DOJ Demands Removal Of ICEBlock App; Why Are The ‘Free Speech Warriors’ Suddenly So Quiet?

For years now, the MAGA crowd has been absolutely convinced that the Biden administration engaged in the most egregious censorship campaign in American history. They've waved around the Murthy v. Missouri case as proof that Biden officials illegally pressured tech companies to remove content (even as the Supreme Court concluded there wasn't even enough evidence of any coercion to give any of the plaintiffs standing). Just last week, Rep. Jim Jordan was wildly celebrating what he claimed was Google's admission that the Biden administration forced YouTube to censor people (which wasn't actually what Google said at all, but reading comprehension has never been Jordan's strong suit).

But now we have an actual, crystal-clear example of government officials using direct threats to pressure a tech company into removing disfavored speech-and suddenly, the free speech warriors have gone mysteriously quiet.

404 Media has the story of Apple removing the ICEBlock app from its App Store on Thursday after direct pressure from Department of Justice officials acting at the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi. The app, which allows people to crowdsource sightings of ICE officials, was pulled following what Fox News described as the DOJ reaching out" to Apple and demanding" the removal.

Aaron provided 404 Media with a copy of the email he received from Apple regarding the removal. It says Upon re-evaluation, we found that your app is not in compliance with the App Review Guidelines." It then points to parts of those guidelines around Objectionable Content," and specifically Defamatory discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group."

The email then says Information provided to Apple by law enforcement shows that your app violates Guideline 1.1.1 because its purpose is to provide location information about law enforcement officers that can be used to harm such officers individually or as a group."

And Bondi herself was quite explicit about the government's role in this censorship:

Bondi told Fox ICEBlock is designed to put ICE agents at risk just for doing their jobs, and violence against law enforcement is an intolerable red line that cannot be crossed. This Department of Justice will continue making every effort to protect our brave federal law enforcement officers, who risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe."

We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store-and Apple did so," Bondi added according to the Fox report.

Now, some will inevitably argue that Apple made an independent decision based on its own guidelines. But the MAGA crowd refused to accept that exact same argument when it was made in defense of what happened during the Biden administration. When companies explained that their content moderation decisions were based on their own policies, not government pressure, the MAGA crowd dismissed those explanations as irrelevant. They've spent years refusing to acknowledge the difference between government persuasion and government coercion.

In all of the communications from the Biden administration that were revealed in Murthy v. Missouri, officials never demanded removal of content. They did request reviews against existing policies (which is why companies rejected over 60% of flagged content) and occasionally suggested policy changes (which were mostly ignored). Even when companies did take action, they consistently maintained it was based on their own policy determinations.

But here? Bondi explicitly states she demanded Apple remove the app. There's no ambiguity, no gentle suggestion, no request for review." It's a direct government demand for censorship that was immediately complied with.

So let's be clear about what happened here: A government official made a demand to a private tech company to remove an app based on the content of that app, and the company complied. This is exactly-and I mean exactly-what Jordan, Trump, and the entire MAGA ecosystem have been claiming (falsely) was the greatest violation of the First Amendment in modern history when they imagined Biden officials did it.

But somehow, I doubt we'll see Jordan holding hearings about this. I doubt we'll see breathless segments about government censorship. I doubt we'll see any of the usual suspects who spent years screaming about the Biden administration's supposed jawboning" saying a single word about this actual, documented case of government officials pressuring a tech company to remove content.

Now, to be fair, ICEBlock has legitimate issues that have been well-documented. Security researcher Micah Lee has written extensively about how the app is activism theater" that wasn't developed with input from actual immigrant defense groups and spreads unverified information that can cause panic rather than provide useful protection. He also documented serious security vulnerabilities in the app's infrastructure that the developer ignored for weeks. These are legitimate concerns about the app's effectiveness and security.

But here's the thing: the quality or effectiveness of the app is irrelevant to the First Amendment question. The government cannot pressure private companies to remove apps based on the content of those apps, regardless of whether that content is high-quality, low-quality, effective, or ineffective. As we documented earlier this year, ICEBlock and similar apps serve a purpose that many people find valuable-providing early warning systems for ICE activities in local communities at a time when people (for good reasons!) are quite concerned about ICE's abusive tactics.

The Supreme Court made this distinction crystal clear in both the Murthy and Vullo cases. In Vullo, the Court explicitly stated:

A government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the hopes of persuading others to follow her lead. In doing so, she can rely on the merits and force of her ideas, the strength of her convictions, and her ability to inspire others. What she cannot do, however, is use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression....

Bondi didn't just share her views or criticize the app. She explicitly used the power of the state by demanding" Apple remove it, and Apple complied within hours. This is textbook government coercion of the type that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said violates the First Amendment.

Just last week, we had Trump supporters lying about Biden censorship" to justify FCC Chair Brendan Carr's explicit threats against Disney over Jimmy Kimmel's speech. They keep pointing to Murthy v. Missouri as if it blessed government pressure on tech companies, when it actually said the opposite-that such pressure would violate the First Amendment if there was evidence it occurred.

But, as we discussed, in Murthy, the Supreme Court made it clear that explicit threats would, in fact, cross the First Amendment line. The problem in Murthy was the lack of evidence of coercion" or significant encouragement" to suppress speech-the Court specifically looked for explicit demands or threats and found none (while it did find such explicit demands in the Vullo case, which they heard the same day). The majority ruling states that the conduct needs to involve coercion and not mere communication."

Well, here's your coercion. Here's your significant encouragement." Here's your smoking gun in the form of the Attorney General literally telling the media she demanded the removal of an app.

Here's the actual government censorship that Jordan and company have been claiming to fight against for years.

Where are they now?

The silence reveals something fundamental about the entire censorship" crusade: It was never about protecting free speech or preventing government overreach. It was about creating a permission structure for their own authoritarian impulses while weaponizing victimhood narratives against their political opponents.

When faced with actual, explicit, documented government censorship-the kind they've been breathlessly warning about for years-they have nothing to say. Because this censorship serves their agenda, targets their enemies, and advances their political goals.

The mask has slipped completely. The free speech" warriors have shown themselves to be exactly what critics always said they were: not principled defenders of civil liberties, but partisan actors who only care about speech when it benefits them.