OPINION | COLUMNIST: Think again on that disinformation board

How does one spark controversy from that blandest of government creations, the internal working group?

One way is to give it a scary Orwellian name like the Disinformation Governance Board.

That is the dystopian moniker the Department of Homeland Security chose to bestow upon a group that it now insists has no operational authority.

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas publicly touted creation of the board as critical in combating propaganda, or false information intended to deceive or manipulate the public. There is little question that propaganda, or disinformation, is an insidious player in American politics and has been for years. Through social media its effects have become pervasive.

But there is a disturbing and unacceptable lack of clarity both in the stated mission of the newly created board and its authority that cannot be allowed to stand.

It's not necessary to pass a bill disbanding the board, though that effort is fast gathering steam among House Republicans. The effort--led by firebrand Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) of all members--has quickly become a cause célèbre among the caucus. The bill would also prohibit the federal government from spending money on similar efforts.

There are critics on the left as well. The American Civil Liberties Union recently said on Twitter that "The DHS hasn't adequately explained the need for or scope of its eerily named Disinformation Governance Board. We're skeptical of the government arbitrating truth and falsity. How concerned we should be depends on the function and authority of this position."

There are also attorneys general in 20 states threatening a lawsuit to challenge the board's constitutionality. Having a federal board slap a "federal-government label of 'disinformation' or 'misinformation' on speech that government bureaucrats . . . decree to be improper" is "an unacceptable and downright alarming encroachment on every citizen's right to express his or her opinions, engage in political debate, and disagree with the government," the attorneys general wrote in a letter. For the record, the new board has not stated it would label communications.

But that's what happens when a rollout is as badly bungled as this one has been.

Too late, Mayorkas has conceded that his department "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and isn't." The board, he said, is intended to "gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from cartels and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

That sounds like more of a low-key information clearinghouse than a governance board.

There is nothing wrong with a strong multi-agency effort to counter lies and propaganda with facts. It is in fact needed. But it cannot--must not--stray into censorship.

Mayorkas and his staff should go back to the drawing board on this effort, scrap the terrible name and focus first on formulating a more specific plan.


Upcoming Events