Biden-Era Censorship Machine Takes a Hit as Feds Agree to Back Off Social Media Pressure

The federal government agreed to a consent decree barring agencies from pressuring social media companies to censor protected speech in the Missouri v. Biden fight.

Mar 26, 2026

A lawsuit that spent years exposing the federal government's cozy relationship with Big Tech just reached a settlement that could matter a lot more than the usual legal paperwork dump. The New Civil Liberties Alliance says the federal government has agreed to a consent decree barring agencies from leaning on social media companies to suppress constitutionally protected speech. According to reporting from The Epoch Times, the settlement is now awaiting final approval from U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana.

If that sounds familiar, it should. This is the same fight that began as *Missouri v. Biden*, later went to the Supreme Court as *Murthy v. Missouri*, and became one of the clearest public windows into what many conservatives had been saying for years: Washington was not just "flagging misinformation." It was building a censorship pipeline and outsourcing the dirty work.

What the Settlement Actually Means

According to The Epoch Times, the agreement prohibits federal agencies from requesting social media companies to suppress speech that is protected by the First Amendment. That matters because the whole censorship game was built on a convenient dodge. The government did not always need to ban speech itself. It could pressure platforms, hint at consequences, and let Silicon Valley do the throttling.

NCLA's case page lays out the core allegation in plain terms. Public statements, emails, and released documents, the group says, showed senior Biden administration officials and agencies pushing platforms to censor viewpoints that conflicted with government messaging, especially on Covid-19. NCLA also argued that this was not just a free speech problem for speakers. It was a free speech problem for Americans who had a right to hear dissenting views in the first place.

That is the piece the censors always skip. They act like only the banned person loses. Not true. When the government pressures private platforms to erase certain arguments, your access to information gets narrowed too.

This Case Did Not Come Out of Nowhere

NCLA joined the original Missouri lawsuit representing several well-known dissenting voices from the Covid era, including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff. The case targeted a web of federal actors, including the CDC, the FBI, DHS-linked entities, and other agencies accused of helping build what critics dubbed the censorship industrial complex.

The Supreme Court docket in *Murthy v. Missouri* showed just how large this fight became. By the time it reached Washington, the case had drawn a massive pile of filings, amici, and national attention. That was not because a few mean tweets got moderated. It was because the case raised a basic constitutional question: can the federal government get around the First Amendment by "encouraging" private companies to silence people it does not like?

Reasonable people can debate the exact line between persuasion and coercion. But when the most powerful agencies in the country start calling, emailing, nudging, and pressuring companies that depend on federal goodwill, everybody already knows where that line is heading.

Why Conservatives Care About This One

Because it was never just about Covid.

The same machinery built to police pandemic speech can be turned against:

election integrity concerns
pro-life advocacy
criticism of progressive gender ideology
opposition to the administrative state
any viewpoint the ruling class decides is suddenly too dangerous for regular Americans to hear

NCLA says public statements, emails, and released documents showed senior Biden administration officials directing or pressuring platforms to censor viewpoints that conflicted with government messaging.

And yes, that should bother every Christian, every conservative, and every civil libertarian with a pulse.

The Real Lesson Here

The lesson is not that Big Tech suddenly found religion. The lesson is that sunlight works.

Once internal emails, public threats, court filings, and sworn testimony started stacking up, the old media line got a lot harder to maintain. The story was never simply that platforms were making independent moderation choices. The story was that federal power and corporate power were working in tandem, while the public was told to stop noticing.

Because of course they were.

That is why this settlement matters even before final judicial approval. It creates a formal barrier against the old playbook, and it adds another documented chapter to the case against government-backed censorship by proxy.

What to Watch Next

A few things still matter going forward:

whether the consent decree is approved as written
whether agencies try to rename the same behavior and keep doing it anyway
whether Congress finally forces more disclosure about past censorship contacts
whether courts keep treating indirect government pressure as real state action when rights are on the line

If federal agencies want to rebut the charge that they acted like speech hall monitors with badges, there is a simple solution. Stop calling platforms to complain about lawful speech.

Grassroots Today

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?