Â鶹ÒùÔº

Research on misinformation and disinformation has become of the Trump administration's restructuring of federal research priorities.

Following President Donald Trump's executive order on "," the that supported research on misinformation and disinformation.

Misinformation refers to misleading narratives shared by people unaware that the content is false. Disinformation is deliberately generated and shared misleading content, when the sharer knows the narrative is suspect.

The —95%—believe misinformation's misleading narratives are a problem.

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 in a 2024 case.

Still, Trump and GOP politicians continue to demand disinformation researchers defend themselves, including in the March 2025 ", which explored alleged government censorship under the Biden administration.

The U.S. State Department, additionally, is 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— and included—for disinformation researchers, particularly .

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 who studies disinformation and misinformation, I examine the nature of misleading content. I 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. in 2023 into disinformation research.

It is important to note, however, that the constitutional establishes that only the government—not citizens or businesses—can be censors.

So private companies to make their own decisions about the content they put on their platforms.

Trump's own platform, Truth Social, such as "sexual content and explicit language," but also anything moderators deem as trying to "." Yet, shared on the platform come from Trump's account.

Further, both and , , have been accused of squelching content on their platforms that is critical of them.

Musk claimed the suppression of accounts on X was reducing "the reach of a user if they're frequently blocked or muted by other, credible users." 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 , censoring it or banning conservatives unfairly.

The "" 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 to support this assertion.

Research from 2020 shows that on social media networks.

When research does show that conservative authors have , or that their accounts are suspended at higher rates than liberal content, it also reveals that it is because conservative posts are significantly than liberal posts.

This was found in a recent . Researchers tracked whose posts got tagged as false or misleading more in "community notes"—X's alternative and —and it was conservative posts, because they were more likely to include false content than liberal posts.

Furthermore, an April 2025 study shows and more likely to be 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 by political leaders, as evident in Trump's executive order, that . This repetition produces what psychologists call the , where as few as three repetitions convince the human mind something is true.

Researchers have also identified a tactic known as "." 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 from libraries, and , and constitute "accusations in a mirror."

Other tactics include "." When strong evidence is in short supply, people who spread disinformation —s´Ç³¾±ð³Ù¾±³¾±ð²õ —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 .

Indeed, fact-checking does work to .

In studies of the perceived effectiveness of professional fact-checkers versus algorithms and everyday users, .

When Republicans do report distrust of fact-checkers, it's because they . Yet research shows little bias in the choice of who is fact-checked, just that get checked more.

When shown fact-checking results of specific posts, even .

Seeking solutions

or threats of may be more effective than fact-checks at stopping the flow of misinformation, but they are also more . more than fact-check labels.

Misinformation research would benefit from that .

Examples include giving people the option, like on social media platform Bluesky, to turn misinformation .

But Trump's executive order seeks to ban that research. Thus, instead of providing protections, the order will likely .

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .