Over the past year, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has raised significant alarms over troubling practices by various government agencies. Through multiple reports, the Subcommittee has highlighted how federal powers have been mobilized to harass and intimidate citizens, shut down opposing viewpoints, propagate misleading narratives, and censor speech via third-party entities. These actions, which blur the lines between safeguarding national interests and undermining democratic freedoms, should be cause for collective concern.
On November 30, 2023, the House Judiciary Committee held a pivotal hearing on these issues. Investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger testified, revealing the existence of a group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League (CTIL). This shadowy coalition, comprising U.S. and British military contractors, has allegedly engaged in psychological operations against Americans, operating in ways that raise serious ethical and legal questions. According to Shellenberger, CTIL was founded by former Israeli and British intelligence agents who offered “cognitive security” services, ostensibly aimed at protecting the public from misinformation. Yet, as Shellenberger illustrated, the CTIL’s methods extend far beyond neutral “fact-checking.” These contractors allegedly employed financial tools, pressured social media companies, and advocated debanking tactics to stifle speech under the guise of “terms of service” violations.
Adding to this disconcerting picture, CTIL and similar entities reportedly use complex psychological tactics, designed to shape public opinion, rather than merely presenting facts or enhancing public safety. Evidence suggests that agencies are using military-grade influence strategies, typically reserved for foreign threats, to sway public sentiment on issues like COVID-19, the 2020 election, and broader social narratives. This has led to a situation where, as Shellenberger and others argue, government-backed censorship is effectively manipulating American discourse in ways previously dismissed as conspiracy theories.
One case that underscores this issue is Rep. Thomas Massie’s tweet from 2021, which linked to a peer-reviewed study highlighting the effectiveness of natural immunity against COVID-19. This tweet, shared on his official account, was flagged as “misinformation” by the Stanford Internet Observatory’s Virality Project, a group funded by the U.S. government and partnered with CISA. When questioned about this incident, former intelligence official Olivia Troye seemed to justify the censorship, claiming it could be appropriate if the information was “inaccurate.” This response, however, raises a critical issue: who gets to define accuracy, especially when peer-reviewed studies are involved? Massie’s experience illustrates the dangers of allowing external parties to control the flow of information, particularly when their motives might conflict with open scientific discourse.
Meanwhile, Shellenberger’s findings on CTIL show how deeply the influence extends. The CTIL Files, a cache of documents obtained from a whistleblower, reveal that U.S. and UK contractors have systematically pressured social media platforms to adjust their terms of service to enable censorship, discredited alternative media sources, and used bots to sway public opinion. More alarming still, these files reveal a clear collaboration between CTIL, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and other entities to implement frameworks like AMITT (Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques), which were initially intended for foreign influence operations.
The reach of these efforts suggests a coordinated push to shape public thought, not merely to dispel falsehoods but to control the narrative. The ethical lines between protecting the public from genuine misinformation and manipulating public opinion become perilously thin when such influence operations are aimed inward, targeting American citizens rather than foreign adversaries. This shift toward an anti-democratic approach to “information management” underscores a troubling ideology where federal agencies appear to treat citizens as adversaries, with even members of Congress subject to censorship.
As public awareness of these practices grows, there is mounting pressure for oversight and accountability. Sen. Ron Wyden recently challenged the legality of the “Data Analytical Services” (DAS) program, which, for more than a decade, has enabled government agencies to access vast amounts of Americans’ phone data without warrants. Programs like DAS and surveillance techniques reminiscent of authoritarian regimes pose fundamental questions about the limits of governmental power in a democracy.
The revelations from Shellenberger, the CTIL Files, and other testimonies suggest that federal power has increasingly been used to create an “influence operation” at home, rather than protecting citizen freedoms. Americans must question whether these strategies align with democratic values or if they mark a disturbing shift towards government overreach and ideological control.
#oblongmedia
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment