SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
August, 27 2020, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Timothy Karr: 201-533-8838,,tkarr@freepress.net
Free Press and Allies File Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Executive Order Against Social-Media Companies
On Thursday, Free Press joined Common Cause, Maplight, Rock the Vote and Voto Latino as plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's May 28 executive order that seeks to punish social-media companies for fact checking the president's online posts.
The administration's order was in direct response to Twitter adding a factual correction to one of the president's tweets about mail-in voting. The order threatens online platforms with a loss of liability protections, among other ramifications, should they fact check Trump's statements.
WASHINGTON
On Thursday, Free Press joined Common Cause, Maplight, Rock the Vote and Voto Latino as plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's May 28 executive order that seeks to punish social-media companies for fact checking the president's online posts.
The administration's order was in direct response to Twitter adding a factual correction to one of the president's tweets about mail-in voting. The order threatens online platforms with a loss of liability protections, among other ramifications, should they fact check Trump's statements.
Those protections stem from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that generally shields social-media platforms and other websites from liability for the material their users post online. In doing so, the law also protects platforms' ability to moderate content on their websites as those sites themselves see fit. Free Press has repeatedly warned against many recent congressional and FCC efforts to eradicate or undermine Section 230's vital online-speech protections.
In the court complaint filed today, the five organizations state that Trump's executive order--which effectively encourages the spread of harmful disinformation about voting rights, racial-justice protests, COVID-19 treatment and other vital issues--flies in the face of these groups' missions. The order would require Free Press and the other groups to divert scarce resources to combat the dangerous spread of disinformation.
"Online platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram (all targeted by name in the executive order) have First Amendment rights to ensure that accurate information--including about how to register to vote and successfully cast a ballot by Election Day--is not undermined by misinformation on their platforms," the plaintiffs state in the complaint (available here).
Plaintiffs are represented in their suit by legal counsel at Protect Democracy, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Cooley LLP.
Free Press Vice President of Policy and General Counsel Matt Wood made the following statement:
Censorship is when the government tries to silence people--especially those the government disagrees with. President Trump's preposterous executive order on social media gets it entirely backwards, claiming that private parties are censoring him. He's simply trying to bully into silence Twitter and any other social-media site that attempts to correct his lies and disinformation. This is exactly the kind of abuse of power that the Constitution and the First Amendment were written to prevent.
Preserving Section 230 is key to preserving free expression on the internet, and to making it free for all-- not just for the privileged few or for the president's pronouncements. Section 230 lowers barriers for people to post their ideas online, but it also makes possible the content-moderation choices that platforms have the right to make. It is plainly illegal for this administration to threaten that law's protections in retaliation for fact checks and other contextualizing remarks made by the private platforms that Trump abuses.
Trump's authoritarian actions are shameful and, as our lawsuit makes clear, they violate the First Amendment rights of online platforms to curate content as they see fit. The order also infringes on the rights of organizations like Free Press to receive information that corrects or contextualizes inaccurate and harmful statements.
Constantly correcting the record, calling out harmful hate speech and combating official propaganda comes at a cost to social-justice organizations like ours. Trump's executive order is yet another dictatorial action from a president who abuses the power of his office to intimidate and silence media companies, journalists, activists and anyone else who criticizes or corrects him.
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
After Months of Ranting About Taking Iran's Uranium, Trump Asks, 'Why Bother?'
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
Jun 16, 2026
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senators Warn Trump and GOP Are 'Considering Raising the Retirement Age' to Cut Social Security
A group of Democratic lawmakers pushed President Donald Trump on whether he would veto legislation that cuts Social Security.
Jun 16, 2026
A group of Democratic US senators warned Monday that congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump could be gearing up for a push for raise the retirement age as part of a broader—and deeply unpopular—effort to slash Social Security benefits after the 2026 midterm elections.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote in a letter to Trump that they have "renewed concerns" that his administration is "considering raising the retirement age, cutting the earned benefits of millions of Americans," despite the president's repeated vows to shield the program.
"Republicans have a history of attempting to increase the retirement age, privatize Social Security, or otherwise cut Social Security benefits, and some congressional Republicans have called to raise the retirement age or means-test benefits," the lawmakers wrote, emphasizing that GOP lawmakers "are not alone."
"In an interview this past fall, [Social Security Administration] Commissioner Frank Bisignano said—and later attempted to retract after public outcry—that your administration was considering this idea," the Democratic senators wrote of raising the retirement age, which would cut Social Security benefits across the board.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of a 2024 Republican proposal to raise Social Security's full retirement age found that doing so would cut benefits by an average of 13% for people born after 1971.
The Democratic senators sent their letter to Trump days after Social Security's trustees said in their annual report that the program will be unable to pay out full benefits by the end of 2032—a quarter earlier than projected last year—unless Congress takes action. The finding was seen as evidence of the damage inflicted by Trump's policies, including his tariffs and tax cuts for the rich.
Ahead of the trustees report's release, House Speaker Mike Johnson declared that Social Security needs to be "adjusted and fixed" and said Republicans would release their plan "next year," without specifying what the proposal would entail.
Mike Johnson admits Republicans will cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security next year pic.twitter.com/bgyAb4ppyw
— FactPost (@factpostnews) June 8, 2026
In their letter to Trump on Monday, the trio of Democratic senators demanded to know if the president is aware of "Republican plans to cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits" and whether he would veto GOP legislation that slashes those programs.
"Raising the retirement age—or otherwise cutting benefits—only worsens the looming retirement income crisis," the lawmakers wrote. "Doing so hurts older Americans, cutting monthly benefits and forcing millions into poverty."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dire for Democracy': Economist Explains How Trillionaires Are Threats to Human Freedom
"It is time to break decisively with the perverse logic in which retirees, the poor, or immigrants are expected to balance the budget, while the rich are to be allowed to live tax-free in their own parallel society. "
Jun 16, 2026
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk became the world's first trillionaire last week, and now a prominent economist is warning that his unprecedented wealth poses a grave threat to human freedom in the US and across the globe.
In a column published by The Guardian on Tuesday, Paris School of Economics professor Gabriel Zucman argued that Musk's enormous fortune is fundamentally at odds with a democratic system of governance because it gives him "the power to stifle competition, the power to shape public discourse, the power to influence policymaking, the power to buy elections, the power to stall social progress," and much else.
Zucman noted that wealth concentration is even greater now than it was during the original Gilded Age, as the top 0.00001% now have fortunes large enough to "buy 14% of everything produced in a given year in the US."
The economist added that while Musk—whose infamous destruction of the US Agency for International Development is projected to kill millions of people in the coming years—makes a particularly compelling villain, trillionaires would be a major problem for democracy even if they were of a more benevolent variety.
"No one should want to live in a society where one single individual can be worth $1 trillion, no matter their personal virtues," Zucman emphasized. "Such levels invariably skew power, distort markets, and sap our democratic ideals."
The best solution to this crisis, Zucman said, is to "create an unavoidable minimum tax on their wealth" that will "make it impossible for the super-rich to pay less tax than middle-class workers—a matter of basic equality before the law."
"It is time to break decisively with the perverse logic in which retirees, the poor, or immigrants are expected to balance the budget," Zucman concluded, "while the rich are to be allowed to live tax-free in their own parallel society. There cannot be a law more lenient for the rich and powerful than for the rest of us. If ever there was a time to act, it is now."
Zucman's thoughts on extreme wealth and democracy were echoed by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who on Tuesday published an essay on his Substack page where he likened President Donald Trump's White House cage-fighting matches to the kinds of spectacles put on by Roman emperors before noting ominous similarities between the US today and the Roman Empire.
"While the causes of the decline of republican government and Rome’s eventual transition to one-man rule were doubtless complex," Krugman wrote, "there is broad consensus among historians that a key factor was the emergence of extreme inequality. A handful of men became incredibly wealthy from the spoils of Rome’s eastern conquests, and their wealth and power eventually became too great for the rules of constitutional, republican government to contain. Sound uncomfortably familiar?"
Gautam Mukunda, a professor at the Yale School of Management, similarly warned that Musk's newly minted trillionaire status was bad news for American self-governance.
In a Monday column published by Bloomberg, Mukunda pointed to the vast sums of money being spent by billionaires in US elections, which he noted "dwarf what candidates can raise themselves."
And like Krugman, Mukunda saw disturbing parallels between the US today and Ancient Rome.
"Marcus Crassus was the richest man in ancient Rome," he explained. "So rich that, by Plutarch’s account, he thought no man truly wealthy unless he could pay an army from his own purse. He spent that fortune bankrolling Julius Caesar and building the triumvirate that sidelined the Senate and, in fact if not in name, overthrew the republic."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular