Bipartisan Power Grab: Lawmakers Push Federal Agencies to Censor Americans Before Elections

Liberty Check

• Republican and Democrat lawmakers jointly urge four federal agencies to crack down on so-called election misinformation
• First Amendment watchdogs sound alarm over government-directed speech policing ahead of elections
• Censorship push targets AI tools in what critics call dangerous precedent for federal control of political speech

A bipartisan pair of House members is facing fierce backlash from constitutional watchdogs after calling on federal agencies to police election-related speech. Republican New York Rep. Mike Lawler and Democratic New Jersey Rep. Josh Gottheimer jointly urged the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and a fourth federal body to crack down on what they labeled election misinformation spread through artificial intelligence tools.

The request has triggered alarm bells among First Amendment organizations who warn the move represents a dangerous escalation in government efforts to control political discourse. Critics argue the bipartisan nature of the push makes it even more troubling, showing how both parties have grown comfortable with federal speech policing when it suits their political interests.

Artificial intelligence is transforming how we communicate, but it also creates new challenges to the integrity of our elections.

That’s why I joined @repjoshg in urging the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Election Commission, and the CISA to… pic.twitter.com/QPVCr81Ihq

— Congressman Mike Lawler (@RepMikeLawler) July 9, 2026

Constitutional experts warn that empowering federal agencies to determine what constitutes election misinformation sets a chilling precedent. The government would effectively become the arbiter of truth during the most politically charged moments in American democracy, with unelected bureaucrats deciding which speech crosses the line.

The timing raises additional concerns. With election cycles growing increasingly contentious and both parties quick to label opposing viewpoints as dangerous misinformation, handing federal agencies broad authority to regulate political speech threatens to weaponize government power against dissent.

First Amendment advocates point out that the Constitution makes no exception for election season or emerging technologies. Free speech protections were designed precisely to protect political discourse, especially when that speech challenges those in power or questions official narratives.

The focus on AI-generated content provides cover for what amounts to a broader censorship infrastructure. Once agencies establish the authority to police one category of speech, the precedent enables expansion into other areas under the guise of protecting election integrity.

This isn’t the first time lawmakers have sought to outsource constitutional violations to federal agencies. By framing censorship as a technical matter of regulating AI rather than a direct attack on speech, politicians hope to avoid accountability for undermining fundamental rights.

The Constitution must be defended.