Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order to end the government’s promotion of DEI.

Today, as Chairman of the FCC, I am ending the FCC’s promotion of DEI and will focus our work on competently carrying out the FCC’s statutory mission.
I am eliminating the Promotion of DEI from the FCC’s Strategic Plan.

In 2022, FCC leadership added the promotion of DEI to the FCC's Strategic Plan, listing it as the agency’s second highest priority.

Promoting DEI will no longer be any part of the FCC’s strategic plans.

This is a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC's Equal Time rule.

The purpose of the rule is to avoid exactly this type of biased and partisan conduct - a licensed broadcaster using the public airwaves to exert its influence for one candidate on the eve of an election.

Unless the broadcaster offered Equal Time to other qualifying campaigns. In the 2016 cycle, President Obama’s FCC Chair made clear that the agency would enforce the Equal Time rule when candidate Trump went on SNL.

NBC stations publicly filed Equal Opportunity notices to ensure that all other qualifying candidates could obtain Equal Time if they sought it.

Stations did the same thing when Clinton appeared on SNL.

Brazil’s decisions to ban X and freeze Starlink assets are part of a growing crackdown on free speech. But they also violates Brazil’s own laws.

Today, I wrote my regulatory counterparts in Brazil to address these unlawful actions.

*****
Dear ANATEL President Baigorri,
 
The FCC and ANATEL, the lead communications regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Brazil, have had a long-standing relationship—one built on reciprocity, respect for the rule of law, and our shared status as independent agencies established by law to operate without undue influence from the partisan political branches of our governments.  

The sectors we regulate stand to benefit from continuing a partnership based on adherence to those foundational principles.  Indeed, you recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the FCC’s Chairwoman that further formalized the FCC and ANATEL relationship.
 
Nonetheless, I am compelled to address with you today the cascading set of apparently unlawful and partisan political actions that your agency has been carrying out against businesses with U.S. ties, including your own threat to pull Starlink’s licenses and authorizations to operate in Brazil.  

These punitive actions—backed publicly by the Lula Administration—are already reverberating broadly and shaking confidence in the stability and predictability of Brazil’s regulated markets.  In fact, U.S. business leaders are now openly questioning whether Brazil is on the path to becoming an uninvestable market.
 
ANATEL is now actively enforcing a widely criticized decision by Justice de Moraes to censor X that, according to government officials in Brazil, violates Brazil’s own Constitution and your country’s statutory prohibitions against government censorship.  

To make matters worse, Justice de Moraes chose to enforce his decision by freezing the assets of Starlink—even though Starlink is a separate company with different shareholders that has broken no laws.

Justice de Moraes has failed to respect universal and basic tenets of transparency, fair notice, and due process.  

Indeed, it has now been revealed that Justice de Moraes has been sending social media companies secret orders to censor the political posts of elected members of Brazil’s Congress.  

“If this sounds authoritarian, it is,” the Washington Post wrote this week about Justice de Moraes’s takedown campaign.  Continuing, the Washington Post stated that Brazil’s recent moves come “at a substantial cost to free expression—with mandates for removals and even arrest warrants often issued under seal and with scant reasoning to support them.”

“Brazilians shouldn’t have to put up with government suppressing political viewpoints,” it concluded.
 
While Justice de Moraes’s actions mirror crackdowns on free speech that are taking place across the globe, I am not writing you today based on a generalized concern about free expression—though I believe strongly that communications regulators like us should stand against this trend towards censorship.  Nor am I arguing that these actions by Brazil’s government somehow violate U.S. laws on free speech …
 
But according to Brazilian officials and legal authorities, Brazil is now violating its own laws through arbitrary and capricious actions against X and Starlink.  Indeed, the Justice de Moraes decision runs headlong into Brazil’s own Constitution, which expressly prohibits “[a]ny and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature,” as well as other provisions of Brazilian law that further guarantee freedom of expression.
 
The serious and apparently unlawful actions against X and Starlink cannot be squared with the principles of reciprocity, rule of law, and independence that have served as the foundation of the FCC and ANATEL relationship and the basis for reciprocal foreign investment.
 
I am therefore requesting a meeting with you to address and resolve these issues.  If you prefer, I will come to you in Brazil to do so.
The Washington Post agrees, calling Justice de Moraes’s actions “authoritarian” replete “with mandates for removals and even arrest warrants often issued under seal and with scant reasoning to support them.”

Musk is right, they say, de Moraes is wrong.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/…

On Brazilian Justice de Moreas's order shutting down X:

The text of his 51-page decision is far more concerning and sweeping than the headlines suggest.

de Moreas’s own words make clear that he is attempting to strike a broader blow against free speech and in favor of authoritarian controls.

His opinion does not even try to hide it. He comes right out and points to Brexit and the 2016 election of President Trump as examples, in his telling, of the types of extreme “populist” outcomes that he is attempting to avoid by imposing a new censorship regime in Brazil ahead the country’s elections later this year.

But this type of censorship of a political and ideological nature is expressly prohibited by Brazil’s own Constitution.

Nonetheless, de Morea argues that free speech on X cannot be allowed to continue because the diversity of political opinions expressed on the site might influence the people of Brazil ahead of their 2024 elections. See op. at 31-32.

In other words, de Morea is arguing that free speech is a threat to democracy—a position that is as Orwellian as it is dangerous.

The opposite is true. Free speech is democracy’s check on excessive government control. Censorship is the authoritarian’s dream.

To dress up his decision, de Morea runs the warmed over playbook of labeling political speech that runs contrary to his own orthodoxy as “misinformation” and “disinformation.” But authoritarians like de Morea are not worried that people will be misled by the political messages they choose to read. He is worried that those messages will be effective.

At bottom, this decision is part of a live, ongoing, and global debate between free speech and censorship, between freedom and control. It is imperative that free speech and freedom prevail.

Or as the late NY Times editor John Oakes once said, “Diversity of opinion is the lifeblood of democracy. The minute we begin to insist that everyone think the same way we think, our democratic way of life is in danger.” Those are the stakes. Here, de Moraes says he's banning X to influence the results of Brazil's 2024 election, arguing that the electorate might otherwise be influenced by the political views (what he calls "anti-democratic speeches") posted on X, leading to populist results.

Cites to Brexit & Trump.

In 2021, the Biden Administration got $42.45 billion from Congress to deploy high-speed Internet to millions of Americans.

Years later, it has not connected even 1 person with those funds. In fact, it now says that no construction projects will even start until 2025 at earliest. Meanwhile, the Biden Admin has been layering a partisan political agenda on top of this $42.45B program - a liberal wish list that has nothing to do with connecting Americans.

Climate change mandates, tech biases, DEI requirements, favoring government-run networks + more.

Does TikTok present a threat that is any different than other Big Tech companies? Yes, definitively so.

I’ve long pressed to rein in Big Tech & end the discrimination.

Yet the evidence shows that TikTok is unlike any other Big Tech company. 🧵

newsmax.com/newsfront/tikt… After being caught allowing personnel in Beijing access to U.S. data, TikTok promised to reform its ways & wall that data off.

But of course, TikTok did not change its ways. As the WSJ found, it kept on sharing sensitive U.S. data with China. Personnel inside China have simply ignored the “Project Texas” promises that TikTok has made to U.S. lawmakers.

For years, TikTok represented that none of the sensitive data that it collects on U.S. users is available to personnel inside China.

Then leaked internal materials revealed this to be nothing more than gaslighting.
A deeply reported story broke in 2022 that pulled back the curtain on TikTok’s data flows back into China.

Based on leaked audio from 80 internal TikTok meetings, the report revealed that “Everything is seen in China,” as one TikTok official put it.

The FCC just ordered every broadcaster to start posting a race & gender scorecard that breaks down the demographics of their workforce.

Activists lobbied for this b/c they want to see businesses pressured into hiring people based on their race & gender.

Courts have already overturned the FCC *twice* for pressuring broadcasters into making hiring decisions in violation of the Constitution.

I dissent.

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachm…


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that the government keep this type of data confidential when it is collected by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

But the FCC goes another way—one that violates the Constitution, as courts already found in two prior FCC cases.

Last year, after Elon Musk acquired Twitter, President Biden gave federal agencies the green light to go after him.

And they have.

Today, the FCC adds itself to the growing list of federal agencies engaging in the regulatory harassment of Elon Musk.

I dissent.



President Biden stood at a White House podium & stated that Elon Musk “is worth being looked at.”

When asked "How?", President Biden responded “There’s a lot of ways.”

There certainly are. The DOJ, FAA, FTC, NLRB, SDNY, & FWS have all taken action.

The FCC now joins them.

New analysis here shows that the average #TikTok user is more likely to be exposed to content favorable to the CCP than a user of other major social media

TikTok search results for “PLA” overwhelmingly pro CCP

“Wuhan lab” lacks relevant results on TikTok, suggesting moderation

https://twitter.com/brendancarrfcc/status/1636773917670137856

Leaked documents obtained by a reporter in 2019 showed that "TikTok... instruct[ed] its moderators to censor videos that mention Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, or the banned religious group Falun Gong." Those guidelines are no longer in use.

theguardian.com/technology/201…

Today, the FCC takes an unprecedented step to safeguard our networks and strengthen America’s national security.

Our unanimous decision represents the first time in FCC history that we have voted to prohibit the authorization of new equipment based on national security concerns. I called for the FCC to take this action in 2021 as a necessary means of closing the “Huawei loophole”—a problem where insecure gear could continue to be approved for use in the U.S. by the FCC despite the threat posed to our national security.

TikTok is not just another video app.
That’s the sheep’s clothing.

It harvests swaths of sensitive data that new reports show are being accessed in Beijing.

I’ve called on @Apple & @Google to remove TikTok from their app stores for its pattern of surreptitious data practices. TikTok doesn’t just see its users dance videos.

It collects search and browsing histories, keystroke patterns, biometric identifiers, draft messages and metadata, plus it has collected the text, images, and videos that are stored on a device's clipboard.

Apple’s CEO Tim Cook gave a speech last week in D.C. where he spoke in eloquent terms about Apple’s commitment to running the App Store in a way that promotes human rights.

But his words in Washington founder upon the harsh reality of Apple's conduct in China.

My letter to 🍎 For years, global corporations like Apple have talked about their values in speeches while cutting deals with brutal regimes for access to lucrative markets.

They advance all sorts of arguments to justify their decisions to stand shoulder to shoulder with authoritarians.

In 1996, the Supreme Court wrote that “ensuring public access to a multiplicity of information sources” is a “governmental purpose of the highest order” and, given the bottleneck control cable systems then held, required cable to carry speech they otherwise would have rejected.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507777261654605828

Big Tech is in a far more dominant position when it comes to controlling the free flow of information today than cable was in 1996.

This is particularly so given the centrality of Big Tech’s role in defining what can be said in the modern day / digital town square.

The debate over Section 230 often produces more heat than light.

One reason: Big Tech’s lobbyists routinely conflate statutory protections with First Amendment rights. 🧵 For instance, they argue that action on the Section 230 Petition would force websites to carry speech in violation of their First Amendment rights.

Not at all. NTIA’s Petition expressly says that websites would retain their 1st Amendment right to remove content “for any reason.”

On Big Tech, conservatives should stand for more than nothing.

Here’s a plan for promoting greater transparency, accountability, and user empowerment.

newsweek.com/conservative-p… For many Democrats, the path forward is clear. They want to break up Big Tech. They want a moratorium on mergers. And they want social media companies to censor even more online speech.

Google makes one of the strongest arguments yet for Section 230 reform.

https://twitter.com/google_comms/status/1272997427356680195

2. Big Tech has long argued that it needs Section 230’s unique set of liability protections because websites simply couldn’t operate if they were held liable for comments or user-generated posts.

Lots of conspiracy theories have been swirling around about 5G, cell sites, Wi-Fi, & other RF devices causing adverse health effects.

For some people, the truth & facts simply don’t matter. They will believe this false conspiracy no matter what.

For everyone else, here’s a 🧵: 2. Those pushing this hoax often claim that “there are no scientific studies showing that RF emissions are safe!”

False.

There are dozens upon dozens of scientific, epidemiological, and other studies and analyses that show this.

Meet your new speech police!

Facebook now has an Oversight Board empowered to take down posts.

Gotta be non-partisan people, right? Nope!

1 is Pam Karlan: testified to impeach @POTUS, “baron” Trump line, Obama DOJ, & NYT calls “full-throated, unapologetic liberal torchbearer.” 2. Facebook’s decision undermines its claim that posts won’t be censored for partisan political reasons.

Karlan testified that “President Trump must be held to account.”

She wrote *in 2016* that she felt “a responsibility to challenge [Trump] in the court of public opinion.”

Communist China says America cannot hold it financially responsible for the massive losses caused by COVID-19 for two main reasons:

It locked down Wuhan; and it provided information and time in Jan & Feb for the world to act.

Neither argument withstands even casual scrutiny. 2. Let’s start with Communist China’s vaunted “Wuhan lockdown.”

Put simply, they botched it.

And the regime’s failure in this respect is one of the most significant and direct causes of the global spread of Covid.

Here’s how...

Great!

First, I would like to speak with Dr. AI Fen.

She worked at Wuhan Central Hospital and tried to sound the alarm on the virus.

Could you un-disappear her so we could speak?

nypost.com/2020/04/01/whi…

https://twitter.com/SpokespersonCHN/status/1248245825517400064

2. Next, I’d like to speak with Chen Qiushi and Fang Bin - two video bloggers that tried to bring the world a glimpse of Wuhan unfiltered by your Communist regime.

Could you un-disappear them so we could speak?

nytimes.com/2020/02/14/bus…