Senators from both sides of the aisle are reigniting efforts to crawl back technology companies’ legal immunities with hopes bipartisan support in Congress could push the bill across the finish line this session and gain the backing of President Trump.
Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are expected to soon introduce a bill to sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in what would be one of the first bipartisan pushes in years to sunset the long-contested liability shield.
Pressure is ramping up on lawmakers, who failed to pass most related legislation last session despite major lobbying efforts from tech safety groups and families hoping to hold technology companies accountable for social media harms, specifically on young children.
“The damage being done every year just gets worse,” Graham told The Hill. “There’s more support from the public [this session], the parents and grandparents feel helpless.”
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, often dubbed as the 26 words that created the internet, largely protects technology companies from being held legally responsible for third party or user consent.
The law was passed in 1996, years ahead of the social media boom that transformed the internet over the next three decades.
Lawmakers pressing for reform of Section 230 have long argued the internet is a drastically different landscape than it was in 1996, and the law needs to be updated to reflect these changes.
“To the extent this protection was ever needed, its usefulness has long since passed,” said Durbin, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The forthcoming bill is “in the works,” according to a spokesperson for Graham, and seeks to sunset Section 230 protections from Big Tech companies in two years.
Graham told The Hill the bill will be discussed more in a “bipartisan press event” before the current Senate work period ends April 11.
The push comes amid a broader congressional battle over what some members see as the unchecked power of leading technology companies and the inability to prosecute over alleged social media harm or censorship.
Graham introduced similar legislation in 2020, which would have also given Congress two years to either find an “alternative” to Section 230 or pave the way for eliminating the legal protections. His expected bill likely will resemble the 2020 version.
Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee mulled a similar bipartisan draft bill last session, though it was not formally introduced.
While members of both parties are voicing support for the bill, their priorities for reforming the law often differ.
Democrats’ pursuit of Section 230 reform has largely revolved around holding tech companies responsible for the harms their platforms allegedly cause users, including kids and teenagers.
“I’m under no illusion it will be easy to pass legislation to protect kids online and finally make the tech industry legally accountable for the harms they cause,” Durbin said. “But I hope that for the sake of our nation’s kids, Congress finally acts.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) confirmed he would support Durbin and Graham’s effort this session, noting he is optimistic this push will be different from the various past attempts to change the statute.
“It’s uphill, but it’s also bipartisan, and I’m hopeful that we can overcome Big Tech opposition,” he said.
Blumenthal is one of the Senate’s most vocal critics of Big Tech companies and introduced the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) in multiple sessions. The bill would create regulations for the kinds of features tech and social media companies offer kids online.
KOSA passed the Senate in a 91-3 vote last session but did not make it to the House floor amid concerns from GOP leadership that it would stifle free speech.
Tech safety groups, parents and families were largely disappointed by the House’s failure to bring the bill to the floor and said they plan to continue their push on lawmakers this session.
Meanwhile, Republicans often go after Section 230 by arguing it gives large social media companies too much protection if a person, group or organization claims censorship of certain political views.
“With Big Tech censorship, if you disagree with a particular point of view, tech can simply make it disappear and it is utterly invisible, leaving not even footprints in the sand. So my view is we should use every tool we have to prevent that,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology, told The Hill.
Cruz noted a complete repeal of Section 230 is not his goal and hopes reform of the statute will allow it to be used as an incentive for free speech. The two years given in Graham and Durbin’s bill would provide the time to explore these alternatives.
“Section 230 immunity should be forfeited if a platform engages in political censorship,” he said.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) confirmed his support for the expected bill on March 26, a day after he railed against Big Tech for being “willing collaborators in censorship” during a Senate subcommittee hearing.
“Companies like Facebook, Meta have enormous structural power that Mark Zuckerberg has spent … billions of dollars amassing,” he said. “He has worked to destroy competitors that might break that power up or challenge that power in any way. He has used that power to stifle competition. He’s using it to stifle views he doesn’t like.”
The push against social media censorship is echoed by some Trump administration officials, notably including Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson, who is spearheading an agency probe into tech companies’ content policies.
Graham and Durbin both said they are unsure of where Trump will fall on the issue, though Republicans are hopeful he would support reforming Section 230 given his past allegations of anti-conservative bias against major social media companies.
The White House declined to comment on the president’s current stance on the issue, though he was a strong proponent of either limiting or repealing Section 230 in his first term. That push came as he faced bans or suspensions from social media platforms over some posts.
In 2020, Trump signed an executive order aimed at increasing the ability of government to regulate social media platforms. The order, which was revoked by former President Biden about a year later, directed federal agencies to review and clarify the scope of Section 230.
Despite his past support, tech safety groups and some Democrats expressed concerns in the past the president could take a lighter approach on technology companies given their attempts to reconcile with Trump ahead of his second term.
“I’m hopeful,” Blumenthal said of sunset bill’s prospects, “but the Trump administration has been on both sides of this issue, so I don’t know where he’s going.”
Cruz, a close Trump ally and ardent Big Tech critic, dismissed these concerns.
“Every conversation I’ve had with the Trump administration on this topic has evidenced a commitment to protecting free speech and ending Big Tech censorship,” he said.
The Texas Republican pointed to Trump and first lady Melania Trump’s support of his Take It Down Act, an online safety bill that would criminalize the publication of nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes, as evidence of potential support.
The bill passed in the Senate last session and was included in an original continuing resolution in the House but was scrapped during negotiations.
Technology industry groups have long fought changes to Section 230 and are ready to do so this session as lawmakers prepare the legislation.
Some said they hope Trump will consider his own business ventures, including Trump Media and Technology Group, which owns the social media platform Truth Social.
“The fact that you have people now in the White House that have had firsthand experience with how social media works and how these content moderation decisions are made, I hope, will provide just a more nuanced view of the ecosystem and the legal infrastructure,” said Michael Petricone, the senior vice president of government affairs for the Consumer Technology Association.
Petricone argued Section 230 protects small and midsized companies from an onslaught of lawsuits they do not have the resources to fight.
“They would very quickly be sued out of existence,” he said.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who coauthored Section 230 in 1996, uses this argument to defend the continued need for the statute.
“The big guys can take care of themselves,” he told The Hill. “I’m making sure that the little guy has a voice.”
The Oregon Democrat pointed to the rise of Bluesky, a social media platform that rose in popularity last year amid some left-leaning users’ departure from Elon Musk’s X platform.
“Bluesky will cease to exist about 25 minutes after you get rid of Section 230,” he said.
