During the dark days of the COVID-19 scare and the presidential election-related controversies of 2020-21, social media companies actively censored users whose speech ran counter to official government narratives.(tylim – iStock / Getty Images)
By Michael Schwarz July 15, 2026 at 11:19am
Never assume that the federal government’s perennial resistance to transparency stems from something passive and morally neutral like institutional sclerosis.
Instead, consider whether federal agencies’ determination to preserve secrecy through every change of administration has a much darker explanation.
Late last month, attorneys for the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a motion for summary judgment in their lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, which have allegedly stonewalled the NCLA in its request for censorship-related documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
Specifically, NCLA “requested records relating to FBI payments to Twitter and comparable entities for time spent processing any FBI ‘requests.’”
By “any FBI ‘requests,’” NCLA meant possible payments to social media companies for satisfying the federal agencies’ content-moderation demands.
Recall that during the dark days of the COVID-19 scare and the presidential election-related controversies of 2020-21, social media companies actively censored users whose speech ran counter to official government narratives. Under the guise of public health, companies censored so-called “misinformation” and “disinformation” about COVID protocols or treatments.
In the weeks preceding the 2020 election, those same companies conspired to suppress true information about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Then, they censored users who questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
Should the FBI be forced to reveal how much it paid Big Tech to silence conservatives during COVID and the 2020 election fraud chaos?
In 2022, after Elon Musk purchased the social media platform then known as Twitter, he opened the books and allowed journalists to see “the Twitter files,” a shocking repository of communications between company officials and the government agents who “requested” content moderation designed to silence dissent.
Most of this occurred on former President Joe Biden’s watch. Biden, of course, had no interest in revealing any of this to the public.
To date, President Donald Trump’s administration has allegedly continued the cover-up.
“Plaintiff seeks records necessary to determine whether FBI’s payments were limited to statutorily authorized reimbursements, or whether taxpayer funds were also used to induce, facilitate, or compensate other actions intended to limit speech,” the NCLA motion read. “Yet for over three years, FBI has treated Plaintiff’s request as though it sought only one discrete category of records that, conveniently enough, FBI could claim was subject to a categorical Glomar response, thereby purporting to relieve itself of any obligation to determine whether responsive documents exist.”
In short, a “Glomar” response means that a federal agency neither confirms nor denies the existence of such records. The agency often justifies this response by asserting that the revelation of such records would imperil national security.
For the history of this insidious term and practice, which began with a sunken Soviet submarine, see here.
The FBI, in other words, continues to abuse its power. Having violated the Constitution by conspiring to censor Americans’ speech, it now allegedly violates the law under FOIA.
The question, of course, is why. What could possibly compel Trump’s FBI to cover for Biden’s?
One explanation, of course, lies in the nature of bureaucracy. Plodding, over-officious, and self-serving, a bureaucracy almost always does everything poorly and for its own sake. Thus, not even the handful of well-intentioned bureaucrats could alter institutional inertia.
A darker explanation, however, lies in the nature of man.
To illustrate, remember your Tolkien. Call to mind that classic “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. Why did Isildur refuse to destroy The One Ring?
Could it be that those who finally reach the FBI, no matter how they arrived there, recognize immediately the power it affords them, and thus they refuse to expose the institution’s inner workings, lest it deprive them of the same opportunities for self-aggrandizing mischief that their predecessors enjoyed?
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
Michael Schwarz holds a Ph.D. in History and has taught at multiple colleges and universities. He has published one book and numerous essays on Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the Early U.S. Republic. He loves dogs, baseball, and freedom. After meandering spiritually through most of early adulthood, he has rediscovered his faith in midlife and is eager to continue learning about it from the great Christian thinkers.
Michael Schwarz holds a Ph.D. in History and has taught at multiple colleges and universities. He has published one book and numerous essays on Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the Early U.S. Republic. He loves dogs, baseball, and freedom. After meandering spiritually through most of early adulthood, he has rediscovered his faith in midlife and is eager to continue learning about it from the great Christian thinkers.
