In May 2022, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the creation of a Disinformation Governance Board, a new internal working group within DHS with the mission of ensuring these protections are “appropriately incorporated across DHS’ disinformation-related work and that rigorous safeguards are in place.” Per a fact sheet released by DHS, this group will coordinate disinformation initiatives with other federal agencies and a diverse range of stakeholders. Since DHS Secretary Mayorkas introduced the Board in his testimony to Congress, there has been confusion about exactly the role, responsibilities, and scope of its activities. Safe to say, the Secretary’s acknowledgement of the Board’s creation blindsided everyone who listened to him speak.

Unsurprisingly, the establishment of an entity that has been largely compared to Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in his landmark book 1984 that details a dystopian future where authoritarianism has instigated a society in decline. The book shows how “totalitarianism has created vast inequalities and innate weaknesses of human nature keep [people] in a state of conflict and unhappiness,” which is eerily similar to present day America. Critics immediately jumped to the forefront of online discourse with claims that such a controversial entity could be weaponized to censor content, influence public thought, and control narratives favorable to an Administration in power thereby reducing the opportunity for competing discourse and holding truth to power. Even one of the more liberal columnists of the left-leaning Washington Post acknowledged that the Board was essentially a bad idea.

Republican legislators have been quick to not only voice their opposition to the Board, but act to terminate its existence before it had the chance to get started. Less than a week after Mayorkas’ testimony, Republicans in both chambers introduced bill legislation to prohibit DHS from “rolling out” the Board. There is much speculation as to whether DHS has the mandate to serve as the disinformation police, and according to at least one Republican lawmaker who co-sponsored the bill, the Board was nothing more than an attempt to silence political dissent to Democrat objectives. Mayorkas quickly turned to Sunday political talk shows to clarify the purpose and intent of the Board, an effort that might have caused more harm than good. Efforts to tie back origins in the effort to the previous administration, which former Trump officials quickly disputed. It seems that the Board may be engaged in its own form of disinformation.

OODA Loop Sponsor

Conservatives and Republicans are understandably concerned over the true intent and purposes of such a Board, especially with the way Mayorkas revealed it in his testimony. It appeared that this was a surprise to Congress and the public writ large, which made many question why a Board and an Administration allegedly focused on curbing disinformation was less than transparent about its plans. Indeed, a letter to Mayorkas from Republicans challenged the legality of such an organization, indicating that such an organization may require a Congressional vote, or at least, Congressional Review. If such a governing Board was as altruistic as asserted by the White House Press Secretary and a product of a Trump-era initiative, why was it not conceived and developed in a bipartisan fashion?

An additional problem is the individual charged with the responsibility of leading this effort. While lauded as an expert on disinformation, Nina Jankowicz has been at the forefront of promulgating some of the more egregious disinformation to the American population. Jankowicz has used social media to push these views especially with respect to COVID masks, that a Trump presidency would “embolden ISIS,” and praised the individual who produced the debunked Trump Russian dossier. What’s more, Jankowicz claims to be committed to protecting free speech though her recent tweets have condemned “free speech absolutists” (whatever that is) suggesting that her vision of what free speech actually is may be myopic and selective. For an alleged expert on the subject, it appears that Jankowicz missed the mark discerning truth from real disinformation on some of the most controversial subjects dividing American society, an indication that she may be driven by politics rather than trying to identify facts. This is certainly not the ideal candidate to impartially advise the government on disinformation.

Conservatives have long maintained that they are monitored and censored (e.g., shadow banning) on social media platforms, claims that may have more merit than first thought. Shadow banning is a practice that bars exterior audiences to view posts on a platform. They are essentially visible to the poster and that is all. Social media (Twitter especially) and traditional media outlets have called such assertions false. However, once Elon Musk purchased Twitter much to the outrage of liberals, several conservatives saw a marked increase in followers. This may be just a coincidence, though the timing is suspect. Musk’s pledge to make Twitter’s algorithm public to address concerns should provide more insight into the practices of one of the largest global social media platforms. This move is significant as Twitter is one of the top three popular social media outlets in the United States having 73 million of the platform’s approximately 396 million global users.

Traditional and social media have been instrumental in controlling access to some of the most controversial issues such as the Russia Collusion conspiracy (a narrative promoted by social media but largely unproven, and in some instances, debunked) and obstructing the dissemination of the Hunter Biden laptop story they erroneously labeled as disinformation (later verified as legitimate by liberal and conservative outlets). Given how politicians, government organizations, and Jankowicz use these outlets to communicate to the public, it is easy to see how such a body like the Governance Board could be weaponized against the public’s best interests, providing selective content to skew public opinion. Even though the DHS fact sheet states that the Board will serve in an advisory capacity and not have any operational authority or capability, its closeness to the Executive Office certainly suggests that it could and will have unchecked influence on the highest levels of government.

In the politically divisive atmosphere of the past several years, the introduction of such a Board shouldn’t be a surprise. Disinformation has been a rampant topic since the 2016 presidential election where internal and external sources fomented social discord by weaponizing controversial social topics. While these types of campaigns may have not been well socialized prior to 2016, terms like “fake news,” “disinformation,” and “misinformation” are now well rooted in the public discourse. What is abundantly clear is that government bodies and experts have proven themselves incapable of being able to objectively ameliorate the problem largely because of its amorphous nature and the threat it poses to an individual’s right of expression

As users of information and news, it is incumbent on individuals to make up their own minds as to what sources of information they access, how to corroborate it, what to question, and what to accept. Freedom of speech demands individuals take responsibility for this inalienable right and be empowered to become their own information stewards. If we don’t become better discerners of content, we will invariably surrender that job to a bureaucracy like a disinformation bureau that may not always have our best interests at heart, relegating ourselves to be shown content rather than seek it out ourselves. The government’s role in a free society shouldn’t be an arbiter of information but one that positions its citizens to be responsible consumers of it.

Related Reading:

Explore OODA Research and Analysis

Decision Intelligence

Disruptive/Exponential Technology

Security and Resiliency

Community