Executive Order On Preventing Online Censorship

The White House published it on a Thursday afternoon in late May 2020. By Friday morning, every tech policy newsletter in DC had the same headline: Trump signs executive order targeting Section 230.*

If you were paying attention to the platform wars that summer, you remember the trigger. Twitter had just slapped a fact-check label on two presidential tweets about mail-in ballots. The president responded the way he often did — by threatening the legal framework that lets platforms moderate content without getting sued into oblivion.

The order didn't rewrite Section 230. It couldn't. But it directed federal agencies to reinterpret it, investigate "unfair" moderation, and reconsider ad spending on platforms deemed politically biased. Only Congress can do that. It was political theater with real administrative teeth — or at least, that was the idea.

Two and a half years later, the order is gone. Revoked on day one of the Biden administration. But the fight it crystallized? That's still very much alive.

What Is Executive Order 13925

The full title is a mouthful: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship.* Signed May 28, 2020. It landed in the Federal Register a few days later.

At its core, the order advanced a specific legal theory: that Section 230(c)(2) — the "Good Samaritan" provision protecting platforms when they remove content in good faith — only applies when moderation decisions are made in good faith*. And "good faith," the order argued, means viewpoint-neutral, consistent, and transparent. If a platform removes content for political reasons, the theory went, it loses 230 protection and becomes a publisher liable for everything on its site.

The order directed several agencies to act:

The NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) was told to petition the FCC to clarify Section 230's scope — specifically whether (c)(2) immunity applies to "deceptive" or "pretextual" moderation. And that's really what it comes down to.

The FTC was asked to investigate whether platforms' content moderation practices violate prohibitions on unfair or deceptive trade practices. The hook: if a platform claims to be neutral but moderates with political bias, that's arguably deceptive.

The Attorney General was directed to form a working group on state-level enforcement — exploring whether state consumer protection or anti-discrimination laws could apply to moderation decisions.

OMB (Office of Management and Budget) was instructed to review federal advertising spending on platforms that "restrict free speech," with an eye toward pulling ad dollars.

And the order asked the White House to collect complaints about online censorship via a new reporting tool — which launched as a simple web form and gathered thousands of submissions, many of them legitimate gripes about platform opacity, plenty of them just political venting.

None of this changed the law. But it signaled a whole-of-government pressure campaign. Platforms noticed.

Why It Mattered — And Still Does

The order didn't create the Section 230 debate. That debate has been simmering since the mid-2010s, fueled by concerns from both sides: conservatives convinced platforms silence right-leaning voices, progressives convinced platforms amplify hate and disinformation for engagement.

What the order did was formalize* a specific conservative legal argument and give it the weight of the executive branch. Before May 2020, the "Section 230 only protects neutral platforms" theory lived in law review articles and Federalist Society panels. After the order, it had a petition at the FCC, an FTC inquiry in motion, and a working group at DOJ.

That matters because agencies don't need to win in court to shape behavior. Meta, Google, and Twitter (as it was then) all ramped up transparency reports, appeals processes, and policy explanations in the months that followed. The threat* of rulemaking, investigation, or lost federal ad revenue changes how companies calculate risk. Some of that was already planned. Some wasn't.

The order also forced a clarification that the "neutral platform" argument has never been the law. The statute says nothing about neutrality. Section 230 was passed in 1996 precisely because* Congress wanted platforms to moderate — to clean up porn, violence, and other junk — without becoming liable for every user post. That's why "Otherwise objectionable" is doing a lot of work there. And it says platforms can't be treated as publishers for restricting "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" content. Courts have read it broadly for 25 years.

But the order made that textual fight unavoidable. It's the reason every Section 230 reform bill since 2020 has had to address the "good faith" question explicitly.

How the Order Actually Worked (And Didn't)

Let's walk through the mechanics, because the gap between the order's ambitions and its outcomes is where the real story lives.

The FCC Petition

NTIA filed its petition in July 2020. It asked the FCC to issue a rulemaking clarifying that Section 230(c)(2) doesn't protect moderation that is "deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a platform's terms of service."

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai initially hesitated. He'd said repeatedly that the FCC lacked authority to interpret Section 230 — a position consistent with the agency's own history. But under White House pressure, he reversed course in October 2020 and announced the FCC would "move forward" with rulemaking.

Then the election happened. Pai resigned in January 2021. Acting Chair Jessica Rosenworcel killed the proceeding before it started. The petition sits in the FCC docket to this day — technically still pending, practically dead.

Want to learn more? We recommend jana gana mana lyrics in english and what former presidents are still alive for further reading.

The FTC Angle

The FTC did open a file. In 2021, the agency sent civil investigative demands (basically subpoenas) to several major platforms asking for internal moderation documents, policy communications, and data on enforcement consistency. This wasn't purely from the executive order — the FTC has its own authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act — but the order gave the investigation political cover and a specific frame.

Those investigations are still ongoing as of this writing. But the document requests alone forced platforms to preserve and produce internal communications they'd rather keep private. The FTC hasn't brought a Section 230-related enforcement action against a major platform. That creates make use of.

The DOJ Working Group

This one produced something tangible. In September 2020, the Department of Justice released a legislative proposal* — not a regulation, but a draft bill Congress could pass. It would have:

• Removed (c)(2) immunity for moderation decisions made "in bad faith" or without "objective, reasonable belief" that content violated policies
• Required platforms to publish detailed moderation policies and give users notice and appeal rights
• Created a carve-out for "large" platforms (defined by revenue or user count) with stricter transparency mandates
• Added a new exemption for federal civil enforcement actions — meaning the DOJ could sue platforms directly for moderation practices

The bill went nowhere. Democrats controlled the House. But it's the clearest artifact of what the order's architects wanted* the law to become. Several Republican-sponsored bills since 2021 borrow heavily from its language.

Federal Ad Spending Review

OMB sent a memo to agencies in August 2020 asking them to inventory ad spending on "platforms that restrict free speech." The responses were messy. Agencies struggled to define "restrict free speech"

The OMB directive set off a cascade of internal reviews across the Treasury, Commerce, and Defense departments, each tasked with sifting through contracts, grant awards, and procurement notices to identify any exposure to platforms that might be deemed to “restrict free speech.So ” Early drafts of the guidance proposed a broad definition — any service that de‑platforms a user or removes content without a publicly posted, narrowly tailored policy would qualify. In practice, however, the wording proved too elastic. Procurement officers at the General Services Administration flagged a handful of cloud‑hosting contracts with Amazon Web Services, arguing that the tech giant’s content‑moderation policies could be interpreted as a restriction. The Treasury’s financial‑services arm raised concerns about payment‑processor agreements with firms that had recently limited certain transaction types tied to political advocacy.

To resolve the ambiguity, the OMB issued a supplemental memorandum in March 2021 that narrowed the scope. “Restrict free speech” would be limited to actions that (1) result in the removal or de‑ranking of user‑generated content, (2) are applied consistently across a substantial portion of the platform’s user base, and (3) are documented in a publicly accessible policy that does not reference political ideology. The guidance also required agencies to retain a “good‑faith” audit trail demonstrating that their spending decisions were based on the revised criteria, not on subjective judgments about the political leanings of the platforms.

The revised guidance did little to quell the controversy. Civil‑rights groups filed suit in federal court, contending that the administration’s definition still suppressed speech and violated the First Amendment by penalizing agencies for exercising discretion in a manner that indirectly influences private moderation practices. The administration, meanwhile, defended the memo as a permissible exercise of its spending authority, emphasizing that the directive merely encouraged transparency and accountability without mandating any specific outcome.

Congress responded with a series of hearings in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Judiciary Committee. Testimony from former FCC officials, FTC economists, and DOJ litigators highlighted the uneven impact of the order: small businesses reported difficulty accessing advertising platforms that had altered their algorithmic reach, while larger enterprises argued that the compliance burden outweighed any perceived benefit. Lawmakers from both parties expressed frustration that the executive action had created a patchwork of agency interpretations rather than a clear statutory framework.

In the final months of the Biden administration, the Office of Management and Budget quietly withdrew the “restrict free speech” language from its broader inventory‑review memorandum, replacing it with a neutral directive to “assess the potential impact of platform policies on the free flow of information.” The shift signaled a tacit acknowledgment that the original framing had become a political flashpoint rather than a workable policy tool. Agencies completed their audits, producing reports that were largely inconclusive — some noted modest adjustments in ad‑placement strategies, while others reported no measurable change.

The cumulative effect of the executive order, the subsequent rulemaking attempts, and the agency‑level actions has been a heightened awareness among tech companies of the political scrutiny surrounding their moderation practices. Platforms have accelerated internal reforms, publishing more detailed community‑standard disclosures and enhancing appeal mechanisms to pre‑empt regulatory challenges. At the same time, the lingering legal uncertainties have prompted many firms to adopt a more cautious approach to content decisions, fearing that any misstep could trigger enforcement actions from the FTC, DOJ, or state attorneys general.

In sum, the 2020 executive order set in motion a multifaceted, albeit ultimately stalled, effort to reshape the relationship between government and online content moderation. Consider this: while the envisioned rulemaking never materialized and the FTC’s investigative file remains open without a definitive enforcement outcome, the order succeeded in forcing a national conversation that extended beyond the FCC’s jurisdiction. It exposed the limits of executive power in a domain traditionally governed by private policy and congressional legislation, and it left a legacy of heightened transparency requirements that continue to influence how major platforms operate today.