H.R.1233 - To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of Federal funds for disinformation research grants, and for other purposes. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 1233 aims to prohibit the use of federal funds for disinformation research grants, Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace grants, and programs within the National Science Foundation's Track F: Trust and Authenticity in Communications Systems. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 12, 2025, and referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The bill is sponsored by Mr. Massie and several other representatives.
The bill directly targets specific types of research grants and programs related to cybersecurity and communication systems. It seeks to prevent federal departments and agencies from allocating funds to these areas.
This prohibition reflects concerns about the government's role in funding research that may influence public discourse or potentially infringe upon freedom of speech.
Expected Effects
If enacted, H.R. 1233 would immediately halt federal funding for the specified research grants and programs. This would likely lead to a reduction in research activities related to disinformation and cybersecurity within the targeted areas.
Universities, research institutions, and other organizations that rely on these federal grants would need to find alternative funding sources or scale back their operations. The long-term impact could include a shift in research priorities and a potential decrease in the development of technologies and strategies to combat disinformation.
There could also be a chilling effect on academic research in related fields, as researchers may become hesitant to pursue projects that could be perceived as falling under the prohibited categories.
Potential Benefits
- Reduced potential for government overreach: Prevents federal funding from being used to potentially influence public discourse or censor dissenting opinions.
- Protection of free speech: Ensures that the government does not indirectly control or suppress certain viewpoints through research funding.
- Fiscal responsibility: Eliminates funding for programs that some may view as unnecessary or ineffective, potentially saving taxpayer money.
- Focus on other priorities: Allows federal funds to be redirected to other areas of research or government programs deemed more critical.
- Reduced administrative burden: Simplifies grant application and review processes by eliminating certain categories of funding.
Potential Disadvantages
- Hindered efforts to combat disinformation: Limits the development of tools and strategies to identify and counter the spread of false or misleading information, potentially making the public more vulnerable to manipulation.
- Reduced cybersecurity research: Could slow down advancements in securing cyberspace and protecting critical infrastructure from cyberattacks.
- Loss of expertise: May lead to a decline in the number of researchers and experts specializing in disinformation and cybersecurity, weakening the nation's ability to address these challenges.
- Missed opportunities for innovation: Prevents the exploration of new technologies and approaches for detecting and mitigating disinformation, potentially stifling innovation in this field.
- Unintended consequences: The broad prohibition could inadvertently affect legitimate research projects that are not intended to suppress free speech or influence public opinion.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. Proponents might argue it aligns with the First Amendment by preventing government-funded research that could potentially infringe upon freedom of speech. By limiting federal funding for disinformation research, the bill could be seen as preventing the government from indirectly influencing public discourse or suppressing certain viewpoints. This aligns with the principle that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
However, opponents could argue that the bill hinders the government's ability to address disinformation, which could undermine the integrity of elections and public discourse. They might argue that this indirectly impacts the government's responsibility to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare," as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution. The bill does not directly violate any specific constitutional provision, but its impact on the government's ability to address disinformation could be debated in terms of its broader constitutional responsibilities.
Ultimately, the constitutional alignment depends on how one interprets the balance between protecting free speech and ensuring an informed electorate.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).