Combating Government Coercion: The JAWBONE Act

By India McKinney | June 18, 2026

Recently, a significant bipartisan effort was launched by Senators Ron Wyden and Ted Cruz with the introduction of the Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression—more commonly known as the JAWBONE Act.

What is the JAWBONE Act?

This legislation is designed to curb the government's ability to secretly pressure private entities into silencing citizens. Specifically, it aims to:

Create a Federal Cause of Action: It allows individuals to sue government officials who coerce (or try to coerce) AI providers, interactive computer services, or broadcasters into suppressing speech protected by the First Amendment.
Mandate Transparency: It establishes a formal system to track and disclose communications between the government and these intermediaries regarding user content.

Defining "Jawboning": This term refers to the practice where government entities exert pressure on private corporations to censor speech that is legally protected under the First Amendment. Because this happens behind the scenes, the public and the victims are often unaware that the government was the driving force behind the censorship.

Intermediary Illustration

The Danger of Coercion: A Real-World Case

The EFF is actively fighting against this type of government overreach. A prime example is the case of Joshua Aaron, the developer of ICEBlock—an application designed to let citizens report immigration enforcement activities.

Timeline of Events:

June 2025: High-level federal officials began threatening Aaron with investigation and prosecution.
The Demand: The Attorney General pressured Apple to remove ICEBlock from the App Store.
The Result: Apple complied, removing the app and violating Aaron's First Amendment rights.

In response, the EFF has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. The goal is to force the disclosure of all communications between the government and platforms like Meta, Google, and Apple that led to the removal of lawful speech.

Finding the Right Balance

It is important to note that not every interaction between a government agency and a tech platform is an act of illegal coercion. There is a critical distinction:

Type of Interaction	Nature	Constitutional Status
Jawboning	Coercive threats or demands to silence speech	$\text{Unconstitutional}$
Collaboration	Good-faith information sharing for safety/security	$\text{Lawful/Beneficial}$

If the law were to treat all communication as unconstitutional, it would stifle the helpful engagement necessary to maintain a safe internet. The goal is to find a mathematical balance of protections:

$\text{User Liberty} = \frac{\text{Transparency} + \text{Legal Recourse}}{\text{Government Coercion}}$

The Rights of the Platforms

There is a common misconception in Congress that social media companies are ~~"state actors"~~ and therefore must allow all speech. This is incorrect.

Internet intermediaries possess their own First Amendment rights to curate and moderate their platforms. This was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the Netchoice cases. To prevent the government from simply dictating site content, companies must remain free to edit their platforms as they see fit.

Summary of Legal Positions:

Platforms: Have the right to curate content regardless of government alignment.
Government: Cannot use its power to force that curation.
Users: Should be protected from "invisible" government censorship.

{
  "bill_status": "Introduced",
  "sponsors": ["Ted Cruz", "Ron Wyden"],
  "primary_goal": "Prevent government-induced censorship",
  "target_entities": ["AI Providers", "Broadcasters", "Computer Services"]
}

Moving Forward

The EFF supports the leadership of Senators Cruz and Wyden. We believe this bipartisan approach is essential for protecting the digital town square.

Current Objectives:

Pass the JAWBONE Act through the Senate.
Ensure the final language protects both user speech and platform autonomy.
Establish a robust transparency registry for government requests.

We look forward to collaborating with Congress to ensure this bill provides the necessary safeguards for freedom of expression for every user.