On April 28th, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a statement announcing it will create a Disinformation Governance Board to counter the spread of false information. The announcement said the board would target Russian disinformation as well as misleading messages about the Southern border with Mexico.
The news was received negatively by Americans of all political stripes and many media outlets. The announcement also prompted swift criticism of the DHS as an institution. Others criticized the board’s head, Nina Jankowicz, on the grounds she is not sufficiently impartial. Still other detractors worried about similarities between the Disinformation Governance Board and the “Ministry of Truth” from Orwell’s 1984.
Concerns about the DHS’ organizational failings help explain many Americans’ skepticism. To understand why many distrust the DHS and why elected officials of both parties have called for its dissolution, we must go back to the department’s founding. The DHS was created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks to be an office that “oversaw and coordinated a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard the country against terrorism and respond to any future attacks.”
However, the DHS ultimately failed to consolidate elements of the FBI and CIA under its purview. As a result, the department added to bureaucratic clutter rather than streamlining essential security processes. In fact, much of the DHS’ national coordination work is redundant; it appears to “duplicate a faster intelligence-sharing process administered by the FBI.”
Accusations about the DHS’ redundancy aren’t the only factor that drive many to oppose its new initiative. They also worry that the Disinformation Governance Board will resemble Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” by censoring information that criticizes the status quo. In 1984, a novel taught in high schools the world over, the ministry is responsible for propaganda efforts that keep the ruling party in power. These fears hold weight, especially because the Smith-Mundt Act, which banned domestic dissemination of propaganda intended for foreign audiences, was repealed in 2013.
The department’s head, Alejandro Mayorkas, attempted to address these concerns in a recent CBS interview. He said DHS leadership “could have done a better job of communicating what it is and isn’t” and that the board will look into the best practices for identifying and addressing disinformation. He added that the board will not monitor American citizens and will not have any “operational authority.” Instead, it will share these best practices with US officials and “operators,” which presumably refers to social media companies. However, his insistence that US citizens will not be surveilled is questionable given the board’s establishment under the DHS, a department focused on internal matters. One also wonders how the Disinformation Governance Board will engage with American social media companies that have millions of American users without monitoring Americans whatsoever.
The Board’s leader, Nina Jankowicz, has also raised eyebrows for her private actions. For instance, she rapidly dismissed the legitimacy of Hunter Biden’s laptop, saying that “there are multiple red flags that raise doubts about [its] authenticity.” She later tweeted that “Biden notes 50 former natsec officials and 5 former CIA heads that believe the laptop is a Russian influence op.” Politico, The New York Times, the Washington Post, and other organizations have since confirmed that thousands of the laptop’s emails are legitimate and implicate President Biden’s son in murky business dealings. Jankowicz’s refusal to retract her statements and her initial dismissal raise concerns about her ability to impartially decide what constitutes disinformation. Nor does it help that the “operators” the board hopes to enlist presumably include Twitter and Facebook, both of which limited the sharing of stories about the laptop in 2020.
At present, the board’s role remains vaguely defined. However, more information about its operations will hopefully come to light as it continues to be rolled out. Until then, pundits will argue over whether the Disinformation Governance Board is a benevolent attempt to clean up the airwaves or a ham-fisted effort at domestic propaganda.
