Justice Department Settles Lawsuit Over Biden Administration Social Media Censorship

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department settled a lawsuit this week that alleged the Biden administration induced Twitter to suppress disfavored speech by an American citizen, according to a department press release dated May 13, 2026.

The litigation centered on one plaintiff whose speech was allegedly targeted for suppression on the platform. The suit claimed that White House officials and other administration personnel pressured Twitter, now known as X, to remove or restrict content deemed disfavored, affecting the visibility of posts to an audience of millions of users worldwide.

Twitter complied in specific instances cited in the complaint.

The settlement resolves the case without a trial or monetary payment detailed in the release. Prior to the settlement the case had advanced through federal court with claims that the government's communications with the company constituted unconstitutional coercion.

The new state ends the litigation and binds the parties to its terms, which were not spelled out beyond the announcement of resolution. The settlement takes effect immediately upon announcement.

Downstream the settlement closes one front in broader challenges to federal influence over online speech platforms. Federal courts must now treat the resolved claims as settled precedent in related filings. Agencies and officials involved in prior communications with social media companies face no further discovery obligations in this matter.

Congress retains authority to pursue legislation that would codify boundaries on government-platform interactions, though no immediate deadline attaches.

This settlement follows multiple lawsuits filed during and after the Biden administration that invoked the First Amendment to contest reported contacts between officials and technology companies over content moderation. The original suit was filed in federal district court and cited direct communications between government personnel and Twitter executives as the basis for the coercion claim.

Similar cases have tested the limits of permissible government speech regarding content deemed misinformation or otherwise objectionable on major platforms.