Fact Check: Did Twitter Charge the FBI to Moderate Content?

The annual Threats to the Homeland hearing this week was littered with heated exchanges as senators quizzed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Republican Senator Josh Hawley and Mayorkas sparred during the annual Senate committee hearing on Tuesday after Hawley questioned Mayorkas about public comments made by Nejwa Ali, a Palestinian DHS employee, that criticized Israel amid fighting in the Middle East after Hamas' October 7 attacks.

Kentucky's Republican Senator Rand Paul targeted Wray, quizzing him on the bureau's relationship with social media companies, suggesting that the FBI paid Twitter, now X, to moderate content on its platform.

The Claim

A post on X, formerly Twitter, by user James Lynch, on October 31, 2023, included a video of a conversation between Paul and Wray about an alleged payment the FBI made to Twitter to moderate its content.

Paul asked: "Director Wray, did the FBI pay Twitter money to moderate, content moderation?"

Wray replied: "I'm not aware of us paying money to moderate content there or anywhere else."

Paul continued: "What was the $3 million for that the FBI gave, that's been revealed in Twitter Files, which has been characterized by those writing the Twitter Files as payment for content moderation?

"Basically, they said Twitter—you know, you guys would meet with them all the time, you had them taking down so many posts. They said, 'Well, gosh, it's a lot of work. Why don't you pay us?'

"And so you did, you paid them $3 million. Are you aware of the payment?"

The Facts

Rand incorrectly summarized a claim that was based on speculative sources.

His claim is based on the so-called "Twitter Files," a series of stories about the inner workings of Twitter prior to Elon Musk's takeover of the social media company. The stories, approved by Musk, examined Twitter communications, including emails to external authorities.

Among them were messages sent to and from the FBI in 2020, examined by journalist Michael Shellenberger.

Among the 49 tweets posted by Shellenberger on December 19, 2022, one suggested a financial motive may have influenced Twitter's decision-making around its initial call to suppress stories about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal in 2020.

Referring to an email between Twitter executives, Shellenberger tweeted: "The FBI's influence campaign may have been helped by the fact that it was paying Twitter millions of dollars for its staff time."

The email, purportedly sent to former Twitter official Jim Baker, said: "Jim, FYI, in 2019 SCALE instituted a reimbursement program for our legal process response from the FBI.

"Prior to the start of the program, Twitter chose not to collect under this statutory right of reimbursement for the time spent processing requests from the FBI.

"l am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019! This money is used by LP for things like the TTR and other LE-related projects [LE training, tooling, etc.]."

The Shellenberger thread did not provide sufficient evidence of a quid pro quo relationship between the FBI and Twitter, only the contact that the bureau had with the social media company and a "reimbursement" mentioned separately.

It showed that Twitter emailed the FBI about how it had removed 345 accounts "linked to previous coordinated Russian hacking attempts" and, separately, conversations between the FBI and Twitter in the lead-up to and breaking of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Shellenberger made a speculative claim about a financial motive Twitter had to moderate its content, based on the "reimbursement" email. However, the claim was treated by some, including Musk, as fact.

Newsweek reported that under U.S. law, companies receiving requests from legal authorities "can be reimbursed for fulfilling them."

The Twitter Files documents show that the FBI paid the social media company $3.4 million.

However, the bureau indicated in a statement to FactCheck.org in February that it paid Twitter for complying with records requests related to legal matters.

"While we are not able to speak to specific payments, the government is required to provide reimbursement for reasonable expenses directly related to searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing information responsive to legal process, such as court orders," the bureau said.

"This requirement is set by federal law and the courts are the final arbiters of what is reasonable compensation."

Under U.S. Code 18 §2706 of the Stored Communications Act, "a governmental entity obtaining the contents of communications, records, or other information under section 2702, 2703, or 2704 of this title shall pay to the person or entity assembling or providing such information a fee for reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing such information.

"Such reimbursable costs shall include any costs due to necessary disruption of normal operations of any electronic communication service or remote computing service in which such information may be stored."

In its "Guidelines for law enforcement," Twitter notes under the heading "Cost reimbursement": "Twitter may seek reimbursement for costs associated with information produced pursuant to legal process and as permitted by law [e.g., under 18 U.S.C. §2706]."

It is not confirmed whether U.S. Code 18 §2706 was engaged. Newsweek reached out to X via email for comment.

Shellenberger's emails also showed that executives at Twitter were not unduly pressured by the bureau. One of them shows how former Twitter official Yoel Roth told the FBI, after it asked the company to change data sharing arrangements, that it would need to use "normal search warrant" processes to do so.

Going back to Paul's claim, there is no evidence that Twitter charged the FBI for content moderation. U.S. Code appears to show a reimbursement arrangement consistent with some of the communications the FBI made.

Further, there is no evidence that there was a quid pro quo arrangement between the FBI and Twitter, and no arrangement as Paul described during Tuesday's hearing.

Newsweek has reached out to a media representative for Paul and the FBI via email for comment.

The Ruling

False.

There is no evidence that the FBI paid Twitter for content moderation. By Paul's description, his claim is based on a series of internal communications at Twitter and communications with the FBI that were published online in 2022.

Part of the Twitter Files series, they did not reveal a quid pro quo relationship between the FBI and Twitter, nor that the FBI gave Twitter money to moderate content. The $3 million Twitter received appears to be part of a reimbursement policy that private companies can seek from legal authorities.

FACT CHECK BY Newsweek's Fact Check team