Federal Court: Emails Prove Fauci’s Role in Social Media Censorship

Publicly available emails "prove” Anthony Fauci communicated and acted as intermediary to censor information across multiple social media platforms, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana said Friday in an order granting the deposition of several high-ranking Biden administration officials in 3:22-CV-01213.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R) and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry (R) sued the Biden administration in May, claiming senior officials “colluded” with social media giants Meta, Twitter and YouTube to censor information on various topics, including COVID-19. Friday's order granted the AGs' request seeking to depose Fauci; White House Digital Strategy Director Rob Flaherty; former White House Senior COVID-19 Adviser Andrew Slavitt; former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki; FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan; Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly; Lauren Protentis, team lead-CISA's Countering Foreign Influence Task Force; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Carol Crawford, chief-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Digital Media Branch; and Daniel Kimmage, acting coordinator-State Department’s Global Engagement Center.

The AGs have proven Fauci has “personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19,” the court said in a 28-page order. The court recognizes a number of “substantive reasons why” Fauci’s deposition should be taken, the first being that publicly available emails prove he was “communicating and acting as an intermediary for others in order to censor information from being shared across multiple social-media outlets.” The AGs also proved Psaki, Flaherty and Slavitt have personal knowledge about the issue, the court said: Any burden on the potential witnesses is “outweighed by the need to determine whether free speech has been suppressed,” the court said. The White House directed questions to DOJ. The department didn’t comment.

Schmitt welcomed the depositions, saying: “It is high time we shine a light on this censorship enterprise and force these officials to come clean to the American people, and this ruling will allow us to do just that. We’ll keep pressing for the truth.” Landry said his side will “continue to pull back the layers of this censorship enterprise until we find the truth. This ruling is the next step in that process."

The officials’ actions meet separation of power standards regarding “extraordinary circumstances” that allow for the testimony of top executive department officials about official actions, the court said. The AGs argued “speech backed by great scientific credibility and with enormous potential nationwide impact” contradicts Fauci’s views and was censored on social media, “most likely” at the insistence of Fauci. They cited his direct written and verbal communication with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

The administration denies Fauci had any direct communication with any social media platforms regarding censorship. The AGs pointed to emails related to meetings hosted by Crawford and the CDC urging platforms to “be on the lookout” (BOLO) for misinformation about COVID-19. They claim Crawford in emails with employees from Twitter, Meta and YouTube “flagged certain social-media posts, provided examples of types of posts to censor, and urged the participants not to share the information exchanged in the BOLO meetings.” They cited comments from Psaki about how the administration is in “regular touch” with social media platforms and engagement with senior staff.