Following President Donald Trump’s executive order on “ending federal censorship,” the National Science Foundationcanceled hundreds of grants that supported research on misinformation and disinformation.
Misinformation refers to misleading narratives shared by people unaware that content is false. Disinformation is deliberately generated and shared misleading content, when the sharer knows the narrative is suspect.
The overwhelming majority of Americans – 95% – believe misinformation’s misleading narratives are a problem.
Americans also believe that consumers, the government and social media companies need to do something about it. Defunding research on misinformation and disinformation is, thus, the opposite of what Americans want. Without research, the ability to combat misleading narratives will be impaired.
The attack on misleading narrative research
Trump’s executive order claims that the Biden administration used research on misleading narratives to limit social media companies’ free speech.
The Supreme Court had already rejected this claim in a 2024 case.
Still, Trump and GOP politicians continue to demand disinformation researchers defend themselves, including in the March 2025 “censorship industrial complex” hearings, which explored alleged government censorship under the Biden administration.
The U.S. State Department, additionally, is soliciting all communications between government offices and disinformation researchers for evidence of censorship.
Trump’s executive order to “restore free speech,” the hearings and the State Department decision all imply that those conducting misleading narrative research are enemies of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.
These actions have already led to significant problems – death threats and harassment included – for disinformation researchers, particularly women.
So let’s tackle what research on misinformation and disinformation is and isn’t.
Misleading content
Misinformation and disinformation researchers examine the sources of misleading content. They also study the spread of that content. And they investigate ways to reduce its harmful impacts.
For instance, as a social psychologist who studies disinformation and misinformation, I examine the nature of misleading content. I study and then share information about the manipulation tactics used by people who spread disinformation to influence others. My aim is to better inform the public about how to protect themselves from deception.
Sharing this information is free speech, not barring free speech.
Yet, some think this research leads to censorship when platforms choose to use the knowledge to label or remove suspect content or ban its primary spreaders. That’s what U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan argued in launching investigations in 2023 into disinformation research.
It is important to note, however, that the constitutional definition of censorship establishes that only the government – not citizens or businesses – can be censors.
So private companies have the right to make their own decisions about the content they put on their platforms.
Trump’s own platform, Truth Social, bans certain material such as “sexual content and explicit language,” but also anything moderators deem as trying to “trick, defraud, or mislead us and other users.” Yet, 75% of the conspiracy theories shared on the platform come from Trump’s account.
Further, both Trump and Elon Musk, self-proclaimedfree speech advocates, have been accused of squelching content on their platforms that is critical of them.
Musk claimed the suppression of accounts on X was a result of the site’s algorithm reducing “the reach of a user if they’re frequently blocked or muted by other, credible users.” Truth Social representatives claim accounts were banned due to “bot mitigation” procedures, and authentic accounts may be reinstated if their classification as inauthentic was invalid.
Is it censorship?
Republicans say social media companies have been biased against their content, censoring it or banning conservatives unfairly.
The “censorship industrial complex” hearings held by the House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee were based on the premise that not only was misleading narrative research part of the alleged “censorship industrial complex,” but that it was focused on conservative voices.
But there isn’t evidence to support this assertion.
Research from 2020 shows that conservative voices are amplified on social media networks.
When research does show that conservative authors have posts labeled or removed, or that their accounts are suspended at higher rates than liberal content, it also reveals that it is because conservative posts are significantly more likely to share misinformation than liberal posts.
This was found in a recent study of X users. Researchers tracked whose posts got tagged as false or misleading more in “community notes” – X’s alternative and Meta’s proposed alternative to fact checking – and it was conservative posts, because they were more likely to include false content than liberal posts.
Furthermore, an April 2025 study shows conservatives are more susceptible to misleading content and more likely to be targeted by it than liberals.
Misleading America
Those accusing misleading narrative researchers of censorship misrepresent the nature and intent of the research and researchers. And they are using disinformation tactics to do so.
Here’s how.
The misleading information about censorship and bias has been repeated so much through the media and from political leaders, as evident in Trump’s executive order, that many Republicans believe it’s true. This repetition produces what psychologists call the illusory truth effect, where as few as three repetitions convince the human mind something is true.
Researchers have also identified a tactic known as “accusation in a mirror.” That’s when someone falsely accuses one’s perceived opponents of conducting, plotting or desiring to commit the same transgressions that one plans to commit or is already committing.
So censorship accusations from an administration that is removing books from libraries, erasing history from monuments and websites, and deleting data archives constitute “accusations in a mirror.”
Other tactics include “accusation by anecdote.” When strong evidence is in short supply, people who spread disinformation point repeatedly to individual stories – sometimes completely fabricated – that are exceptions to, and not representative of, the larger reality.
Facts on fact-checking
Similar anecdotal attacks are used to try to dismiss fact-checkers, whose conclusions can identify and discredit disinformation, leading to its tagging or removal from social media. This is done by highlighting an incident where fact-checkers “got it wrong.”
These attacks on fact-checking come despite the fact that many of those most controversial decisions were made by platforms, not fact-checkers.
Indeed, fact-checking does work to reduce the transmission of misleading content.
In studies of the perceived effectiveness of professional fact-checkers versus algorithms and everyday users, fact-checkers are rated the most effective.
When Republicans do report distrust of fact-checkers, it’s because they perceive the fact-checkers are biased. Yet research shows little bias in choice of who is fact-checked, just that prominent and prolific speakers get checked more.
When shown fact-checking results of specific posts, even conservatives often agree the right decision was made.
Seeking solutions
Account bans or threats of account suspensions may be more effective than fact-checks at stopping the flow of misinformation, but they are also more controversial. They are considered more akin to censorship than fact-check labels.
Misinformation research would benefit from identifying solutions that conservatives and liberals agree on.
Examples include giving people the option, like on social media platform Bluesky, to turn misinformation moderation on or off.
But Trump’s executive order seeks to ban that research. Thus, instead of providing protections, the order will likely weaken Americans’ defenses.
H. Colleen Sinclair, Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology, Louisiana State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.