/1🚨🗣️EXCLUSIVE — FOREIGN COLLUSION TO CENSOR AMERICAN SPEECH:
New docs from litigation against the CDC reveal the Biden-Harris White House hosted the “Counter Disinformation Unit” from the U.K. gov’t in 2021 to learn about their recommendations to censor speech.
đź§µTHREAD:
/2 As a part of the NSC’s regular interagency meetings on censoring COVID-related speech in the United States, the White House hosted the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) from the U.K. government in 2021 to learn about their most effective censorship techniques.
/3 This meeting was attended by high-level staff from:
🚨White House
🚨NSC
🚨CIA
🚨FBI
🚨State Department
🚨Treasury
🚨Department of Defense
🚨Homeland Security
🚨Health and Human Services
🚨USAID
🚨Global Media
🚨Office of the Director of National Intelligence
as well as high-ranking officers in the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
/4 At this meeting, the CDU outlined how they have been censoring the British public, and these documents expose how left-wing authoritarian governments across the globe are working together to attack free speech.
/5 During the censorship meeting, the Biden-Harris NSC invited the British government to share its censorship playbook. They recommended:
🚨Creating a dedicated hub to lead government-wide censorship efforts
🚨Passing legislation to enable the government to coerce social media companies
🚨Enlisting the Department of State to partner with foreign allies and multilateral institutions to coordinate the global censorship agenda
Keep reading…
/6🚨A centralized hub to lead government-wide censorship efforts:
Â
The Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) is a British “cross-departmental” body that coordinates censorship programs across the whole of the British government. They “support formulation of a coordinated Government response” to the “threat” of misinformation (anything the government deems false).
/7 The CDU coordinates the British censorship program with private companies such as social media platforms and non-profits.
The CDU includes components of the U.K.’s foreign policy apparatus, domestic and foreign intelligence services, and individuals working directly for the Prime Minister in the Cabinet Office’s National Security Unit.
/8 Our separate litigation previously uncovered that the Biden-Harris Admin convened similar public-private censorship partnerships in the U.S. well into 2024.
In the meeting, the CDU shared how their proposal would allow them to directly coerce social media platforms to ensure that the government’s censorship demands were followed. By creating a new duty of care, the proposed legislation empowers a British regulatory agency to demand the censorship of content that the U.K. government deems harmful.
/12 The U.K. Online Safety Act came into force in October of 2023 and is the basis under which U.K. law enforcement officials have threatened to extradite and jail U.S. citizens.
/13 The law parallels recently resurfaced comments made by then Senator Kamala Harris in 2019, which called for the DOJ to punish social media companies that allowed “disinformation” and “misinformation.”
/14 One of our separate investigations confirmed that the Biden-Harris White House solicited policy recommendations from the British-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)—the group behind the U.K. Online Safety Act—and adopted commitments to hold companies accountable through DOJ prosecutions and FTC enforcement actions for allowing “online harassment” on their platforms.
/15🚨Establish regular lines of communication between government and social media platforms
The CDU also relies heavily on “trusted flagging relationships.” Effectively, this means when the government directs social media companies to censor specific posts and individuals. This behavior of flagging posts led us to initially file the lawsuit, which resulted in the production of these documents and is at the heart of the Missouri v. Biden case, in which we filed two key Amicus Briefs on behalf of dozens of members in the House of Representatives.
/16 Prior doc releases we obtained in this litigation revealed that the Biden-Harris admin had also engaged in this sort of “trusted relationship” partnership with social media companies even before this meeting.Â
The presentation appears to show that the U.K. government engages its foreign policy apparatus to further its censorship agenda and encouraged the U.S. to do the same. One of the so-called “significant benefits” of this approach would be, according to the presentation, that this unified front of government pressure would “encourag[e] cooperation from platforms.”
/18 The U.K. Foreign Office and the U.S. Department of State appear to play important similar roles in this international government censorship partnership. By coordinating across left-wing authoritarian governments, they can manipulate the global population into believing that there is no alternative to massive government censorship of social media, and “industry” would “efficiently implement[] new systems and processes.” In 2021, the U.K. boasted of a close working relationship with the U.S., Australia, and Canada, as well as bilateral relationships with 20 additional countries.
This begs the question: how many nations have come on board with this initiative by now?
/19 The CDU presentation also highlights the role of multilateral institutions in this international engagement, specifically identifying the G7’s Rapid Response Mechanism and the United Nations Interagency Platform on Culture for Sustainable Development (IPCSD) under the heading: “Multilateral cooperation to counter disinformation.” The logos of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the European Center for Excellence of Countering Threats are visible under the heading, “International training and capability.”
/20🚨Promote leftist dogma
Part of the U.K. government’s presentation included a description of a U.K. initiative called the “Counter Disinformation and Media Development Programme,” which was active in Eastern Europe from 2016 to 2021. According to their “Theory of Change,” one of the outcomes of this scheme was that the targeted populations would “reduce identification with pre-existing social biases” and increase “support for gender equality” and “liberal democratic values.”
/21 These terms may sound innocuous, but in practice, they are covers for left-wing social re-engineering experiments. For instance, money from the CDMD Programme was used to fund the “Global Disinformation Index,” which runs an “advertising blacklist” for websites that they allege push “anti-trans narratives.”
/22 These slides expose the Biden-Harris Administration’s cooperation with ideologically aligned leftist allies to push woke progressive dogmas while monitoring and censoring what Americans think and say.
/23 This release comes on the heels of calls from House Cybersecurity Subcommittee Chairwoman, @RepNancyMace, to ensure that the 2024 election is protected from the deep state censorship that was prevalent in the 2020 election.
/1🚨NEW — AFL has sent a demand letter to Boston University over its failure to protect a student who received multiple death threats after reporting apparent violations of federal immigration law.
/2 AFL’s letter also formally notified BU that we now represent this student.
/3 Zachary Segal, a BU undergraduate, posted on X that he contacted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to report what he believed to be violations of federal immigration law.
/1🚨LITIGATION UPDATE — AFL filed a reply brief in our landmark lawsuit seeking to stop the U.S. Census Bureau from using the flawed statistical methods from the 2020 Census.
This filing paves the way for a ruling early next year.
/2 The case has become the subject of attempts by third-party groups to stall AFL’s fight to ensure that the Census only counts actual people.
/3 AFL’s filing marks a critical stage of the litigation.
AFL’s claims in this lawsuit are now fully briefed and ready for a decision by the three-judge panel.
/1🚨BREAKING — AFL filed a federal civil rights complaint against Cherry Creek School District for branding student misconduct “culturally appropriate” and blocking student discipline based on race.
@TheJusticeDept and @usedgov must investigate.
The facts are OUTRAGEOUS.
/2 AFL’s complaint exposes a district-wide system of race-based decision making in which @CCSDK12 officials replaced equal treatment with ideological favoritism — including in student discipline.
Staff say this racial framework left them with “no ability to enforce anything.”
@CCSDK12 /3 AFL obtained whistleblower recordings revealing CCSD officials labeled disruptive misconduct by a Black student “culturally appropriate,” blamed staff concerns on the “whiteness of the school,” and used racial framing to override student discipline.
/2 In April 2023, AFL exposed how the Biden White House initiated involvement in the classified documents case against President Trump long before NARA’s official referral to DOJ.
AFL uncovered documents confirming the prosecution was a sham from the start.
/3 The investigation revealed the Biden White House directed a “special access request” that enabled the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, but bureaucrats weaponized the government to mislead Congress about the White House’s role in the raid of President Trump’s home.
/1🚨NEW — AFL filed a brief in the Fourth Circuit backing the Trump Administration’s Title IX enforcement action against Fairfax County and Arlington County Public Schools for unlawful bathroom and locker room policies.
/2 Earlier this year, @usedgov and @Linda_McMahon placed the Fairfax County and Arlington County School Boards on “high risk status” after determining their restroom and locker room policies violate Title IX.
/3 The school boards challenged the Department of Education’s determination and appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
AFL is urging the Supreme Court to review the lower courts’ deeply flawed rulings in E. Jean Carroll’s biased lawsuit — and correct the egregious injustice inflicted on President Trump.
Every litigant deserves impartial justice.
/2 AFL’s brief explains that the courts admitted unreliable, prejudicial evidence that would usually be excluded — while blocking key rebuttal evidence that the jury should have been allowed to hear.
/3 From day one, the district court manipulated established evidentiary rules, allowing stale, unverified accusations while suppressing facts that contradicted the narrative.Â