The Protect the First Amendment Act would prohibit the federal government from using funds to contract with or grant awards to certain entities that engage in what it calls “covered behavior.” Specifically, the bill targets two named entities—NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. (and successors) and Global Disinformation Index (and successors)—and any nonprofit organization that engages in such behavior. “Covered behavior” is defined as demonetizing or rating the credibility of a domestic entity based on the entity’s lawful speech, by determining whether that speech is misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation. The aim is to prevent federal dollars from subsidizing private actions that itself suppress or penalize speech.
The bill’s definitions extend to successors of the named entities and to nonprofit organizations under 501(c)(3) status. This is a straightforward funding prohibition with a tight scope tied to censorship-like practices by private rating or monetization entities.
The measure does not create new federal speech rules or extend beyond federal funding programs; rather, it isolates a narrow set of actors from federal contracting and grant-making.
Why this matters: for compliance officers and federal program managers, the bill would require screening of all potential contracts and grants to ensure funds do not flow to the named entities or any nonprofit that engages in “covered behavior.” It foregrounds First Amendment concerns in the procurement process by removing a potential channel through which private censorship practices could be subsidized with public funds. The impact hinges on identifying who falls within “covered behavior” and ensuring consequences are applied consistently across procurement activities.
The outcome would be more explicit protection against state-enabled private censorship in federal spending decisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars use of federal funds to contract with or grant awards to a covered entity or a nonprofit organization that engages in covered behavior. It defines the two covered entities and the behavior they are prohibited from engaging in.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies and procurement offices; the named entities NewsGuard Technologies (and successors) and Global Disinformation Index (and successors); nonprofit organizations described in 501(c)(3) that engage in the defined behavior.
Why It Matters
Sets a clear boundary between federal funding and private censorship activities, reinforcing First Amendment protections in the federal procurement space and potentially limiting private influence on public information moderation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill says: no federal funds may be used to contract with or grant awards to certain private entities that censor speech. The two named entities are NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. and Global Disinformation Index, including their successors, and the bill also covers any nonprofit organization that engages in the same behavior.
Covered behavior means demonetizing or rating the credibility of domestic speech based on whether that speech is misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation. The practical effect is to prevent the federal government from financially supporting private efforts that suppress or devalue speech based on its content.
The law is narrowly targeted to these entities and their successors and to nonprofits under 501(c)(3), not a broad rewrite of information policy. The rationale is to reduce the risk that federal funds help private censorship efforts while leaving other procurement activities intact.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bans federal funds from contracting with or awarding grants to two named entities and any nonprofits that engage in covered behavior.
Covered entities include NewsGuard Technologies (and successors) and Global Disinformation Index (and successors).
Covered behavior is demonetizing or rating the credibility of domestic speech based on assessment of misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation.
The prohibition applies to both contracts and grants—i.e.
funds used directly for either activity fall under the ban.
Nonprofit organizations relevant to the definition are those described as 501(c)(3) organizations under the Internal Revenue Code.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
Names the act the Protect the First Amendment Act. This establishes the formal title used in statutory references and procurement communications.
Prohibition on Funding
Prohibits the use of federal funds to contract with or grant awards to covered entities or to nonprofit organizations that engage in covered behavior. It sets the legal boundary for which federal funding streams are affected and limits the prohibition to the entities and activities defined in the act.
Definitions
Defines key terms: what constitutes a covered entity (NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. and Global Disinformation Index and successors), what is meant by covered behavior (demonetizing or rating the credibility of domestic speech based on its content), and what qualifies as a nonprofit organization (IRS 501(c)(3) entities). These definitions establish the precise scope and ensure enforceability within federal procurement rules.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal program managers and contracting officers benefit from a clear procurement guardrail that protects against funding censorship-driven moderation schemes.
- Taxpayers and federal entities benefit from reduced risk that public funds support private censorship actors.
- Free-speech and civil-liberties advocates may view the act as reinforcing constitutional protections by limiting private, money-backed speech control funded by government dollars.
Who Bears the Cost
- NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. and Global Disinformation Index (and successors) would lose federal funding opportunities.
- Any nonprofit organization described in section 501(c)(3) that engages in covered behavior could lose potential federal support.
- Federal agencies and program offices bear compliance costs to implement and enforce the new funding restrictions and to audit contract and grant portfolios for violations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a narrowly tailored prohibition on funding specific censorship-focused entities adequately protects First Amendment values without expanding government monitoring of private speech in a way that could chill legitimate policy-driven evaluation or critique.
The bill creates a targeted shield against private censorship activities funded by the federal government, but it also raises questions about definitional boundaries and enforcement. One potential tension is how broadly “covered behavior” is interpreted and whether other private rating or monetization practices could be captured by the definition as written.
There is also the risk that the act might complicate procurement processes by requiring additional due diligence on the part of agencies to verify the status and behavior of entities in contract or grant pipelines. Finally, the act does not specify penalties for noncompliance or a private right of action, leaving penalties and remedies to general administrative enforcement channels.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.