Editorial: Google's admission of censorship during COVID shows jawboning cuts both ways

The Editorial Board, Chicago Tribune on Sep 29, 2025

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

In recent weeks, Americans have grown increasingly anxious over mounting threats to free expression. New revelations about government influence during COVID show this is not new.

Google and YouTube’s parent company, Alphabet, disclosed on Sept. 23 that the Biden administration pressured the company to suppress content that went against the accepted narrative during the pandemic — even when it didn’t violate company policy.

The federal government interfered with how the nation’s dominant search engine and its most widely used online video platform moderated speech.

Alphabet admitted Biden officials leaned on the company to remove posts questioning pandemic policy — even when they didn’t break its rules. In a letter to the House Committee on the Judiciary, Alphabet’s attorneys wrote: “While the Company continued to develop and enforce its policies independently, Biden Administration officials continued to press the Company to remove non-violative user-generated content.”

This comes after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg shared much the same story last year.

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee on Aug. 26, 2024, Zuckerberg said senior Biden administration officials “pressured” Meta during the pandemic to remove or demote some COVID-19 posts, including humor and satire, called that pressure “wrong,” and said Meta took actions it “shouldn’t have.”

COVID was chaotic, and officials were trying to keep people safe. But that doesn’t excuse overreach.

Government pressure on media and speech isn’t unique to the digital age, and administrations from both parties have tried to influence how Americans receive information. What’s new is the scale and speed of influence when the government leans on online platforms used by billions.

We wrote with great concern about evidence that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr pressured Jimmy Kimmel’s ABC bosses to take action after his lousy bit in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Kimmel has since returned to the air.

Free speech must be defended consistently, no matter which party is in power. Today’s majority will someday be the minority — and when the government leans on companies to silence dissent, everyone eventually loses.

Indeed, the Biden administration’s actions have emboldened retaliatory efforts from the Trump administration. This is a terrifying precedent for American politics that needs to stop.

When lawful content is suppressed under government pressure, it doesn’t eliminate misinformation — it fuels distrust. Many Americans who suspected authorities were hiding uncomfortable truths during COVID feel vindicated by these disclosures, and that erosion of trust makes it harder to govern in future crises. Especially because some of the ideas flagged as “misinformation” later proved credible: the lab-leak theory is now considered plausible by intelligence agencies, and studies confirmed natural immunity offered real protection.

Ironically, removing lawful posts may have worsened public health outcomes. By driving skepticism underground rather than confronting it openly, officials created fertile ground for conspiracy theories that then were harder to debunk.

If Americans want to protect free expression, we must demand consistency from leaders of both parties. No U.S. government has the right to dictate what lawful ideas can be expressed by the people.

_____