Bipartisan Senators Introduce JAWBONE Act

US Senators Ted Cruz and Ron Wyden introduced the JAWBONE Act. It's a bipartisan bill that aims to curb government pressure on media outlets and digital platforms by targeting what is known as jawboning,a practice where federal officials use informal pressure, threats, or regulatory influence to force private entities into censoring lawful expression. So they want to create a formidable barrier against backroom government censorship. And the proposal establishes a clear legal pathway for affected parties to sue. That's the whole point.

The proposed law explicitly bans federal agencies and employees from coercing broadcasters, online services, or speech-enabling artificial intelligence systems into modifying or removing content. It removes a major barrier. Under current legal standards, individuals trying to sue over government coercion must prove that the state pressure successfully caused the removal or alteration of their expression , a high hurdle that often stops them cold. But this new bill changes everything, allowing plaintiffs to seek financial damages from any government agency or employee who attempts to coerce these platforms, regardless of whether the pressure succeeds.

How the legislation targets government coercion

The bill's mechanics are simple. It hits bad actors directly in their pockets. That's a sharp departure from current law, where victims of government jawboning can generally only seek injunctions to halt ongoing or future violations rather than demand financial restitution. But this bill introduces compensatory damages, which means government officials can be held financially liable for their actions even after they leave public office. So if a federal official is found to have engaged in jawboning willfully and wantonly, that individual must pay the damages personally, and the government can't cover the cost on their behalf.

There is a catch. The bill limits these financial payouts by permitting compensatory damages while specifically prohibiting punitive damages. It also defines coercion clearly as taking a harmful, hostile, or unfavorable action, implying the possibility of taking such action, or threatening such action. To ensure the law does not interfere with legitimate state operations, the proposed ban includes clear exceptions for lawful investigations, the enforcement of federal or state laws, and actions executed under a warrant.

A public portal to expose secret communications

Jawboning happens in secret. That's a major obstacle for victims, leaving citizens unaware their government suppressed speech , but it's not the only problem. So the bill forces federal agencies to submit records of their communications with social media firms, AI companies, and broadcasters to a centralized portal, where detailed public summaries and full congressional access would expose the pressure.

This transparency gives people real proof. But without these public records, plaintiffs often struggle to build a case because they simply don't know that secret communications occurred between federal actors and private platforms. Individuals will have the evidence necessary to prove their First Amendment rights were violated.

Bipartisan targets from Trump to Biden

Ted Cruz zeroed in on the Biden administration's actions, specifically targeting a federal agency. It's weaponized, he says. And that agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, was used to pressure tech companies into canceling citizens who spoke out against vaccine mandates and election fraud. Give Americans the tools to fight back. That's key for government accountability.

Wyden took aim at different targets. He described instances where Donald Trump threatened cable companies because he disliked their late-night programs, noting that jawboning is a nonpartisan issue with a long history. But a spokesperson for Wyden also noted that the bill would apply to other actions, such as when the Trump administration pressured app stores to remove specific applications like ICEBlock. It's a broad approach.

"Nearly all of Americans' speech, including TV news, online streams and social media, flows through private corporations that are highly susceptible to government pressure," Wyden said.

The bill also addresses pressure from regulatory figures within the government. It's a bipartisan move. Republican Senator Cruz has previously criticized Republican FCC Chairman Brendan Carr for pressuring ABC to suspend late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, and this shows the bill's bipartisan nature as it seeks to restrict government overreach no matter which party holds power. But that's the point.

Broad support across the political spectrum

A wide variety of advocacy groups have united in support of the legislation, demonstrating a rare moment of agreement between organizations that are often politically opposed. Stop indirect censorship. But supporters range from civil liberties advocates to conservative tax reformers, and they're all agreeing that this must happen now.

• The American Civil Liberties Union, which stated the government has repeatedly abused its authority to force private actors to censor themselves.
• Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, which highlighted how the FBI pressured Twitter and Facebook to delete posts from political opponents.
• The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which noted that personal financial liability will incentivize federal employees to stay on the correct side of the First Amendment.
• The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which endorsed the bill as a critical accountability mechanism to stop officials from using regulatory threats to suppress speech.
• Public Knowledge, which pointed out that the bill would rein in both past Trump administration attempts to censor social media and FCC Chairman Carr's actions against broadcasters.

The bill defines broadcasters broadly. It includes any station holding an FCC license and national television networks that supply programming to local affiliate stations, so federal officials can't exploit local-level pressure points to bypass First Amendment protections. But it also covers social media and artificial intelligence, thus encompassing the primary modern channels of American communication.

Defining the chokepoints of modern speech

The bill's text points out a modern truth. Modern speech-enabling platforms serve as convenient chokepoints for the government to target, and because so much public discourse is concentrated in a few private hands, federal agencies can easily pressure a small number of executives to quiet disfavored views. But it offers a solution. By creating a private right of action, the bill allows state attorneys general and individual citizens to bring civil lawsuits to break this cycle of quiet coercion.