Following a significant Supreme Court ruling, President Joe Biden’s former “Truth Minister,” Nina Jankowicz, has harshly criticized Representative Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
The ruling centered on claims that the Biden administration unlawfully coerced social media companies to censor controversial content.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the case of ‘Murthy v. Missouri’, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the majority opinion. The Court sided with the Biden administration, rejecting claims from Republican-led states Louisiana and Missouri that it unlawfully pressured social media companies to remove content related to COVID-19 misinformation.
Newsweek reported on Saturday, June 29, that the Court found the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue over the content moderation decisions of these platforms.
Barrett wrote, “The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics. This court’s standing doctrine prevents us from exercising such general legal oversight of the other branches of government.”
In contrast, Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government—established in January 2023—has been vocal about his concerns regarding federal government interactions with social media companies.
Jordan’s subcommittee aims to investigate how government agencies may have been used to silence conservative voices online.
Jankowicz, who was the executive director of the now-defunct Disinformation Governance Board, responded sharply to the ruling and to Jordan’s ongoing investigations.
She originally was named in the lawsuit but was later dropped after her resignation. Reflecting on her experiences, she detailed the personal and professional toll the case took on her.
“I was 36 weeks pregnant, extremely out of breath, and in the midst of one of the worst weeks of my life,” Jankowicz recalled.
“For days, the right-wing media and members of Congress had been incessantly lying about me and my new job as executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board,” she added.
“They falsely claimed that the board—set up to coordinate policy related to disinformation within the Department of Homeland Security—was actually set up to police Americans’ views and that I would be the country’s chief censor. The allegations resulted in relentless, vitriolic harassment, doxxing, and credible death threats to me and my family.”
Jankowicz accused Jordan of fueling these false narratives, describing his investigation as “absurd.” She emphasized the ongoing impact on her life, pointing to the continued threats her family faces and the legal battles she has had to endure as a result of the misinformation surrounding her role.
“But the damage this case and others like it have caused cannot be undone with a pronouncement from the Supreme Court,” she said.
“Twenty-five months after I resigned from government—the entirety of my son’s short life—my family still contends with regular threats. I’ve been forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees in various challenges that have stemmed from the lie that I wanted to censor my fellow Americans.”
Jankowicz’s criticisms highlight the broader debate over disinformation and government involvement in regulating content on social media.
The Disinformation Governance Board was initially established within the Department of Homeland Security to address the spread of false information, but it quickly became a target for conservative criticism, with opponents arguing it infringed on free speech.
Despite its intent, the board faced backlash and was dismantled shortly after its creation. Jankowicz’s resignation followed intense scrutiny and misrepresentations about her role and the board’s purpose.
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, Jordan continues to emphasize his belief that the federal government overreached in its interactions with social media companies. His investigation, he asserts, aims to uncover the extent of what he calls the “weaponization” of government agencies against conservative voices.
As the debate over disinformation and content moderation continues, the Supreme Court’s ruling and Jankowicz’s response underscore the deep political divisions on these issues. For Jankowicz, the aftermath of her brief tenure at the Disinformation Governance Board remains a painful chapter, marked by personal attacks and ongoing legal battles.
