H.R.9133 - Accountability for Government Censorship Act
H.R.9133, was introduced on June 3rd, 2026 by Representative Scott Perry. It is currently pending before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Related legislation:
Bill Summary: The express aim of H.R. 9133, the Accountability for Government Censorship Act, is to counter the alleged removal or suppression of lawful speech from private platforms by the federal government. The legislation requires each federal agency to submit a report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) detailing every instance during the previous five years in which an officer or employee communicated with a private platform, including interactive computer services, for the purpose of removing or suppressing speech, attaching disclaimers or warnings to lawful speech, or restricting a person's access to a platform. H.R 9133 also requires agencies to identify federal employees involved, the legal authority relied upon, the platform which was contacted and the employees of that platform, the purpose and outcome of the communication, and any other agencies involved. OMB must then compile these reports and submit them to Congress, while agency Inspectors General are required to review agency compliance with the Act.
Context: H.R. 9133 is part of a broader effort by conservative lawmakers to challenge content moderation practices they argue disproportionately target right-wing and far-right speech on social media. Supporters claim federal officials have pressured platforms to remove or restrict content on issues such as COVID-19, election integrity, and other topics. The Bill's primary intent is to create greater space online for conservative viewpoints, including speech that platforms might otherwise classify as hate speech, misinformation, or harmful content.
The legislation stems from allegations that the Biden administration engaged in "jawboning", or informally pressuring technology companies to suppress lawful speech. These concerns were elevated to the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri (2024), where conservative plaintiffs argued that communications between federal agencies and social media companies effectively coerced platforms into moderating certain viewpoints. Although the Supreme Court dismissed the case on standing grounds, it intensified calls from conservatives for greater transparency in government-platform communications.
While H.R. 9133 seeks to advance a particular set of political interests, the First Amendment principles it invokes apply broadly. The government may advocate its own position on certain issues, but it cannot coerce or significantly encourage private actors to suppress lawful expression. Applied consistently, these protections would also extend to speech regarding Israel and Palestine. Civil liberties and digital rights groups have documented the increasingly systemic suppression of pro-Palestine advocacy and criticism of Israel on social media, raising concerns about government influence over content moderation decisions.
As political discourse increasingly takes place online, transparency related to government involvement in content moderation is essential. To the extent that H.R. 9133 increases accountability for government pressure on private platforms, it could help protect lawful speech far beyond the conservative speech the Bill was primarily designed to address.
American Values Analysis: The First Amendment does not exist to protect speech that is popular – it exists to protect speech that is unpopular. Whatever the intended focus of this Bill, it is clear that speech that is critical of Israel and supportive of Palestinian human rights is both in need of, and deserving of that attention. Americans have a right to engage in political dissent without fear of government retaliation.
American Interest Analysis: The United States has a strong interest in maintaining public confidence in both democratic institutions and the free exchange of ideas. Greater transparency regarding government-platform communications on speech related to Palestine and Israel would promote accountability, strengthen institutional legitimacy, and prevent infringement on constitutionally protected expression.
A New Policy’s Recommendation: SUPPORT
A New Policy supports H.R.9133 because it would capture Government efforts to repress speech that is critical of Israel or in support of Palestinian humanity. As critical advocacy concerning Palestine, Israel, and the broader region increasingly occurs on private online forums, the public has a legitimate interest in understanding whether government officials are influencing content moderation decisions affecting lawful political speech.
For more information please contact: Tariq Habash, (202) 770-0055, info@anewpolicy.org
