

And that's what they wanted to go after. And let me tell you who the awful folks are. Us. You. Listening. Because you're pro-life.

You're Gisro versus Wade. You support the second amendment. You support freedom of speech. You support lower taxes. You are now, you are part of the second, one of the biggest political parties in the country, likely. And yet you're still, you're the awful folks. Remember they called you deplorable already.

So I mean it's the same words. Yeah but then you flip it around and you have a Twitter executive being caught on camera calling Elon Musk essentially because he's special needs. He can't take him seriously and can't trust him because he has Asperger's. These are the kind of things that are coming out from, those are the good guys. Those are the good guys that are attacking people because of, you know, because of their, he's the richest man in the world. Okay, you know that's absolutely insane.

These are things that are coming out every day. Yeah so the ACLU used to be the protector of free speech. I just went to their website, Andy. I just took a look at their website because we used to file briefs and on free speech cases, guess who used to file in support of our cases? The American Civil Liberties Union.

How about this one for a breaking news alert? We represented, we the ACLJ, represented the ACLU on a free speech case in Arizona years ago that ended up going all the way to the Supreme Court. And they said the first amendment was really designed to protect debate even at the fringes.

This I'm quoting from their own director. You don't need the courts to protect speech that everybody agrees with because that speech would be tolerated. You need a first amendment to protect speech that people regard as intolerable, outrageous, or offensive. But believe me that apparently is not the view of the ACLU anymore and it certainly was not the view of the Biden administration because they launched a board of governance for misinformation and disinformation. But Andy the thing to stress here is in 48 hours the ACLJ, the American Center for Law and Justice, worked to shut it down and it looks like we have been successful.

It certainly does Jay. It certainly looks like we have succeeded in championing once again the Constitution of the United States, free speech rights, the rights of people to have speech and to say what they want to say and not have a thought police monitor a person in Washington D.C. saying this is misinformation, we're going to bar it. This is not the party line. This is not the left wing criteria. We're going to censor it.

What kind of stuff is that in the United States of America whether it be in 1792 or in 2022? It's not us. It's not what we stand for.

It's not our nation and we're going to fight to protect our liberties no matter what the left says. So we are making sure we're getting all of this information out on this pause of the DHS board of governance and Nina Jankowicz no longer a federal employee, not employee of DHS. We're going to get this out on all of our social media applications and our forums. We're going to get it out on our ACLJ website. There will be multiple articles posted today. We should get an email out on this in the next, you know, less than 24 hours talking about this win.

Folks, your support of the American Center for Law and Justice. Look, we just had a – remember we had our matching moment just last week, right? Yeah, last week. A week ago. A week ago because we were able to defeat the legislation that was going to codify Roe versus Wade. And then two weeks later, your American Center for Law and Justice went to work as soon as we got word that there was going to be this disinformation, misinformation review governance board and we went right to work. Threatening litigation, getting information, getting it out there and demanding response from the federal government and guess what?

It's falling – they're falling apart at DHS. Your support of the ACLJ makes a huge difference. I want to encourage you folks, as we are a little bit more than halfway through the month, support the American Center for Law and Justice.

Yeah, that's right. You go to ACLJ.org and support our work. And again, this shows you the speed you've got to take on these actions. Your – some of the FOIA work – yesterday we were talking about how the FOIA work can take time. But telling the federal government, getting involved right away and saying we are going to expose the discussions you had, why you created this because it's not adding up. It doesn't look like you're putting in people to combat cartels. It looks like you're putting in people to combat the homeschool moms and the pro-life speaker. So support the work of the ACLJ. Donate today if you're financially able to. ACLJ.org, that's ACLJ.org. We'll talk to you tomorrow.