Military May Be Engaged in Illegal Psychological Operations and Propaganda Against U.S. Citizens
On February 23, that Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops, commanded his Information Operations (IO) cell to target congressional delegations visiting his base as part of a campaign to manipulate the perceptions and opinions of U.S. senators and representatives through psychological operations (PSYOP).
If true, this activity was conducted in direct violation of and , and represents an affront to core democratic principles of civilian control over the military. Americans depend on Congress receiving unbiased, honest and forthcoming information so that it can effectively make life-or-death decisions when it comes to escalating or drawing down military engagements and protecting our national security.
We are urging Congress to investigate these activities to determine: 1) whether military intelligence resources or personnel were used to improperly collect information on members of Congress in violation of prohibitions against targeting U.S. persons; and 2) whether military information operations were directed at members of Congress in order to improperly influence legislation or manipulate domestic public opinion regarding the war effort, in violation of federal law and DOD policy.
In response to the Rolling Stone report, Gen. David Petraeus announced that he was launching an investigation into the potential illegal use of PSYOP and propaganda to manipulate U.S. citizens. Reps. James McGovern (D-Mass.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) have also joined in a letter to the president asking for an investigation by the Department of Justice as to the scope and legality of the PSYOP program, whether it remains ongoing, and who is or was involved in authorizing it. They also are requesting that the investigation address whether Lt. Col. Michael Holmes was subjected to a retaliatory investigation and reprimand for acting as a whistleblower in uncovering this program.
While these are important first steps, they are not enough. Congress must reassert its independence and reassure the American public that civilian-elected officials retain control over all military and intelligence activities. It is critical that Congress fulfill its oversight duties and conduct an independent public investigation concerning any potentially illegal activities that Lt. Gen. Caldwell’s IO cell may have engaged in.
This is not the first against U.S. citizens. One day before Rolling Stone reported that Lt. Gen. Caldwell commanded the execution of an illegal PSYOP campaign against U.S. senators, an article revealing that the Air Force sought a contractor to deploy false identities on social media sites like Facebook to disseminate DOD propaganda to civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is problematic because there is nothing to protect Americans from this type of propaganda when they use social media sites that are targeted by the Air Force. Congress should review all U.S. intelligence operations that might target or impact Americans.
Learn more about national security: Subscribe to our newsletter, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.