JAWBONE Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The JAWBONE Act aims to protect free speech and platform independence by prohibiting government coercion of content moderation decisions and increasing transparency around government-platform interactions.
What it actually does
This bill creates a federal cause of action allowing individuals and entities to sue federal agencies or employees for 'jawboning'—coercing private speech platforms (broadcasters, interactive computer services, and AI systems) into taking 'content actions' like removing or altering information. It also mandates the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop standards for logging government communications with these platforms and requires the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to establish a public portal for these logged communications, alongside a complaint process.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to safeguard First Amendment rights by preventing government overreach and indirect censorship through pressure on private companies. They contend it ensures independent editorial judgment for platforms and provides crucial legal recourse for those whose speech is affected by government coercion, filling a critical gap in current law.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could severely hinder legitimate government efforts to combat harmful or illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material, foreign disinformation, or public health misinformation, by creating a chilling effect on necessary communications with platforms. They may also raise concerns about the administrative burden and potential for frivolous lawsuits against federal employees.
The bill is moderately complex due to its legal definitions and procedural requirements, necessitating careful reading to fully grasp its implications.
Section 3, adding new Section 723 to the Communications Act of 1934
Prohibition on Federal Agency or Employee Jawboning and Private Right of Action
This core provision makes it unlawful for federal agencies or employees to coerce or attempt to coerce broadcasters, interactive computer services, or AI system providers into taking 'content actions' (e.g., adding, altering, or removing information). It broadly defines 'coerce' to include implied threats and lists factors for courts to consider. Crucially, it creates a private right of action for aggrieved persons (including information content providers) to sue for compensatory damages and equitable relief, with specific rules for discovery and immunity.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential to safeguard First Amendment rights by preventing the government from circumventing constitutional limits on censorship through indirect pressure on private companies. It provides a crucial legal remedy for those harmed by such coercion.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this broad prohibition and private right of action could paralyze legitimate government communication with platforms regarding illegal or harmful content, such as child sexual abuse material or foreign disinformation campaigns, even with the stated exceptions. They may also raise concerns about potential for frivolous lawsuits.
Tradeoffs
Balances government's interest in public safety and law enforcement against the protection of free speech and private editorial autonomy, creating a high bar for government communication.
Section 3, new 47 U.S.C. 723(b)(2)
Exceptions for Lawful Investigations, Warrants, and Official Use
This section carves out specific exceptions where the jawboning prohibition does not apply. These include actions taken pursuant to a lawful investigation or enforcement of federal or state law that do not violate the First Amendment, actions authorized by a court-issued warrant, and directions related to an agency's, officer's, or employee's official use of a platform (e.g., managing a government social media account). The burden of proving an exception applies rests with the government.
Section 3, new 47 U.S.C. 723(c)(6)
Federal Defense and Indemnification for Employees
This provision mandates that if a federal officer or employee is sued in their individual capacity under this Act, the Department of Justice must represent them if they choose. Furthermore, the Federal Government must indemnify the employee for any monetary award, unless the court finds the employee acted in a 'willful and wanton manner,' in which case they must reimburse the government for defense costs.
Section 4, adding new Section 37 to the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act
NIST Standards for Logging Covered Communications
This section directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop standards and guidelines within one year for agencies to collect, retain, and transmit 'covered communications' (government communications with platforms regarding expression) to a new portal. These guidelines will cover taxonomies, metadata collection, formats, data security, and audit controls, while excluding classified information, child sexual abuse material, and communications falling under the jawboning exceptions.
Section 5, adding new Title VII and Section 701 to the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976
OSTP Portal for Publicly Accessible Covered Communications
This section directs the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to establish a public, searchable portal where agencies must transmit new or previously unreported 'covered communications' every 120 days. The portal will provide detailed descriptions and identify requests for content actions, with provisions for redacting sensitive information (FOIA exemptions) while ensuring full, unredacted access for relevant Congressional committees.
Section 5, new 42 U.S.C. 701(e)
Provider Complaint Process
This provision requires the OSTP portal to include a process for broadcasters, interactive computer services, and AI system providers to submit complaints alleging violations of the jawboning prohibition without fear of retaliation. Valid complaints will be transmitted to the Inspector General of the relevant agency and to key Congressional committees within 15 days.
Section 5, new 42 U.S.C. 701(f)
Inspector General Audits of Agency Compliance
This section mandates that each agency's Inspector General (IG) conduct biennial audits to ensure the agency complies with NIST standards for logging and transmitting covered communications to the OSTP portal. These audits must review proper categorization of communications and exclusions, with findings summarized and transmitted to the Director of OSTP and relevant Congressional committees.
Defines 'coerce' as taking or implying a harmful, hostile, or unfavorable action, or threatening such action. It then lists eight factors relevant to determining coercion, including word choice, regulatory authority, reference to adverse consequences, privacy of communication, disclaimers, factual statements, aiding compliance, and whether the recipient acted contrary to its own policies.
Section 3, new 47 U.S.C. 723(a)(4)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define key terms upfront, but the extensive list of factors makes it a critical detail for legal interpretation.
Case for: Supporters argue that a detailed definition of 'coerce' is necessary to provide clear guidance to both government officials and platforms, reducing ambiguity and ensuring consistent application of the law. The factors help distinguish legitimate government communication from unlawful jawboning.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definition, despite its length, remains inherently subjective, particularly factors like 'word choice and tone' or 'whether any relevant communication... led the recipient to act contrary to its own policies.' This subjectivity could lead to inconsistent judicial interpretations and a chilling effect on legitimate government communications.
Estimated impact: This definition is foundational to the entire cause of action, directly influencing the scope of prohibited government conduct and the viability of lawsuits.
Defines 'information' (the subject of content actions) as 'lawful expression protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'
Section 3, new 47 U.S.C. 723(a)(7)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms, but its placement might obscure its importance.
Case for: Supporters argue this definition ensures the bill only protects speech that is already constitutionally protected, preventing platforms from claiming protection for illegal content (e.g., incitement to violence, defamation) under the guise of 'jawboning.' It aligns the bill with existing First Amendment jurisprudence.
Case against: Critics might argue that determining what constitutes 'lawful expression protected by the First Amendment' is often complex and subject to legal dispute, potentially shifting the burden of this determination onto platforms and courts in jawboning cases. This could lead to prolonged litigation over the nature of the speech itself, rather than just the government's actions.
Estimated impact: Significantly limits the scope of the bill's protections to constitutionally protected speech, excluding categories like child sexual abuse material, true threats, or incitement to violence.
States that federal agencies, officers, or employees cannot claim immunity from liability in a jawboning civil action based on a subjective belief that the information in question was not lawful expression protected by the First Amendment.
Section 3, new 47 U.S.C. 723(c)(5)
Why it matters:Standard practice to detail legal defenses within the cause of action, but its significance for government actors is high.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision prevents government actors from using a 'good faith' but mistaken belief about speech's legality as a shield against accountability for coercion. It reinforces that the objective legality of the speech, not the government's subjective assessment, is paramount.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision could create an overly punitive environment for federal employees, making them personally liable even if they genuinely believed they were acting to address unprotected speech. This could lead to excessive caution and a reluctance to communicate with platforms about potentially harmful content.
Estimated impact: Significantly impacts the legal defense strategy for federal employees and agencies accused of jawboning, shifting the focus from subjective intent to objective legal standards.