Trump’s FCC Nominee, Section 230, and the Long Fight Over Online Speech
In 2020, a long-simmering conflict over online speech, platform power, and government authority erupted into a full political and regulatory battle when President Donald Trump nominated Nathan Simington to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The move was widely seen as an attempt to use the FCC to challenge how social media companies moderate content—and to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the law that underpins most of today’s internet.
What began as a dispute over content moderation quickly evolved into a broader fight over free speech, censorship, regulatory overreach, and the future of user-generated content online. Five years later, in 2025, that fight is still unfolding—now largely in Congress and the courts rather than at the FCC.
Trump’s Executive Order and Claims of Online Censorship
In June 2020, President Trump issued an executive order aimed at what he described as political censorship by social media platforms. The order followed high-profile disputes between the White House and companies like Twitter and Facebook over labeling, removing, or limiting the reach of political content.
The executive order requested that the FCC clarify whether Section 230 protections apply when platforms “editorialize” or selectively moderate user speech. The administration argued that platforms acting as curators or publishers—rather than neutral conduits—should not automatically receive immunity from civil liability.
The order also called for:
-
Clear definitions of when moderation is conducted in “good faith”
-
Increased transparency around moderation rules and enforcement
-
Potential limits on immunity for selective or inconsistent moderation
While the order did not change the law itself, it marked a major escalation in the federal government’s involvement in platform moderation debates.
Understanding Section 230 and Why It Matters
Section 230 generally protects online platforms from being held legally responsible for content posted by users, while also allowing them to remove or restrict content they consider objectionable.
This legal framework made possible:
-
Social media networks
-
Online forums and comment sections
-
Review sites
-
Mapping platforms with user submissions
-
Community reporting tools
Without Section 230, many websites would face constant legal risk simply for hosting public contributions. Supporters argue that the law enables free expression and innovation, while critics claim it grants platforms too much power with too little accountability.
Nathan Simington’s FCC Nomination
Nathan Simington, then a senior advisor at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), played a central role in pushing the FCC to interpret Section 230. His nomination to the FCC was viewed as a strategic move to align the agency with the White House’s approach to tech regulation.
Simington supported the idea that the FCC could define when platforms lose immunity by failing to moderate content in “good faith.” Critics argued this approach would:
-
Expand FCC authority beyond its statutory mandate
-
Politicize an independent regulatory agency
-
Create legal uncertainty for online platforms of all sizes
Civil liberties groups, technology companies, and several lawmakers warned that such an interpretation could chill speech and invite government influence over moderation decisions.
The Removal of Commissioner Michael O’Rielly
Simington’s nomination came at the expense of FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, a Republican who had been nominated for a third term but publicly questioned the administration’s legal strategy.
O’Rielly described himself as strongly committed to the First Amendment and expressed skepticism that the FCC had the authority to reinterpret Section 230. After he delivered a speech criticizing the executive order’s approach, the White House withdrew his renomination.
The episode highlighted growing tensions between:
-
Traditional free-market conservatives wary of government overreach
-
Populist factions seeking stronger action against Big Tech
It also raised concerns about political pressure on independent regulatory bodies.
Congressional Pushback and Limits on FCC Authority
Even within the Republican Party, there was significant resistance to using the FCC as a tool for regulating online speech. Senate Commerce Committee leaders argued that:
-
Section 230 is a statute written by Congress
-
Any reforms should be made legislatively, not by regulatory interpretation
-
Expanding FCC power could set dangerous precedents under future administrations
Ultimately, courts later ruled that the FCC lacked authority to implement the executive order’s vision for Section 230. The Biden administration reversed course, and the FCC has since avoided direct involvement in interpreting the law.
2025 Update: Section 230 Reform Moves Back to Congress
By 2025, the debate over Section 230 has largely shifted away from regulatory agencies and back to Congress, where lawmakers from both parties continue to propose reforms.
Current legislative efforts focus less on broad reinterpretation and more on targeted changes, including:
-
Limiting immunity for algorithmic amplification of harmful content
-
Addressing deepfakes and AI-generated abuse
-
Increasing transparency around content moderation systems
-
Clarifying liability for platforms that actively recommend content
Some proposals seek to narrow Section 230 protections, while others aim to preserve the law but add specific carve-outs for certain harms. Importantly, these efforts acknowledge what earlier attempts did not: only Congress can change Section 230 in a durable way.
The Risk of Unintended Consequences
Legal experts continue to warn that weakening Section 230 could have effects opposite of those intended. Increased liability risk could lead platforms to:
-
Remove more content preemptively
-
Limit user participation
-
Shut down comment sections or community tools entirely
Smaller platforms, local forums, and specialized sites—often without large legal teams—would likely be hit hardest.
Why This Debate Still Matters
The fight over Section 230 is ultimately about who controls online speech—private companies, the government, or users themselves. As platforms increasingly shape political discourse, public safety information, and local reporting, the balance between moderation, accountability, and free expression remains unsettled.
For data-driven platforms and community-powered sites like those in the DeadZones network, the outcome of this debate directly affects:
-
How information can be shared
-
How moderation decisions are made
-
Whether smaller platforms can continue to operate at scale
Five years after Trump’s FCC nomination battle, Section 230 remains one of the most consequential—and contested—laws governing the modern internet.
