The Fifth Circuit held on Tuesday that CISA “likely violated the First Amendment” when it encouraged Big Tech and social media companies to suppress or remove election-related posts, according to Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is a sub-agency of the Department of Homeland Security. Of note, Iowa became the second state in America to create a Vulnerability Disclosure Program (VDP), which is part of the core cybersecurity framework recommended by — CISA.
In this case, however, Bailey is leading the country as he exposes CISA. And the Fifth Circuit ordered new restrictions on the agency.
While the Washington Post tried to convey that CISA was only trying to protect elections from online hoaxes, Bailey called the assertion “ridiculous.
“We’re fighting to protect our First Amendment right to free speech,” Bailey said. “These are DC swamp rats that inhabit the sewer of the administrative state. By the way, there is no room in our constitutional structure for the administrative state. It’s a sewer of DC swamp rats and they’re gnawing at our freedom.”
CISA worked with the FBI to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story in the fall of 2020 and was weaponized against President Donald J. Trump, Bailey asserted.
“That’s election interference at its worst and the American public suffered for it,” he said. “It’s weaponized against Trump today as well. We’ve got to build a wall of separation between tech and state. This lawsuit is our best way of doing that. We’ll keep fighting.”
According to Bailey, CISA is intended to protect computer databases and bridges, but the director has said there is a neurological infrastructure as well.
“She wants to control what you think, what you say, what you hear,” Bailey said. “And they’re doing that on Big Tech by censoring us. We know through this lawsuit that federal officials forced Big Tech to change their censorship algorithms and Americans suffered and are suffering now because they’re self-censoring. The harm wasn’t a one-time thing. People are less likely to talk about President Trump, less likely to talk about COVID issues because they’re afraid of being kicked off the platform. It’s never been about truth, it’s always been about power.”
Bailey added:
“Think about that for a second: CISA was weaponized against the very citizens it was designed to protect. Missouri isn’t standing for it.”
When The Iowa Standard became aware of concerns with CISA in late August, we reached out to Paul Pate’s office to ask about his work with CISA on election integrity. Here was his office’s response:
“Iowans have asked for an increased focus on election integrity. This requires a wide range of partnerships, including the Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, FBI, Iowa Department of Public Safety, Iowa National Guard, Iowa Office of the Chief Information Officer, county auditors, precinct election officials, and CISA.
“Elections are part of U.S. Critical Infrastructure. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is the nation’s cyber defense agency and coordinates critical infrastructure security. CISA helps bolster cyber and physical security capabilities for our office, the State of Iowa Office Chief Information Officer, Iowa Department of Homeland Security, and Emergency Management. Iowa county courthouses, schools, hospitals, utility companies, banks and law enforcement use resources and expertise from CISA to advance, strengthen and maintain secure and resilient critical infrastructure.
“Here is one example: our office requires county auditors to have a physical assessment by CISA or similar organization like Iowa Homeland Security. Implementing physical security measures in your county election office is important because it protects county staff and election equipment from threats. This assessment is also available to the entire courthouse, for free. Many Iowa banks, utilities, hospitals and schools have undergone this same physical security assessment.”
We reached out to Pate’s office to see what they think of the Fifth Circuit’s order and how they’ll continue to work with CISA moving forward.
