On the recordSeptember 10, 2025
This expands it to any organization that is deemed to be engaging in fact-checking. Basically what this amendment has done--and it is in law from last year; now we are making it permanent and expanding it--is basically if you are an organization that checks for factual accuracy, we don't want to do business with you, which is just a remarkable statement in terms of how we approach this. I think we should want people to check facts. For example, it is not the Department of War. It is the Department of Defense. It is in the statute. It is the law. The President can say whatever he wants to say, but the law still says it is the Department of Defense. If he wants to put into the law that he is going to change that, that is fine; but it is factually inaccurate to say that it is the Department of War. Yes, the statistics seem to show that rightwing news agencies score lower on factual accuracy. There are two reasons possible for why that happens. One is the bias that the gentleman, the maker of the amendment, says. The other is that they are more likely to be factually inaccurate, which seems to be the more likely outcome. I also want to make clear, we are not excluding anything. In fact, this amendment is what excludes things. If you are an organization that checks facts, we are going to exclude you from who we are going to do business with.
Source
govinfo.gov




