Justice Department Settles Suit, Limits State Department Role in Content‑rating Programs

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche used unusually sharp language in a Justice Department statement Friday announcing a settlement that resolves a lawsuit accusing the State Department of helping private firms suppress Americans’ online speech.

“The weaponization of the Biden Administration against the American people who they disfavored is over,” Blanche said as the Justice Department filed a joint motion and consent decree in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, resolving The Daily Wire, The Federalist, and the State of Texas v. Department of State et al. (docket no. 6:23‑cv‑609).

Background and the settlement

The suit targeted the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), an interagency hub created to coordinate U.S. efforts to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation. Plaintiffs — two conservative media outlets and the State of Texas — alleged GEC‑linked programs bled into unconstitutional censorship of domestic political debate by encouraging private actors to downgrade or demonetize protected speech.

A joint motion for entry of a consent decree was filed April 1, and plaintiffs’ counsel posted a decree dated April 8. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a public‑interest law group representing the plaintiffs, described the agreement as prohibiting the State Department from “using, financing, or promoting technology that suppresses or fact‑checks the constitutionally protected speech of Americans and domestic media outlets” and from working with foreign governments or nongovernmental organizations for those purposes.

The Justice Department said the settlement “implements President Trump’s Executive Order ‘Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,’” a 2025 directive that directed agencies to unwind activities seen as pressuring or steering online content moderation. The DOJ statement did not detail the decree’s duration, monitoring provisions, any monetary terms or whether the government admitted wrongdoing; those specifics are expected to appear in the court‑approved order.

Allegations and legal posture

Reporting in recent years documented U.S. funding or support for projects tied to organizations such as the Global Disinformation Index and services like NewsGuard. Plaintiffs said those products, used by advertisers and intermediaries, could steer ad spending away from outlets deemed high risk, with meaningful effects on revenue and reach.

In their December 2023 complaint, the Daily Wire, FDRLST Media (publisher of the Federalist) and Texas alleged the State Department encouraged private companies, foreign partners and NGOs to adopt tools that downgraded or demonetized domestic speech on contested topics, including COVID‑19 and vaccines. The plaintiffs argued that federal funding or promotion of such tools amounted to unconstitutional state action under the First Amendment, even if private firms made ultimate moderation decisions.

The government initially moved to dismiss and to transfer the case. The Eastern District of Texas denied key parts of those motions and, on May 7, 2024, found good cause to permit limited expedited discovery, allowing plaintiffs to seek documents and depositions about how State Department officials communicated with outside organizations about content‑rating technology. The resulting discovery activity increased pressure on both sides and set the stage for settlement negotiations.

Political context and implications

By the time the consent decree was filed, the political landscape had shifted: President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January 2025 directing agencies to avoid activities that could be construed as abridging Americans’ speech. DOJ officials framed the decree in those terms. Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. said, “The Biden Administration muted speech it didn’t like,” while Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate added that the department would “continue vindicating Americans’ right to free speech.”

Plaintiffs and their allies labeled the decree a historic victory that struck a blow against what they called a “censorship industrial complex.” Former Biden administration officials and many national‑security specialists have argued that cooperation among government, researchers and platforms is necessary to counter foreign influence operations and dangerous misinformation, especially during elections or public‑health emergencies. The competing narratives highlight the case’s political and policy stakes.

Practical effects and next steps

If the decree’s terms are as broad as plaintiffs describe, the State Department may face new constraints on funding or promoting tools that evaluate or label domestic media content, even when those tools are framed as counter‑foreign‑influence measures. That could require adjustments to grant programs and prompt other agencies to reassess how they interact with third‑party content‑rating services.

The settlement also fits into an ongoing legal contest over when government outreach to platforms becomes unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Murthy v. Missouri left many substantive questions unresolved, focusing instead on standing. In Texas, those constitutional issues are now being resolved by a negotiated decree rather than a merits ruling.

The Eastern District of Texas must still formally approve and enter the consent decree. Once the signed order is publicly available, lawyers, academics and technology and advertising industry groups are expected to examine its provisions closely for clues about how it constrains the State Department and whether similar terms could be replicated or challenged elsewhere.

For now, the announcement signals that, at least at the State Department level, the line between countering disinformation and influencing domestic discourse will be drawn more narrowly—and enforced by court order rather than policy alone.