Trump Administration's Directives on Social Media Content Moderation and Keyword Censorship (January 20, 2017 to March 12, 2025) – SPANNING BOTH TRUMP ADMINISTRATIONS

Jordan Lassiter
Investigative Journalist
March 12, 2025

FOIA Officer
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Email: FOIA@usdoj.gov
Fax: (202) 514-1009

⚠️ CRITICAL NOTICE – READ CAREFULLY – COMPREHENSIVE COMPLIANCE REQUIRED ⚠️

This FOIA request contains specific, legally-binding requirements that must be strictly followed. Failure to comply with ANY aspect of this request, including but not limited to the comprehensive search methodology requirements, records preservation directives, and detailed documentation of search processes, may constitute a violation of FOIA and may be considered evidence of bad faith in any subsequent litigation. This request explicitly requires complete itemized documentation of all systems searched, search terms used, date ranges, personnel involved, time spent, search logs, and Information Management Officer certification.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST – PRIORITY PROCESSING REQUESTED – Records Relating to the Trump Administration's Directives on Social Media Content Moderation and Keyword Censorship (January 20, 2017 to March 12, 2025) – SPANNING BOTH TRUMP ADMINISTRATIONS

Dear FOIA Officer:

FORMAL REQUEST FOR AGENCY RECORDS UNDER 5 U.S.C. § 552

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., DOJ regulations at 28 C.F.R. Part 16, and binding judicial precedent, I hereby request access to and copies of all records—without exception or omission—pertaining to any instructions, guidance, orders, or directives issued by, received by, or acted upon by the Department of Justice regarding the moderation, filtering, restriction, limitation, flagging, or censorship of content on social media platforms during BOTH Trump administrations: specifically from January 20, 2017 (first Trump Inauguration Day) through January 20, 2021 (end of first Trump term) AND from January 20, 2025 (second Trump Inauguration Day) through March 12, 2025 (current date). This request encompasses, but is not limited to, actions concerning TikTok and other major social media platforms during both the first Trump administration (2017-2021) and the current Trump administration (2025-present).

This request should be directed to and processed by multiple DOJ components including, but not limited to: Office of the Attorney General (OAG), Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG), Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Office of Legal Policy (OLP), National Security Division (NSD), Criminal Division (specifically the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section), Civil Rights Division, and the Office of Information Policy (OIP). Given the cross-cutting nature of social media content moderation policies, I request that this FOIA be processed as a multi-component request and that all potentially responsive DOJ components conduct thorough searches.

I. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF RECORDS REQUESTED

To eliminate any possibility of ambiguity or misinterpretation, I provide the following non-exhaustive specifications of the types of records sought:
A. Communications and Directives

Internal Communications: All emails, text messages, instant messages, memoranda, briefing documents, and electronic communications of any kind (including metadata, attachments, and draft versions) between or among DOJ officials, staff, employees, contractors, or consultants at any level, containing any reference to:

"social media" AND ("content" OR "moderation" OR "filtering" OR "removal" OR "censorship" OR "keywords" OR "flagging" OR "suppression")
"TikTok" AND ("content" OR "moderation" OR "filtering" OR "removal" OR "censorship" OR "keywords" OR "flagging" OR "suppression" OR "national security")
"platform" AND ("guidance" OR "directive" OR "instruction" OR "recommendation" OR "policy")
"Executive Order" AND ("social media" OR "content" OR "platform" OR "speech" OR "expression")

External Communications: All communications (including attachments, drafts, and metadata) between any DOJ personnel and representatives of any social media company, including but not limited to:

Meta (Facebook, Instagram)
X (formerly Twitter)
TikTok or ByteDance
Google or YouTube
Reddit
Snap Inc.
Discord
LinkedIn
Any other social media platform

Interagency Communications: All communications (including attachments, drafts, and metadata) between DOJ personnel and representatives of other federal agencies, specifically regarding content moderation, filtering, or censorship, including:

Department of Homeland Security (including CISA)
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Department of State
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Trade Commission
Executive Office of the President
National Security Council
White House staff

B. Policy and Decision Documents

Formal Policy Documents: All finalized or draft policy documents, guidance materials, legal opinions, memoranda, directives, or formal instructions relating to social media content moderation, including:

Policy memoranda
Legal analyses or opinions
Guidelines for implementation
Training materials
Standard operating procedures
Enforcement protocols

Decision-Making Records: All records reflecting the decision-making process for any directives, including:

Meeting agendas, minutes, and transcripts
Calendar entries for meetings where these topics were discussed
Notes taken during relevant meetings or calls
Presentations or briefing materials
Decision memoranda
Sign-off documentation or approval chains

Impact Analyses: Any records assessing potential impacts of content moderation directives, including:

First Amendment implications analyses
Risk assessments
Privacy impact assessments
Cybersecurity evaluations
Public perception analyses
Implementation challenges or barriers

C. Implementation and Operational Records

Implementation Plans: All records detailing plans for implementing content moderation directives, including:

Action plans
Staffing arrangements
Timelines
Progress reports
Resource allocations

Tracking and Enforcement: All records related to monitoring compliance with directives, including:

Tracking databases or spreadsheets
Reports on platform compliance
Enforcement actions considered or taken
Metrics on content removal or filtering

Technical Specifications: All technical documentation related to keyword filtering, content flagging systems, or automated content moderation tools, including:

Keyword lists or databases
Technical requirements provided to platforms
API specifications or requirements
Data sharing protocols

D. Legal Records

Legal Analyses: All legal memoranda, opinions, or analyses regarding:

First Amendment implications
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Legal authorities for government involvement in content moderation
Potential legal challenges

Litigation-Related Records: Any records pertaining to anticipated or actual litigation related to social media content moderation directives.

II. CUSTODIANS AND SEARCH PARAMETERS

To ensure a comprehensive search, please include the following custodians' records:

The Attorney General
Deputy Attorney General
Associate Attorney General
Assistant Attorneys General
All heads of DOJ components and divisions
All staff in the Office of Legal Counsel
All staff in the Office of Legal Policy
All staff in the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
All staff in the National Security Division
Any other personnel with responsibilities related to technology policy, social media, or content regulation

Required Search Systems and Databases
This request specifically requires searches of the following systems known to contain DOJ records:

Relativity - The DOJ's primary e-discovery platform used for document review in FOIA processing
EnCase eDiscovery - The forensic collection and processing tool used by DOJ components
ProofPoint - Email archiving system used by multiple DOJ components
OpenText - Document management system used for case files and regulatory materials
Justice Records Information System (JURIS) - The Department's legacy records system
Justice Consolidated Office Network (JCON) - The Department's network infrastructure containing shared drives and document repositories
Enterprise Vault - Email archiving system used by DOJ
Clearwell - E-discovery platform used by some DOJ components
iManage/WorkSite - Document management system used by various DOJ offices
Microsoft 365 - Including all Exchange Online mailboxes, SharePoint sites, OneDrive accounts, and Teams communications for relevant custodians
Concordance - Document review platform used for some FOIA processing
FOIA Xpress - Case management system for FOIA requests
FOIAonline - Public-facing FOIA portal that may contain related communications
FOIAConnect - Internal FOIA processing and redaction tools
Previously Processed FOIA Requests - All records previously released under FOIA regarding social media content moderation during the 2017-2021 Trump administration
Trump Administration First Term Archives - Records from the first Trump administration (2017-2021) that may have been archived or transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration but remain under DOJ control or access
Transition Team Records - Documents from both the 2017 and 2025 presidential transition teams related to social media content policies

For each custodian, please conduct searches using, at minimum, the following search terms:

"social media" AND ("moderation" OR "content" OR "removal" OR "filter" OR "censor" OR "flag" OR "suppress")
"TikTok" AND ("ban" OR "restrict" OR "limit" OR "moderate" OR "censor" OR "filter")
"platform" AND ("guidance" OR "directive" OR "instruction" OR "recommendation")
"keyword" AND ("filter" OR "flag" OR "block" OR "remove" OR "suppress")
"Trump" AND "first term" AND ("social media" OR "content" OR "moderation" OR "TikTok")
"2017" AND ("directive" OR "guidance" OR "policy" OR "social media" OR "content")
"2018" AND ("directive" OR "guidance" OR "policy" OR "social media" OR "content")
"2019" AND ("directive" OR "guidance" OR "policy" OR "social media" OR "content")
"2020" AND ("directive" OR "guidance" OR "policy" OR "social media" OR "content")
"policy continuity" AND ("Trump" OR "administration" OR "social media")
"Executive Order 13942" (TikTok ban from first Trump administration)
"Executive Order 13943" (WeChat ban from first Trump administration)
"CFIUS" AND "social media" (Committee on Foreign Investment reviews from first term)

III. LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND PRECEDENTS

This request is substantiated by established FOIA precedents, including but not limited to:

Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989)
Milner v. Department of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011)
OpenTheGovernment v. Department of Justice, 18-cv-1038 (D.D.C. May 17, 2018)
Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989)
National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004)
Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976)
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice, 416 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2006)
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Defense, 857 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2012)

IV. REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING

I request expedited processing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II) and 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e) based on the following compelling justifications:

Urgency to Inform the Public: There is an urgent need to inform the public about federal government activity that could significantly impact First Amendment rights and public discourse. Content moderation directives from a newly-inaugurated administration constitute a matter of exceptional public interest.

Constitutional Implications: This request concerns potential government actions that may directly impact constitutional rights—specifically First Amendment protections regarding free speech and expression.

Historical Continuity Analysis: The requested records span both Trump administrations (2017-2021 and 2025-present), providing crucial historical context for understanding current policy decisions. This complete timeline is essential for identifying policy patterns, continuity, and evolution across both administrations. The public has a compelling interest in understanding whether the current administration's approach to content moderation represents a continuation of previous policies or a new direction.

Significant Media Interest: As an investigative journalist working on a series about government influence on digital speech, my reporting on this matter is of significant interest to the public

My research and writing encompass several articles that pertain to various public and private
institutions. A sampling of my published articles includes analyses of civil asset forfeiture practices within
various police departments, public schools' firewall policies and user groups, and communities standing
up against bigotry and hate.

These articles can be found at the following links:
1. New York City Police Department's Civil Asset Forfeiture Records: A Battle for Transparency
(https://www.transparencyreport.pw/2023/02/27/new-york-city-police-departments-civil-asset-
forfeiture-records-a-battle-for-transparency/)

2. Revealed: Miami Police Department's Civil Asset Forfeiture Practices Over the Past Decade
(https://www.transparencyreport.pw/2023/02/27/revealed-miami-police-departments-civil-asset-
forfeiture-practices-over-the-past-decade/)

3. Duval County Public Schools of Jacksonville, FL Releases Information on Firewall Policies and
Usergroups
(https://www.transparencyreport.pw/2023/03/07/duval-county-public-schools-of-jacksonville-fl-
releases-information-on-firewall-policies-and-usergroups/)

4. Roanoke Barrel Babes Drag Brunch: Standing Up Against Bigotry and Hate
(https://www.transparencyreport.pw/2023/03/23/roanoke-barrel-babes-drag-brunch-standing-up-
against-bigotry-and-hate/)

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing reasons for expedited processing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

V. REQUEST FOR FEE WAIVER

I request a complete waiver of all search, review, and duplication fees under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii), 28 C.F.R. § 16.10(k), and judicial precedents including Cause of Action v. Federal Trade Commission, 799 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2015) and Carney v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 814 (2d Cir. 1994) on the following grounds:

Disclosure Will Significantly Contribute to Public Understanding: The requested information concerns identifiable operations and activities of the federal government—specifically, actions taken by the DOJ regarding social media content moderation that may affect millions of Americans. As recognized in Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. DOJ, 846 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2017), information about government policy formation processes substantially contributes to public understanding of government operations.

Commercial Interest: This request is not made for any commercial interest. As established in National Security Archive v. DOD, 880 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1989), journalists seeking information to disseminate to the public qualify for fee waivers when the disclosure is in the public interest.

Dissemination Ability: As an investigative journalist with I have demonstrated ability to disseminate information of public interest to a broad audience. Courts have consistently recognized that the news media serves a critical role in assisting the public in understanding government activities, as noted in Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Defense, 241 F.Supp.2d 5, 11-12 (D.D.C. 2003).
Public Interest Value: Understanding how the Trump administration approaches social media content regulation across both terms (2017-2021 and 2025-present) is of significant public interest, as it directly impacts public discourse, access to information, and First Amendment rights. The D.C. Circuit in Cause of Action v. FTC, 799 F.3d 1108, 1115-18 (D.C. Cir. 2015) specifically recognized that records that "shed light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties" qualify for fee waivers.

Educational Value: These records will provide invaluable historical context and educational material about the evolution of government policies regarding digital speech platforms. As recognized in Prison Legal News v. Lappin, 436 F. Supp. 2d 17, 26 (D.D.C. 2006), materials that advance public knowledge about government activities serve an educational purpose qualifying for fee waivers.

Impact on Core Constitutional Values: The requested records directly relate to government actions potentially impacting First Amendment freedoms, which courts have recognized as warranting heightened public access. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (finding that government accountability, particularly regarding constitutional rights, strongly favors fee waivers).

If a fee waiver is denied, please notify me before incurring costs exceeding $100, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 16.10(e). Please also note that improper denial of fee waivers is subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(vii).

VI. FORMAT OF PRODUCTION

Please provide all responsive records in their native electronic formats with all metadata intact. Specifically:

Emails: Please provide in .MSG or .EML format with complete headers, metadata, attachments, and BCC information.

Documents: Please provide in their original formats (e.g., .DOCX, .XLSX, .PPTX, .PDF) with all metadata.
Databases or Structured Data: Please provide in their original format or in .CSV or .XML format with data dictionaries.

Communication Records: For text messages, instant messages, or other electronic communications, please provide in a format that preserves threading, timestamps, and participant information.

If any portion of the requested records exists in electronic form, I request they be provided in electronic format. For any records that exist only in paper form, please provide high-resolution color scans (at least 300 dpi) in PDF format.

VII. PRESERVATION REQUEST

Please preserve all responsive or potentially responsive records. This explicitly includes preserving all original metadata, and ensuring that automated email or document deletion systems do not destroy any potentially responsive records.

VIII. REQUEST FOR VAUGHN INDEX

If any responsive records are withheld or redacted, I request a detailed Vaughn index that:

Identifies each document withheld or redacted with specificity;
States the statutory exemption claimed;

Explains how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claimed exemption with specificity;

Provides any segregable portions of the records; and
Explains any discretionary release decisions.

The index should contain sufficient information for me to assess the applicability of any exemptions and the feasibility of a legal challenge to any withholdings.

IX. REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE TRACKING AND SEARCH DOCUMENTATION

IMPORTANT: DETAILED SEARCH DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED BY LAW

Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), DOJ v. Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. 749 (1989), and Oglesby v. Department of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990), I am entitled to detailed information about the search methodology used. Therefore, I hereby require the following specific documentation as part of the agency's response:

The tracking number assigned to this request;
The name of the FOIA officer(s) processing this request;
A detailed description of the search methodology used to identify responsive records, including:

Complete list of systems, databases, and repositories searched (ALL systems listed in Section II must be included, with specific justification for any omissions)
Search terms used for each system, including any variations, with exact spelling and syntax
Date ranges searched for each system, with specific notation of any date limitations or exclusions

Personnel involved in the search, including their full names, titles, and responsibilities

Time spent conducting searches by each individual, broken down by system searched

Any search term limiters, modifiers, Boolean operators, or exclusions applied

Records of search queries run, including timestamps and results counts for each query

Documentation of any technical limitations encountered during searches

Records of any decisions to exclude certain systems from searching, with detailed justification

Complete search logs from the FOIAXpress and Advanced Search Tool systems

If applicable, documentation of any de-duplication processes applied to search results, including parameters used and number of records removed
Certification by the Information Management Officer that all potentially responsive systems were searched

Please note that courts have consistently held that agencies must demonstrate that searches were "reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents" (Truitt v. Department of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990)) and that the agency cannot limit its search to "one or more places if there are additional sources that are likely to turn up the information requested" (Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).

Under the "reasonably calculated" standard established in Founding Church of Scientology v. NSA, 610 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1979), failure to search each system listed in Section II or to document each search as specified above will be considered evidence of an inadequate search and will be cited as grounds for immediate appeal and potential litigation.

X. RIGHT TO APPEAL AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

I expressly reserve the right to appeal any adverse determination regarding this request, including but not limited to:

Denials of expedited processing

Denials of fee waivers

Determinations regarding the adequacy of searches
Withholdings or redactions based on FOIA exemptions

Please be advised that courts have consistently held that agencies must provide requesters with sufficient information to make informed decisions regarding potential litigation, including detailed justifications for any withholdings.

XI. STATUTORY TIME LIMITS AND LITIGATION

I expect a determination on this request within the statutory time limits specified in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i) (20 working days) and, if expedited processing is granted, within the accelerated timeframe specified in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I) (10 calendar days).

I direct your attention to the following statutory and regulatory provisions governing FOIA compliance:

Constructive Exhaustion: Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i), failure to comply with applicable time limits shall be deemed constructive exhaustion of administrative remedies, permitting immediate judicial review.
Litigation Costs: Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E), a court may assess reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs against the United States if the complainant substantially prevails, which courts have interpreted to include cases where an agency improperly delays or obstructs FOIA processing.

Special Counsel Referral: Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(F), when a court issues a written finding that agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to withholding records, the Special Counsel shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted.

Foreseeable Harm Standard: Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(i), an agency may withhold information only if it reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption, or if disclosure is prohibited by law.

Rule of Construction: Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(ii), whenever full disclosure is not possible, the FOIA "requires that any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt."

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that failure to comply with the statutory deadlines will result in immediate legal action under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

Please acknowledge receipt of this request and provide a tracking number within 5 working days, as required by FOIA. If you have any questions or require clarification, please contact me rather than using delay tactics or issuing improper denials.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter
Investigative Journalist