I have a particular interest in this allegation. For more than three years, some version of the claim that EIP was an unconstitutional censorship cutout has been repeated by Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-Ohio) House Judiciary Committee, America First Legal, Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, Mike Benz, Elon Musk, and others. My colleagues and I were subpoenaed by Congress over it. We produced thousands of documents and sat for hours of transcribed interviews. We were sued. Stanford spent seven figures responding to investigations and litigation.
Earlier this summer, Hines v. Stamos—the America First Legal case built around the alleged censorship conspiracy—was dismissed after years of discovery failed to establish that EIP caused the plaintiffs’ content to be censored. In Missouri v. Biden (later Murthy v. Missouri), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit removed the State Department (and SIO) from the initial injunction, finding “no indication” that GEC officials had flagged specific content for censorship or meaningfully participated in platforms’ moderation decisions. Another case against GEC was tossed as a “shotgun pleading.” And the Trump Justice Department chose to settle Daily Wire v. State Department—after the administration changed sides.
So Rogers is not arriving on untouched terrain with newly discovered evidence of a secret cabal. The theory has been investigated aggressively for years and found lacking.
More importantly, the operational record at the center of her exposé has long been public. And it doesn’t say what she claims it does.
