Trump signs an EO designed to limit Section 230 protections by directing the Commerce Department to press the FCC to roll back portions of Section 230

President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday designed to limit the legal protections that shield social media companies …

Axios 2020-05-29 Rashaan Ayesh

Context & Ripple Effects

This order is the execution of a plan long telegraphed: sources described a [[a:944673|draft executive order calling on the FCC to narrow Section 230 when platforms suppress content]] nearly ten months earlier. What changed now is that it is signed policy, with the Commerce Department tasked to formally petition the FCC rather than the idea remaining a leaked draft.

The legal theory is contested from day one — the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues the order [[a:954185|conflates two independent subsections of Section 230 and asks the FCC to link provisions that previous rulings have kept separate]]. That critique frames whether this is a genuine regulatory lever or a pressure campaign, and the Biden-era reversal that later revoked the Trump EO and ordered its own Section 230 review shows how quickly the policy flipped.

First-order effects

Facebook and Twitter face immediate regulatory uncertainty: if the FCC acts on the petition, their moderation decisions could be reclassified as grounds for losing liability protections under Section 230.
The Commerce Department becomes an active participant in content-policy fights, converting what was presidential rhetoric about platform bias into a formal interagency process.

Second-order effects

The DOJ's parallel move weeks later — proposing legislation to limit Section 230 protections for online platforms — shows the order forcing Congress-facing action, giving lawmakers a concrete administration proposal to react to rather than abstract complaints.
Platform legal teams must now price political retaliation into moderation choices, since the order signals that removing or labeling content by political figures can trigger federal review.

Third-order effects

Section 230 stops being settled infrastructure: each administration treats the statute as adjustable by executive action, meaning platform immunity depends on who holds the White House and FCC majority.
The EFF's objection points to a durable structural question — whether liability shields can be rewritten through agency reinterpretation without statutory change — which will recur every time a regulator is asked to link subsections courts have treated as independent.

The trend: Content-platform liability is shifting from a fixed statutory shield to a politically renegotiated one, with each administration using executive orders and agencies like the FCC and Commerce Department as levers against social media companies.

Discussion

@realdonaldtrump Donald J. Trump on x
This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS!
@b_fung Brian Fung on x
NEW: The White House did not consult the FCC on a forthcoming executive order pertaining to social media companies, according to a person briefed on the matter. This suggests the draft order has not gone through the normal interagency review process.
@kellymakena Makena Kelly on x
“The president will take action to ensure that Big Tech does not stifle free speech and that the rights of all Americans to speak, tweet, and post are protected.” What is going on??? https://twitter.com/...
@byjacobward Jacob Ward on x
Here's Trump's Executive Order. The gist of it is that it tries to strip social media platforms of protection under Section 230(c) when they “edit” content with labels like Twitter did to Trump's tweets today. https://kateklonick.com/...
@hawleymo Josh Hawley on x
While we're on subject of @Google @YouTube censoring criticism of #ChineseCommunistParty and @Twitter's war with @realDonaldTrump, gotta remember that key to #BigTech dominance/monopoly is advertising, and how they have manipulated S230 to create behavioral advertising machine
@hawleymo Josh Hawley on x
I will introduce legislation to end these special government giveaways. If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users' posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers. Fair is fair
@klonick Kate Klonick on x
BREAKING Just got a draft copy of Trump's Executive Order on Social Media anonymously sent to my inbox. THREE TWEET SUMMARY: 1/
@realdonaldtrump Donald J. Trump on x
Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can't let a more sophisticated version of that....
@alecstapp @alecstapp on x
If Trump's new executive order likely won't stand up to legal scrutiny, then what's the point? As @Popehat likes to say, “The process is the punishment.” https://twitter.com/...
@brendancarrfcc Brendan Carr on x
President Trump's Executive Order on Online Censorhsip is welcome news! I look forward to receiving the Administration's petition for rulemaking and taking action. My statement: https://twitter.com/...
@tiffanycli Tiffany C. Li on x
If I'm reading this correctly, the EO claims tech platforms are doing something they're not, in violation of an incorrect interpretation of law, and tasks agencies it can't task to look into the things that aren't being done that wouldn't be wrong. Anything I missed, @Klonick? ht…
@maggienyt Maggie Haberman on x
Unusually sharp Chamber of Commerce statement about the president's EO: “Regardless of the circumstances that led up to this, this is not how public policy is made in the United States. An executive order cannot be properly used to change federal law.” https://www.nytimes.com/...
@ewerickson Erick Erickson on x
Y'all, I think Republicans are going down a very dangerous road trying to upend §230. They aren't thinking this through and are making emotional decisions with long term consequences that'll hamper their own free speech.
@b_fung Brian Fung on x
The FCC says it will “carefully review” any ask from the Trump administration for new rules. “This debate is an important one,” said @AjitPaiFCC in a statement.
@theplumlinegs Greg Sargent on x
This, from the executive order, completely unmasks what a laughable exercise in bad faith this whole thing really is. It's all about bullying social media companies into treating Trump's lies as truths, and truths about Trump's bottomless corruption as lies: https://twitter.com/.…
@whitehouse @whitehouse on x
The Trump Administration is making sure your taxpayer dollars don't go to social media giants that unfairly repress free speech. https://twitter.com/...
@marcorubio Marco Rubio on x
The law still protects social media companies like @Twitter because they are considered forums not publishers. But if they have now decided to exercise an editorial role like a publisher then they should no longer be shielded from liability & treated as publishers under the law.
@kylegriffin1 Kyle Griffin on x
The Chamber of Commerce, in an unusually pointed statement against Trump: “Regardless of the circumstances that led up to this, this is not how public policy is made in the United States. An executive order cannot be properly used to change federal law.” https://www.nytimes.com/.…
@davidafrench David French on x
Trump can't lawfully repeal Section 230 by EO. Trump can't change Twitter speech policies by EO. The combination of Section 230 and the First Amendment dramatically limit his ability to regulate online speech. And we should all be thankful for those constraints.
@ma_franks Mary Anne Franks on x
The text of the order is available now. It's exactly as opportunistic, constitutionally illiterate, Orwellian, and deliberately designed to distract from Trump's atrocities as one might expect. https://www.whitehouse.gov/...
@acnewsitics Alex Cole on x
Fact: The only way Trump could destroy Twitter is if they hired him to run it.
@fmanjoo Farhad Manjoo on x
you do not have a right to tweet. Nobody does. This is like saying you have a right to beat the final boss in Mario. You do not. https://twitter.com/...
@zakiscorner Zaki Hasan on x
Prediction: The order will be just as empty and meaningless as the executive signing it. https://www.reuters.com/...
@klonick Kate Klonick on x
Section 230 doesn't protect editorial conduct Twitters labels on tweets regarding falsity = editorial conduct Therefore, this EO places such platforms outside scope of Sec. 230 protection 2/
@charlescwcooke Charles C. W. Cooke on x
Just to be clear: The president can't take away statutory legal protections, and we shouldn't indulge the idea that he can. His job is to uphold the law, not negate it. https://twitter.com/...
@charlescwcooke Charles C. W. Cooke on x
The order is about as pathetic as it is possible to get. It's based on a misunderstanding of the law, its instincts are rankly authoritarian, and, after all that, it doesn't actually do anything. https://twitter.com/...
@marty_lederman Marty Lederman on x
All Hat/No Cattle alert: The draft E.O. is full of sound & fury, signifying nothing. Mostly amounts to directing DoC to petition the FCC for a proposed reg to “clarify” 230(c)(2)(A). Even if Trump could order Wilbur Ross to do so (which isn't clear), and Ross capitulates,... /1
@tribelaw Laurence Tribe on x
No conduct by Twitter, Facebook, or other social media platforms that this EO could possibly make actionable would've been immunized by Sec. 230 of the CDA anyway. But the EO isn't therefore rendered harmless.
@mtracey Michael Tracey on x
I think Trump would be on solid ground if he were to argue that Twitter's incredibly stupid decision to append “fact-checks” to his tweets does constitute traditional “publisher” activity, and therefore deprives Twitter of Section 230 protections https://www.reuters.com/...
@cillizzacnn Chris Cillizza on x
This isn't even an apples-and-oranges comparison. It's more like an apples-and-spaceships comparison. https://www.cnn.com/...
@govctw Governor Christine Todd Whitman on x
If we refuse to recognize the parallels between this president's behavior and that of dictators throughout history, we are fooling ourselves. https://www.latimes.com/...
@replindasanchez Rep. Linda Snchez on x
When a toddler doesn't get their way, they throw a tantrum. While the law may allow Trump to be a bully online, the First Amendment gives companies the power to respond. Don't lose sight of the bigger point here—the President continues to spread misinformation without recourse. h…
@girlsreallyrule Amee Vanderpool on x
Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Facebook is about making money and avoid taxes and regulations while Zuckerberg “panders” to the White House and suggests Trump's executive order targeting social media platforms may be a case of “no honor among thieves.” https://twitter.com/...
@reuters @reuters on x
‘All they want is to not pay taxes’: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said social media platforms ‘pander to the White House’ https://twitter.com/...
@superwuster Tim Wu on x
We've come a long way when a Republican administration demands the FCC implement a fairness doctrine — how do Rush Limbaugh & Fox News do under a standard that demands representing all points of view?
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
@antoniogm @WillOremus I am still for reform but not this gibberish by Matt Gaetz and all the grifters. This will ensure that tech never gets any smart, fair and substantive regulation for a long time
@grummz @grummz on x
Basically, this is going to be a long haul, the EO calls for investigation, reports and then recommended actions. This will take all year and at the end there will be lawsuits going all the way up to the Supreme Court. For now, this means Twitter and Facebook have to be careful h…
@theplumlinegs Greg Sargent on x
@GlennKesslerWP Something very fundamental is getting lost here. Trump has made it *explicit* that the new exec order is direct retribution for Twitter daring to fact check him. His *own words* tell us this. Even if nothing happens, that's a flagrant abuse of power: https://www.w…
@rortybomb Mike Konczal on x
I don't do tech policy, but it does seem weird to me for the President to believe technology companies have a utility-like common carrier obligation to be indifferent to source and content, right after having also dismantled net neutrality. https://twitter.com/...
@alexeheath Alex Heath on x
Facebook responds to Trump's social media exec order on clawing back Section 230 protections: “It will restrict more speech online, not less.” https://thein.fo/...
@walshfreedom Joe Walsh on x
I wonder how Hannity would have reacted to President Obama saying he'd shut down Fox News if his lawyers could find a way to do it? https://twitter.com/...
@nxthompson @nxthompson on x
Trump's executive order is: A) Legal nonsense. B) Mainly an attempt to work the refs. C) Going to force everyone into a stupid debate about fixing the platforms, letting them thus avoid a real one https://www.wired.com/...
@selectedwisdom Clint Watts on x
This is dumb. decision that will backfire & will cause significant harm to US tech industry. In response, ALL tech companies should immediately block ALL PAC & campaign ads “Trump Signs Executive Order on Social Media, Claiming to Protect ‘Free Speech’” https://www.nytimes.com/..…
@awstar11 Fusilli Spock on x
When I see a tweet from Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi get a fact check linking to the Heritage Foundation, then I'll believe that Twitter's checks are not political and only for the purpose of advocating for truth https://twitter.com/...
@tribelaw Laurence Tribe on x
If Trump's May 28 executive order were to end up restricting the ability of private social media platforms like Twitter to tag tweets like his as misleading, it would violate not just the Communications Decency Act (CDA) but the First Amendment. See this thread for my analysis:
@tomfitton Tom Fitton on x
Conservatives have legit concerns about social media platform shadowbans, outright bans, and suppression. I had been shadowbanned by @Twitter. Left sets agenda for @Facebook, @Google, Twitter. @RealDonaldTrump's EO is on point: https://www.whitehouse.gov/.... https://twitter.com/…
@lpnational Libertarian Party on x
The executive order impacting social media #Section230 protections today has a chilling effect on free speech online. Private companies like @Twitter, @Facebook, @instagram, and @YouTube are just that - private. They have First Amendment rights too. https://www.axios.com/...
@parscale Brad Parscale on x
Social media has been allowed to operate unchecked for years while protected by federal law. Silicon Valley giants now act as the arbiters of truth, censoring or labeling posts they disagree with, but they cannot be trusted to be honest and fair. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ .…
@marynmck Maryn McKenna on x
“ If the executive order was Trump's best shot, Twitter should feel relieved, not cowed. And the president could emerge looking weaker, not stronger.” @GiladEdelman examines the anti-social media executive order and finds out it's legislative cosplay. https://www.wired.com/...
@perpetualmaniac Zach Vorhies on x
Here's my review of Trump's executive order: 1. It creates a review process by federal agencies to report on viewpoint discrimination by big tech. 2. Creates watch lists of users (???) 3. Prohibit's federal agencies from using advertising dollars on discriminating platforms... ht…
@dylanbyers Dylan Byers on x
Correct. We're litigating a fact-check. The EO is toothless. https://twitter.com/...
@leojtravis10 Joe Ortiz on x
This is one of the reasons why I always enjoy reading the folks over at @techdirt as @mmasnick explains in this great post on why you shouldn't be too concerned (for now) about the 1600 Man's executive order today. https://www.techdirt.com/...
@randyrainbow Randy Rainbow on x
Someone in the sandbox tried to take his shovel so now he wants mommy to shut down the whole playground https://twitter.com/...
@rachelsklar @rachelsklar on x
Lord. I'd say this man is a giant baby except that is extremely unfair to babies. https://twitter.com/...
@adambanksdotcom Adam Banks on x
The Communications Decency Act 1996 originally attacked freedom of speech, which was ruled unconstitutional, leaving intact s230, which offered limited free speech protections to online services. Trump is trying to weaponise the limitability of s230 to attack free speech again ht…
@jeffreyguterman Jeffrey Guterman on x
@realDonaldTrump This draft of Trump's executive order regarding social media platforms invokes the First Amendment: https://kateklonick.com/.... It seems Trump does not understand that the First Amendment pertains to limits of government entities, not private individuals, to lim…
@bradmossesq Bradley P. Moss on x
Twitter didn't restrict access to the tweets at issue, so not sure how their actions - even under this “revised” standard he wants set - would fall outside the scope of Section 230 immunity. https://twitter.com/...
@leahlitman Leah Litman on x
*clears throat* stripping social media platforms of section 230(c) immunity when they attempt to engage in extremely light fact checking is necessary to enforce the voting rights act. https://twitter.com/...
@vickerysec Chris Vickery on x
The last part of this draft completely nullifies the entire thing. The whole thing is trumpian absurdity on paper while signaling malicious abusive intent. https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@sarahjeong Sarah Jeong on x
I shouldn't even say incorrect, because that implies any relationship between the interpretation and the text. There isn't. It's just made up shit.
@chrismegerian Chris Megerian on x
Here is President Trump's executive order, so you can read it for yourself. https://www.whitehouse.gov/...
@bradmossesq Bradley P. Moss on x
This is going well https://twitter.com/...
@reprobinkelly Robin Kelly on x
While Section 230 needs to be revised, this Trump Administration EO is dubious, unhelpful and politically motivated. https://twitter.com/...
@cassandrarules Cassandra Fairbanks on x
I hope he doesn't let losers in the admin water it down. Give us something substantial!! https://twitter.com/...
@rexhuppke Rex Huppke on x
Shocked! Shocked I am that this administration would announce something stupid before giving others a chance to confirm how stupid it is. https://twitter.com/...
@rmac18 @rmac18 on x
In comparing the published Executive Order to the draft one floating around last night, this is a new addition and continues the White House's attack on a Twitter employee that the company said had no role in labeling Trump's tweet. https://www.whitehouse.gov/... https://twitter.…
@sarahjeong Sarah Jeong on x
The executive order re: Section 230 is premised on an incorrect reading of Section 230. It's............... just a new and different law that never existed before. One that wasn't passed by the legislature.
@tiffanycli Tiffany C. Li on x
Trump's executive order on social media isn't about social media, or Section 230, or even speech regulation. It's about power.
@mikeofcc @mikeofcc on x
Everyone take deep breath on EO, which I haven't seen. @realDonaldTrump has right to seek review of statute's application. As a conservative, I'm troubled voices are stifled by liberal tech leaders. At same time, I'm extremely dedicated to First Amendment which governs much here.…
@davidgerard David Gerard on x
“It's very much written in a way to make Trump's fans think he's done something to attack social media companies, but the deeper you dig, the more nothingness you find.” https://www.techdirt.com/...
@ronwyden Ron Wyden on x
Trump's order is plainly illegal. After driving our country into an economic and health care disaster, Trump is desperately trying to steal for himself the power of the courts and Congress to rewrite decades of settled law around Section 230. All for the ability to spread lies.
@jdrucker JD Rucker on x
If Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi had proposed this, there would be no griping from the left. It's all about @realDonaldTrump's signature on the bottom of the executive order that makes it so heinous in their eyes. #TDS is real, folks. https://noqreport.com/...
@speakerpelosi Nancy Pelosi on x
Allowing the spread of disinformation is extremely dangerous. Yet still, the President encourages Facebook & others to continue to exploit and profit off falsehoods - while directing the federal government to dismantle efforts to help users distinguish fact from fiction.
@tedlieu Ted Lieu on x
Dear @realDonaldTrump: Your Executive Order is a farce. The courts interpret Section 230, not @FCC. Your “US policy” doesn't matter if it conflicts with the statute or case law. That's why your EO calls for legislation, which is dead on arrival in @HouseJudiciary. Go pound sand. …
@digiphile Alex Howard on x
@mmasnick Social media “bias” lawsuits keep failing in court: https://www.theverge.com/... Why? Judges are applying a widely accepted legal standard that this trumped up executive order doesn't change.
@justinamash Justin Amash on x
“Section 230 should not treat Twitter and neutral internet service providers in the same way when they function so differently.” Write a bill, but don't pretend you're some hero of free speech. Undermining Section 230 will embolden government regulators and harm free speech.
@rob_sheridan @rob_sheridan on x
Trump's pathetic little tantrum executive order is political theater. It's the legal equivalent of a child giving his parents a note that says in crayon “i am officially allowed to have more cookies, because i say so.” https://www.techdirt.com/...
@repjerrynadler @repjerrynadler on x
.@realDonaldTrump, you can't lash out at social media companies just because they fact-check you when you deliberately spread mistruths. This executive order isn't a defense of free speech: it's an effort to intimidate so that you can continue to lie. https://www.washingtonpost.c…
@adamgoldmannyt Adam Goldman on x
Without a liability shield, they presumably would have to be more aggressive about policing messages that press the boundaries — like the president's. That, of course, is not the outcome Mr. Trump wants. https://www.nytimes.com/... @peterbakernyt
@grynbaum Michael M. Grynbaum on x
Trump in Nov. 2016 to the NYT editorial board: “Actually, somebody said to me on [libel laws], they said, 'It's a great idea softening up those laws, but you may get sued a lot more.' I said, 'You know, you're right, I never thought of that.'” https://www.nytimes.com/... https://…
@kolatubosun @kolatubosun on x
They're not thinking at all, and it shows. https://twitter.com/...
@adrs Arielle Duhaime-Ross on x
Twitter's rules “clearly state that users may not post threatening tweets, and also that [Twitter] may unilaterally, for any reason, terminate a user's account. The rules reflect [Twitter's] exercise of free speech.” https://www.theverge.com/...
@loopemma Emma Loop on x
Trump Wants To Help Conservatives Sue Twitter For Censorship. Justice Brett Kavanaugh Could Get In The Way. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ ... via @zoetillman
@aaschapiro Avi Asher-Schapiro on x
A White House official admits to @issielapowsky & @birnbaum_e that Trump's newly signed Executive Order on Section 230 is a..rough draft “in a lot of ways.” https://www.protocol.com/...
@bizcarson Biz Carson on x
“The direction from on high was: ‘Do something,’” a White House official with direct knowledge of the situation told Protocol. Inside Trump's response to Twitter from @issielapowsky and @birnbaum_e https://www.protocol.com/...
@stephenyoungiii Stephen Young on x
So basically he made an executive order to promote prejudice and racist content without consequences. The day after the police killed a man. https://twitter.com/...
@willflanderswi Will Flanders on x
I don't want to ever hear a @realDonaldTrump supporter claim to be a conservative again if they go along with this. #maga https://twitter.com/...
@chanelrion Chanel Rion Oan on x
A preview of the Social Media Executive Order. President Trump expected to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Such a move would enable users to take legal action against Twitter and Big Tech for censorship. @OANN https://twitter.com/...
@delwilber Del Quentin Wilber on x
Wouldn't this open Twitter and Facebook up to libel lawsuits? AKA if they publish some of Trump's tweets? @MarkSZaidEsq ? https://twitter.com/...
@karlbode @karlbode on x
Today's nonsense was yet another example where a bipartisan majority of experts know a Trump proposal is just rushed nonsensical bullshit, but everybody (including the press) helped him portray it as serious adult policy. maybe there's a lesson there? https://www.protocol.com/...…

Chronicles