FBI surveillance practices face scrutiny as Rep. Jim Jordan demands answers on social media monitoring.
At a Glance
- Congressional committees found FBI improperly interfered in presidential elections with social media companies
- Rep. Jim Jordan questions FBI’s monitoring of Americans’ social media posts for potential censorship
- Jordan requests briefing on FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force and its software use
- Concerns raised about FBI’s role in “prebunking” Biden family story before 2020 election
FBI’s Social Media Monitoring Under Fire
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is facing intense scrutiny over its surveillance practices, particularly its monitoring of social media during U.S. elections. U.S. Representative Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has launched an inquiry into the FBI’s activities, raising concerns about potential censorship and infringement on civil liberties.
Jordan’s investigation focuses on the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) and its use of software that could potentially violate U.S. citizens’ rights. The congressman has demanded a briefing from FBI Director Christopher Wray, seeking clarity on the bureau’s methods and their impact on lawful speech, especially political expression.
Congressional Findings and Ongoing Concerns
According to Jordan, congressional committees have already determined that the FBI “improperly interfered in presidential elections in coordination with social media companies.” This interference reportedly extended to the 2020 election, where the FBI is accused of playing a key role in “prebunking” a true story about the Biden family’s alleged influence peddling.
“Congressional committees already have determined that the FBI “improperly interfered in presidential elections in coordination with social media companies,” stated U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan
The FITF’s ongoing collaboration with social media companies to monitor and flag posts ahead of the 2024 election had raised further alarms. An FBI analyst testified that the bureau uses social media posts to prompt censorship by these companies, but was prevented from fully answering questions about the software tool’s use during a committee hearing.
Demand for Transparency
In his letter to Director Wray, Jordan emphasized the need for clarity on the FBI’s activities. He wrote, “Although the analyst testified that the FBI uses this tool to pursue ‘criminal conduct,’ when questioned about the nature of the software tool and the scope of the FBI’s use of it, agency counsel repeatedly prevented the analyst from fully answering the committee’s questions.”
The Judiciary Committee is seeking more information to determine if the FBI’s actions infringe on lawful speech, particularly political speech. Jordan has requested a briefing by November 26, highlighting the urgency of the matter as the 2024 election approaches.
Biden Family Controversy
Complicating this issue is the ongoing controversy surrounding the Biden family’s alleged influence operations. Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm, has been a focal point of these allegations. Despite lacking industry expertise, Hunter was reportedly paid by Burisma while the company was under investigation for corruption.
Further allegations suggest that Joe Biden, during his vice presidency, used his influence to have a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma fired, threatening to withhold U.S. aid. These claims have added fuel to the debate over governmental oversight and the potential politicization of investigative bodies.
As the investigation unfolds, the balance between national security concerns and the protection of civil liberties remains a critical point of contention. The outcome of this inquiry could have far-reaching implications for the relationship between government agencies, social media platforms, and the public’s right to free speech in the digital age.
