Trump's Section 230 Attack: Why It Will Likely Fail
Former President Trump’s objections to Section 230, a significant internet regulation, frequently surface in unexpected contexts. For instance, he addressed it on Twitter during Thanksgiving. At other times, his focus on this matter seemed misplaced given more pressing national concerns, such as a worsening pandemic that had claimed the lives of almost 270,000 Americans.
His most recent challenge to the law, which is broadly considered essential to the functioning of the modern internet, is particularly noteworthy. President Trump has indicated he will veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), legislation that annually allocates funds for military purposes, unless it includes provisions to “end” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
In a social media post, President Trump characterized the law as a “serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity” and asserted that it primarily benefits large technology firms, a claim that is inaccurate. The technology industry’s advocacy organization responded by presenting the opposing viewpoint to the president’s latest threat.
“Eliminating Section 230 would, in itself, pose a risk to national security,” stated Jon Berroya, Interim President and CEO of the Internet Association, in a released statement. “The law enables online platforms to remove damaging and perilous content, including content promoting terrorism and misinformation.”
Section 230, which shields internet service providers from legal responsibility for content posted by their users, is currently the focal point of a complicated, bipartisan effort to enact reforms—an effort that has yet to reach a consensus, let alone an agreement to abolish Section 230 entirely.
President Trump’s threat to veto the NDAA represents a largely unsupported stance. The extensive defense budget bill encompasses funding for numerous popular initiatives that support U.S. military personnel and veterans, making a veto based on an unrelated condition a considerable risk. The timing of President Trump’s latest opposition to Section 230, occurring during a post-election session, further diminishes the impact of his threat.
Consequently, much of Congress has continued with its regular operations. However, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), a staunch supporter of President Trump, expressed agreement with the president’s position on Wednesday. “The NDAA does NOT include any reform to Section 230 but DOES contain Elizabeth Warren’s social engineering amendment to unilaterally rename bases & war memorials w/ no public input or process,” Hawley posted on social media. “I cannot support it.”
Based on past behavior, President Trump is not averse to making threats he does not follow through on, ultimately shifting his attention to other matters. Nevertheless, Section 230—previously an obscure piece of legislation that garnered little public attention—has been a source of frustration for President Trump for much of the year, even prompting an executive order in May.
That executive order revealed the underlying reason for President Trump’s discontent: his belief that social media companies, particularly Twitter, have unfairly censored him. While Twitter has allowed President Trump to maintain a presence on its platform despite his violations of its rules, the company now restricts the visibility of his most problematic or misleading posts—such as unsubstantiated claims regarding election outcomes—and accompanies them with cautionary labels.
Ironically, if President Trump were to succeed, a complete repeal of Section 230 would expose online platforms to an overwhelming amount of legal liability, potentially leading to the collapse of social media companies or forcing them to significantly curtail their users’ freedom of expression.
It is conceivable that the president will remain firm in his position, delaying consideration of the defense spending bill until President-elect Biden takes office. However, it is more probable that President Trump will retract his unusual demand, which has so far received limited support or recognition even within his own party. Currently, Congress is focused on developing a second pandemic relief package to provide additional financial assistance to the nation.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), a co-author of Section 230, does not anticipate that a repeal will be included in the large defense bill at the last minute.
“I’d like to start for the Blazers, but it’s not going to happen either,” Wyden stated to TechCrunch. “It is pathetic that Trump refuses to help unemployed workers, while he spends his time tweeting unhinged election conspiracies and demanding Congress repeal the foundation of free speech online.”