On June 11, 2026, US Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced the Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression (JAWBONE) Act, a bipartisan bill designed to protect First Amendment rights by providing Americans with legal recourse when the government coerces private companies into censoring speech.
The legislation targets what critics call "jawboning"—a practice where federal agencies and officials exert pressure on tech platforms, broadcasters, and other private entities to restrict or remove content. Under current legal precedent, victims of such coercion have had limited options to seek redress, often needing to prove that the government's pressure actually succeeded in changing content.
The JAWBONE Act aims to close this gap by creating a private right of action that allows individuals whose speech has been stifled to sue federal officials and agencies, with enforcement power granted to state attorneys general through civil actions.
What Exactly Constitutes "Jawboning"?
The term "jawboning" refers to the practice of government officials using informal pressure, implied threats, or regulatory leverage to compel private companies—including social media platforms, broadcasters, and AI service providers—to alter their content decisions. Unlike formal censorship that occurs through direct government action (e.g., a court order or law), jawboning operates in the gray area where government influence indirectly suppresses protected speech without official action.
Under the JAWBONE Act, "coerce" is precisely defined to include:
- Taking a harmful, hostile, or unfavorable action against a private entity.
- Implying the possibility of such action.
- Explicitly threatening such action.
Importantly, the bill carves out exceptions for lawful investigations, enforcement of federal or state laws under proper authority (including warrants), and other constitutionally valid government activities. The distinction is critical: the bill does not target lawful government communication, but rather the abuse of government power to compel censorship.
The legislation applies broadly to:
- Broadcasters (including stations with FCC licenses and national networks)
- Online services (social media platforms, forums, etc.)
- AI services, including generative AI chatbots (whose safety constraints and regulatory frameworks are currently subject to intense debate, as explored in the context of guardrails versus utility)
This scope reflects growing concern that jawboning has expanded from traditional media to emerging digital platforms—such as those navigating complex international regulations like the UK social media restrictions—raising stakes for free expression in the 21st century.
Historical Context and Recent Precedents
Jawboning is not a new practice—government pressure on media and online platforms has occurred across administrations. However, the JAWBONE Act responds to a wave of documented cases that highlight both bipartisan abuse and urgent need for legal safeguards.
Biden Administration Pressures: Senator Cruz cited specific examples of supposed jawboning by the Biden administration, notably citing the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and its alleged pressure on tech companies to "cancel" individuals who criticized vaccine mandates or election fraud claims. Cruz stated, "Holding the government accountable and giving Americans the tools to fight back is essential."
Trump-Era Pressures: Senator Wyden emphasized bipartisan concerns, pointing to former President Trump's alleged threats against cable companies over late-night television programming he disliked. Wyden also referenced documented efforts by Trump administration officials to pressure app stores into removing apps like ICEBlock—a tool used to report immigration enforcement activity.
These examples are crucial because they underscore the nonpartisan nature of the threat: whichever party holds power risks setting precedents that future administrations can exploit to silence disfavored viewpoints.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's Controversial Campaign: A major flashpoint has been FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s public criticism of network news and late-night television, which many interpreted as an effort to influence programming decisions. The JAWBONE Act would explicitly prohibit FCC officials—and any federal agency—from using regulatory leverage to pressure content decisions, regardless of whether the coercion was successful.
Key Provisions of the JAWBONE Act
The bill introduces several innovative mechanisms designed to address gaps in current First Amendment jurisprudence:
1. Private Right of Action Regardless of Success
Current law requires plaintiffs to prove that government coercion succeeded in altering content. The JAWBONE Act eliminates this burden: plaintiffs can sue for damages simply upon proof that coercion occurred—even if no content was removed or altered. This recognizes the chilling effect of attempted coercion itself.
2. Financial Damages and Accountability Unlike injunctions (which prevent future violations), the bill authorizes compensatory financial damages. In cases where federal officials act “willfully and wantonly,” they could be held personally liable for damages; otherwise, the government pays.
The Act limits damages to compensatory (not punitive), providing a balanced remedy that deters abuse without exposing officials to excessive liability.
3. Mandatory Public Disclosure Portal To counteract secret jawboning, the bill requires agencies to submit communications with social media companies, AI providers, and broadcasters to a public portal. Congress would have full access; the public would receive detailed summaries.
This provision addresses the evidentiary challenge: victims often don’t know they’ve been censored, or lack proof that coercion occurred at all. Transparency becomes a first line of defense.
4. Broad Scope: From Broadcasting to AI Platforms The definition of covered entities includes:
- Broadcasters with FCC licenses
- National and local television and radio networks
- Online services (including social media)
- AI-based speech-enabling platforms
This future-proof design anticipates new technologies while maintaining protection for traditional media.
Support and Opposition: A Surprising Coalition
The JAWBONE Act has attracted rare bipartisan backing from ideologically diverse organizations:
-
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): Senior Policy Counsel Jenna Leventoff called jawboning “unconstitutional” and praised the bill for its clarity: “It would protect the First Amendment by stopping this kind of unconstitutional jawboning against broadcasters, platforms, and AI providers.”
-
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): Supported the bill’s potential to hold federal employees personally accountable for First Amendment violations, citing incentives for careful adherence to constitutional norms.
-
Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform: Highlighted alleged FBI pressure on social media during the Biden administration and suggested the bill would prevent “bad actors” from evading responsibility by changing jobs.
-
Public Knowledge: Endorsed the bill as a needed check on FCC Chairman Carr’s campaign against broadcasters and past efforts by Trump officials to suppress platform content.
-
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University: Called the legislation “an important mechanism for accountability” and emphasized that while government officials are free to speak publicly, they must not “use threats or regulatory power to coerce private intermediaries.”
Opposition remains minimal so far, but critics may raise concerns about litigation abuse or chilling legitimate government communications. Supporters argue that the narrow definition of “coerce” and exceptions for lawful activity protect legitimate oversight.
Implications for the Future of Free Expression
The JAWBONE Act represents a significant expansion of First Amendment enforcement mechanisms, particularly in the context of modern digital infrastructure. This intersection of digital technology and federal regulation reflects broader patterns in tech governance, similar to those outlined in Dario Amodei's policy framework on the AI exponential, which emphasizes the need for balanced oversight that protects civil liberties. By focusing on coercion rather than just direct censorship, the bill acknowledges that speech is often chilled through subtle pressure on intermediaries—something existing laws do little to address.
Key long-term implications include:
-
Leveling the Playing Field: Individuals and small creators, who lack resources to challenge government pressure, gain legal standing.
-
Incentivizing Constitutional Compliance: Potential personal liability may encourage government employees to consult legal counsel before making demands.
-
Precedent for other rights: If successful, the framework could inspire legislation protecting other constitutional rights from informal government suppression.
-
Transparency innovations: The public disclosure portal may become a model for other areas where government secrecy obscures rights violations.
Whether the bill passes remains uncertain, but its framework signals a growing consensus that jawboning—once considered a background reality of political influence—is now a direct threat to the constitutional rights of millions of Americans.