How Democrats’ Attack On Section 230 Plays Right Into Trump’s Censorial Plans
Like clockwork, lawmakers are once again rallying around the idea of eliminating Section 230. That Republicans are leading this charge is hardly surprising—repealing Section 230 is explicitly laid out in the Project 2025 playbook. But what’s surprising, and increasingly reckless, is the willingness of Democratic lawmakers to join forces with Republicans in dismantling one of the few remaining legal safeguards standing between the Trump Administration and unchecked control over online speech. In doing so, they are handing the Trump Administration a powerful tool to execute its long-standing goal: total control over online discourse. And in a political climate where Trump is already targeting law firms that oppose him, loss of access to the skilled attorneys needed to defend online speech without Section 230 isn’t a side-effect, it’s the entire point.
Perhaps Democrats don’t fully grasp the strategic importance of Section 230. For years, many on the left have believed that repealing the law would pressure online services into “cleaning up” their spaces by removing hate speech, conspiracy theories, and other content deemed anti-social. The assumption is that without 230’s liability shield, companies will err on the side of caution and engage in more content moderation. But in reality, that outcome is far from guaranteed. The more likely result is either an explosion of harmful content (the stated goal of Project 2025) or aggressive over-moderation that silences all user speech: an “own goal” that would severely undermine the progressive causes Democrats claim to support.
But the most dangerous consequence of repealing Section 230 has nothing to do with content moderation policies themselves but rather the ability to defend those policies. Section 230 doesn’t grant new speech rights; the First Amendment already protects a website’s editorial decisions. What Section 230 does is provide a procedural “fastlane,” allowing websites and users to dismiss meritless lawsuits early—often at the motion to dismiss stage. That’s a big deal. With Section 230, defendants don’t need elite law firms or millions of dollars. Legal advocacy groups, and particularly those less susceptible to political pressure, like the EFF, can take on these cases pro bono, knowing they won’t be buried in years of litigation or financial ruin.
Without Section 230, the calculus changes drastically. Now, any lawsuit over a content decision, whether it’s removing Trump’s posts or leaving up white nationalist propaganda, typically requires a First Amendment defense. And unlike Section 230, First Amendment claims are fact-intensive, expensive, and slow-moving. Courts are reluctant to resolve them at the pleading stage. Instead, they often allow discovery, depositions, and extended litigation to explore whether a platform was acting as a state actor, or whether the content decisions were truly editorial in nature. These cases can drag on for years and cost defendants six or seven figures. Only the most well-resourced defendants with access to high-powered legal talent stand a fighting chance.
And that’s where things get even more sinister.
The Trump movement has made it abundantly clear: law firms that represent his political opponents are targets. And the pressure campaign is working. Paul Weiss, a major law firm, reportedly backed off representation of Trump-opposed clients. Perkins Coie “discovered” a conflict of interest mere days after being singled out in a Trump executive order. Other firms are falling in line too, particularly those with longstanding ties to litigation over online speech.
In a post-230 world, tech companies and individuals will face a flood of lawsuits over content moderation decisions—many of which will require expensive, high-stakes constitutional defenses. Large law firms, increasingly wary of political retaliation, will be even less willing to represent clients challenging Trump-aligned speech or policies. Under normal circumstances, independent attorneys and advocacy groups that are typically less susceptible to political pressure would be the ones to step in and defend these cases. But without Section 230’s early procedural protections, even they will struggle to absorb the financial and time burdens of full-blown constitutional litigation.
Imagine then a scenario where an online service removes Trump, or moderates
rhetoric aligned with his Administration’s agenda. The Trump Administration could respond with retaliatory executive action or lawsuits. Who’s going to step up to defend that service? Which firms are willing to risk executive orders, client loss, and political scrutiny to protect editorial discretion? Increasingly, the answer is: no one.
The combined effect is devastating. Faced with mounting legal risk and an eroding pool of legal help, online services will begin moderating content in line with the Administration’s interests, not out of ideological sympathy, but self-preservation. They’ll leave up speech they would have otherwise removed. They’ll take down speech that powerful actors deem objectionable. This won’t just preserve the exact kind of content the Democrats oppose; it will erase the speech of those pushing back against Trump.
The result is chilling: speech that offends those in power, particularly Trump, is suppressed not by law, but by lawsuit. Not by censorship orders, but by fear of retaliation and now the inability to find legal representation.
And yet here we are. Democrats are handing over the keys to this censorship machine, thinking they’re striking a blow for safer online spaces. But what they’re really doing is dismantling the only law that makes resistance possible. Unlike newspapers, cable, or legacy media—which are vulnerable to political coercion—Section 230 is authoritarian-proof. It’s the last structural safeguard we have to protect the essential free exchange of ideas online.
Repealing Section 230 won’t lead to the “better” Internet that Democrats envision. It will pave the way for the most powerful voices to dominate the conversation and make sure those who speak out against them can’t fight back.
Jess Miers is currently Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, University of Akron School of Law.