The JAWBONE Act would empower Americans to sue government officials who seek to curb speech by pressuring social media platforms, broadcasters, or AI companies.
President Donald Trump and his allies rightly condemn the Biden administration’s censorship-driven meddling with social media, which aimed to suppress constitutionally protected speech that federal authorities viewed as threatening. Trump, who signed an executive order on the first day of his second term to “restore freedom of speech and end federal censorship,” pledged to put a stop to such intimidation. Yet he has not shied away from leveraging his office to curb speech, as shown by his demand that ABC discipline late-night host Jimmy Kimmel for remarks he disliked.
Sens. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) and Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) have joined forces to offer a more consistent and principled response to the risks posed by “jawboning,” a form of indirect suppression that operates through government pressure on intermediaries like social media platforms and television networks. On Thursday, Cruz and Wyden unveiled the JAWBONE Act, which would authorize individuals affected by such pressure to seek remedies from the officials who apply it.
“JAWBONE” is an acronym for “Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression.” While that name may be somewhat clunky and not entirely intuitive, the bill itself makes considerably more sense.
“Holding the government accountable and providing Americans with the means to push back is essential,” Cruz states. “The JAWBONE Act safeguards the First Amendment rather than undermining it.” Wyden adds that nearly all of Americans’ speech—including television news, online streams, and social media—passes through private entities that are highly receptive to governmental pressure. Since “ordinary Americans can’t count on those firms to stand up to jawboning,” he contends, “they need a mechanism to level the playing field.”
A synopsis of the bill describes it as creating “a cause of action against any government agency or employee that jawbones companies involved in social media, AI, or broadcasting, regardless of whether the jawboning succeeds.” Plaintiffs could pursue “monetary damages and reasonable attorney fees.” The legislation also seeks to boost transparency and accountability by obliging agencies to publicly disclose relevant communications with “social media companies, AI companies, and broadcasters.”
The JAWBONE Act has earned the support of numerous civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Knight First Amendment Institute, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Institute for Free Speech, Public Knowledge, Americans for Tax Reform, the Internet Accountability Project, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). FIRE notes that the bill would represent a significant advance in addressing indirect and unconstitutional government censorship of Americans’ speech.
From the 1963 decision Bantam Books v. Sullivan, which addressed covert government threats against distributors of “objectionable” books and magazines, the Supreme Court has held that such “informal censorship” violates the First Amendment. The Court reaffirmed this principle in the 2024 case National Rifle Association v. Vullo, which involved a state regulator’s attempts to deter financial institutions from doing business with the gun-rights group. Yet, as shown by the outcome in Murthy v. Missouri, victims of informal censorship often struggle to vindicate their First Amendment rights.
That case involved plaintiffs who alleged their online speech was suppressed as part of the Biden administration’s campaign against misinformation surrounding COVID-19. But the majority, which questioned the asserted causal link, found that none of the plaintiffs had standing to sue, adding that they had not adequately alleged imminent harm absent relief.
Under current law, FIRE notes, victims of jawboning confront several hurdles. First, they may be unaware that their speech was deleted or downgraded due to covert government pressure. FIRE provides an example: If you criticize the IRS on Facebook, a private IRS official might demand that you delete the post with the threat of launching audits on Facebook executives. Even if your First Amendment rights were violated, you might not know it happened. The JAWBONE Act seeks to address this by requiring disclosure of such communications.
Second, FIRE explains that the government can avoid accountability for attempted jawboning when the third party does not act. The JAWBONE Act tackles this by allowing lawsuits based on such attempts.
Third, proving a direct link between government action and private decisions can be difficult, especially when the companies that yield to jawboning are reluctant to cooperate with potential plaintiffs. The JAWBONE Act makes discovery easier for plaintiffs by obliging the government to share more information about their jawboning, FIRE says. This would help victims build their case in court.
Finally, when jawboning involves federal officials, the 42 U.S.C. 1983 statute, which provides a remedy for rights violations by state actors, does not apply. The JAWBONE Act closes this gap by explicitly permitting lawsuits against federal officials.
“The JAWBONE Act enforces Americans’ First Amendment rights by making it clear that the federal government cannot pressure [third parties] to censor speech,” asserts Greg Y. Gonzalez, FIRE’s legislative counsel. “Several administrations from both parties have engaged in jawboning, indicating a broad and enduring problem. When federal officials overstep this line, the JAWBONE Act ensures they can finally be held accountable. It’s a bipartisan remedy for a bipartisan problem.”
Natalie Foster
I’m a political writer focused on making complex issues clear, accessible, and worth engaging with. From local dynamics to national debates, I aim to connect facts with context so readers can form their own informed views. I believe strong journalism should challenge, question, and open space for thoughtful discussion rather than amplify noise.