Missouri v. Biden (later Murthy v. Missouri) revealed extensive government-to-social media communications pressuring platforms to censor content. Judge Doughty issued a sweeping injunction on July 4, 2023. The Fifth Circuit upheld it. Justice Alito's dissent called it 'one of the most important free speech cases to reach this court in years,' warning of a 'successful campaign of coercion' setting a dangerous precedent.
“The government is secretly telling social media companies what to censor, creating a shadow censorship regime that violates the First Amendment.”
What they said vs. what the evidence shows
“We are simply flagging content that is factually inaccurate. That is not censorship.”
— White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre · Jul 2023
SourceFrom “crazy” to confirmed
The Claim Is Made
This is the moment they called it crazy.
When allegations first surfaced that the Biden administration was working behind the scenes with Meta, Twitter, and other social media platforms to suppress speech, the response from officials was predictable. The White House denied any improper coordination. Tech companies insisted they made independent editorial decisions. Fact-checkers called the claims conspiracy theories. The narrative seemed settled.
Then a federal judge opened the government's own communications.
Missouri v. Biden, which later became Murthy v. Missouri after being appealed to the Supreme Court, forced into public view thousands of pages of emails and messages between government officials and social media executives. What emerged wasn't speculation or hearsay. It was a documented record of persistent pressure, requests for content removal, and warnings about the political consequences of noncompliance.
The initial lawsuit was filed by the Missouri Attorney General's office alongside Louisiana, along with several individual plaintiffs who claimed their speech had been censored as a result of government pressure. Their allegations were treated with skepticism by mainstream outlets. When Judge Terry Doughty issued a sweeping injunction on July 4, 2023, blocking government officials from pressuring platforms to remove content, it was presented as a victory for a fringe legal theory rather than a validation of documented facts.
But the evidence presented in the case told a different story. Government officials, including representatives from the White House, the State Department, and , had engaged in extensive communications with platform executives. These weren't polite requests or general guidance. Court filings detailed instances where officials expressed frustration when platforms didn't comply, made demands for specific content removal, and implied that regulatory consequences might follow if companies didn't cooperate. The tone across multiple communications was consistent: comply, or face scrutiny.
Get the 5 biggest receipts every week, straight to your inbox — plus an exclusive PDF: The Top 10 Conspiracy Theories Proven True in 2025-2026. No spam. No agenda. Just the papers they couldn't hide.
You just read "The Biden administration coordinated with social media compa…". We send ones like this every week.
No one's said anything yet. Be the first to drop your take.
Confirmed: They Were Right
The truth comes out. Officially documented.
Confirmed: They Were Right
The truth comes out. Officially documented.
Justice Samuel Alito's dissent from the Supreme Court's later rejection of a challenge to these findings called it "one of the most important free speech cases to reach this court in years." He specifically warned of "a successful campaign of coercion," describing a pattern that, in his view, should have troubled the majority. His characterization aligned with what the documented communications actually showed, even if the Court's final decision didn't fully address his concerns.
What makes this case relevant to the broader pattern tracked by They Knew isn't simply that a claim was proven true. It's that the claim was dismissed as false through the same institutional channels that were actively engaged in the conduct being denied. Fact-checkers, media outlets, and platform spokespersons rejected the allegation while the evidence was literally being documented in official channels.
The Supreme Court's eventual handling of the case was complicated and limited in scope, technically rejecting a challenge on standing grounds rather than fully endorsing Doughty's injunction. But the underlying facts—that government-to-platform communications occurred, that pressure was applied, and that this pressure resulted in content decisions—remain undisputed.
For public trust, this case demonstrates a crucial vulnerability. When institutions with credibility control access to information, and that information contradicts what those same institutions are publicly stating, the system has a problem. The claim wasn't vindicated through leaked documents or whistleblower testimony. It was proven through official court proceedings. That distinction matters.
Beat the odds
This had a 0.4% chance of leaking — someone talked anyway.
Conspirators
~500Large op
Secret kept
2.1 years
Time to 95% exposure
500+ years
