Why the Biden Admin’s Disinformation Chief Stepped Down

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Now, the flow of misinformation also heightens tensions in places like the West Bank and Ukraine and, of course, in the United States. But Homeland Security’s newly launched Disinformation Governance Board has lasted only a few weeks in the face of intense criticism. Its leader, Nina Jankowcz has resigned. She’s a renowned expert on countering disinformation. And has been speaking to Michel Martin about her experience under attack online.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Nina Jankowcz, thanks so much for talking to us.

NINA JANKOWCZ, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DISINFORMATION GOVERNANCE BOARD: Thanks for having me.

MARTIN: What was the idea behind the Biden administration’s Disinformation Project? What was the goal?

JANKOWCZ: Sure. So, I was contacted to lead the Disinformation Governance Board, which is kind of the scary sounding name. But the intention behind the project was at the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate this massive department which has many, many different equities and, you know, disaster management, border patrol, you know, things like election security and critical infrastructure, and to take all of the various bits and bobs of counter disinformation work that the department was doing and really join them up, to harmonize them, to make them more efficient. And, you know, we hadn’t really done too much as a government in dealing with disinformation that affected the homeland where people were encountering disinformation that could make them less safe or deal with their, you know, access to things like voting or other critical infrastructure. And the idea there was that bring me in as an expert to support these missions and coordinate, that was the whole idea behind the Disinformation Governance Board. It wasn’t governing the entire internet, it was governing the work that was happening at the Department of Homeland Security.

MARTIN: This project was attacked — viciously attacked from the beginning. And I’m going to ask you if you could sort of take this piece by piece, for example. First of all, what did they do and how did they do this, the attacking? And then, I’m going to ask you to tell me why you think they did this?

JANKOWCZ: Sure. So, I think it’s important to start with some blame on the department. Because when the project was announced about a month ago, the department left out some key examples, like the fact that this board was set up to protect civil rights and civil liberties. That it wasn’t going to be monitoring Americans. That it was an internal governance group. And because of that informational vacuum, conservatives jumped at the chance to fill in the blanks. They said that this board would be policing the internet. They said that I was, you know, commissar or information and attacked, you know, my scholarship and my record. And I think it’s, you know, a really important point because it shows how disinformation works, when we lack information there are these informational vacuums that get filled. And if we don’t respond quickly enough, that’s the narrative that sticks.

MARTIN: So, talk about the dimensions of what this, it’s like smears against you personally?

JANKOWCZ: Sure. So, beyond the baseless attacks about what the board was going to be doing, that informational vacuum also led to a lot of attacks on me and my family, as you’ve said. So, it was not just about my record, my tweets and previous statements being cherrypicked and taken absolutely out of context and, you know, stripped of all nuance but it was gendered and sexualize attacks against me. It was, you know, death threats almost every day for over three weeks against me and my family. It was doxing of me and my family and our personal information. And frankly, you know, I think it’s OK for government officials to be criticize and we should be held to account and criticized, but these attacks of a personal nature were meant to silence me, frankly. They were meant to push me out of the job, to make me toxic to the Biden administration and to silence me and they’ve continued even after I’ve resigned from the job, which wasn’t because of the attacks, it was because the lack of clarity about the future of the board within the administration. And frankly, you know, I’ve received continued attacks from sitting U.S. senators and representatives who just seem to want to make me the main character of their pre-election, you know, push here in the United States ahead of the midterms. And I’m just a person, right? I’m 39 weeks pregnant right now. Not that saves me from criticism. But, you know, I would wish that we had a little bit more humanity in our politics right now. And that these attacks would stop because the clear indication is that the folks who are in power are — even though they’re not saying it overtly, tacitly endorsing these types of attacks that my family and I have received. They know that this is how their supporters act online. And frankly, you know, it’s a scary indication of where our politics have gotten to, that something that should be substantively debated, that Americans are going to have concerns about, and I understand those concerns, that’s all been pushed to the side. Our national security concerns have been pushed the side for this vitriolic childish attack on a single person who frankly didn’t have the much power within the department anyway.

MARTIN: It’s depressing and disturbing enough for these far-right trolls to be putting your personal information out there. Basically, encouraging people to harm you. That’s with that is, that’s with us for. But to have elected officials, you know, why do you think this approach was the approach that they took? And why do you think — and frankly, it has to be asked, why do you think the department was caught so flat-footed?

JANKOWCZ: Yes. Well, on the case of the officials, this is just the way that our politics has become. It’s become extremely personalized as you noted, Michel. And I think I’m a great main character for them. I have been opinionated, I’m a young woman, I have expressed myself online authentically, including, you know, posting videos, singing and things like that. It’s easy for them to attack me and to belittle me and to make fun of me. And in the absence of information that the department did not put out about what the board was going to do, it was easy to whip up that outrage against me personally and again, make me the main character of the campaign. It was just too easy for them. Where there was a lack of information elsewhere. And the department, you know, it’s a very large department, 250,000 people work at the Department Homeland Security. It has many different priorities and equities, as I mentioned before. And I think as the rollout was happening, there were other priorities. And then, in responding to these attacks, it’s kind of a delicate dance, right? You don’t want to give too much credence to the absurd things that people are saying, especially when they’re completely false. But you do need to respond rapidly and provide information where it’s being requested. And the department was unable to do that. So, I think what we see here is the desire on the behalf of the government to fight disinformation but a misunderstanding of, you know, the nuts and bolts of how to do it. You cannot just put out a fact sheet and especially when there this, you know, huge distrust between Americans and the government right now. Hope that Americans are going to buy into everything that’s in that fact sheet. You need to tell a better story, you need to do it quickly, rapidly, openly and transparently.

MARTIN: But I guess I still I’m curious of this question of why was the administration’s response so flat-footed as — because, you know, you are the expert in this, you are one of the country’s if not the world’s leading experts in this. You wrote a whole book about “How to Lose the Information War” and How to be a Woman Online,” which is your latest book. And yet, you are the target of all the strategies that you wrote about. And I just have to ask, I don’t understand that, do you?

JONES: No, frankly, Michel, I don’t. I had tried throughout my time at the department, which was almost three months, sometime before the rollout happened to guide the rollout in a way that I thought would be most effective. And even after these attacks started, I had given the department guidance about how to deal with them. And unfortunately, the guidance wasn’t heeded. And this, again, speaks into the disproportionate nature of the attacks against me, seeing me as this kind of a huge figure head in the department. When in reality, I was, you know, a high-ranking civil servant but not somebody who had been Senate confirmed. There are many levels of decision- makers above me, and the decisions got made above my pay grade, frankly. And, you know, I ended up being collateral. I would’ve been happy to continue to take those attacks if I felt that the administration were invested in this fight. But I don’t necessarily feel that anymore.

MARTIN: Talk about the connection to national security. So, why do you say that addressing this and coming in — developing an all-government response is a matter of national security?

JANKOWCZ: Well, I think you can look at any of the three countries I’ve mentioned already, Russia, China, or Iran, and look at their campaigns and see how they use our political polarization to further their own ends. So, we saw in 2016, of course, Russia manipulating fissures in our society from racism to economic inequality to gender inequality, all to push Russian foreign policy goals and make us more polarized, right? That benefits Russia because when we’re fighting amongst ourselves, we’re paying a lot less attention to what Russia is doing abroad, whether that’s in Ukraine and Syria and Venezuela and Central African Republic. China and Iran also know that. In 2020, we saw Iran also trying to meddle in the presidential election by pushing fake e-mails to Democratic voters to discourage them to stay home from the polls. China decided not to meddle in the 2020 election but has certainly been involved in influencing our political discourse particularly all-round COVID-19. So, these are all issues that affect American’s democratic participation, which is a matter of national security. And everybody should care about, we should only want Americans dealing in our elections, right? Those are the people that have the right to vote. But also, you know, our health and our public safety. We see violent events like the insurrection on January 6th or some of the protests that happened during the Black Lives Matter movement or any other violent event, even some of the shootings that we’ve seen being manipulated by foreign actors. So, all of this is extremely important. And then, at the Department of Homeland Security we were dealing again, Michel, with things that affected American safety. So, if there were disinformation about a gas pipeline or a natural disaster law, that’s the sort of stuff that were looking to combat, to keep Americans safe and secure. And I think every elected representative should want that for the country. It was nothing to do with policing American speech, but really making Americans aware that we are being manipulated, again, by people who are sharing disinformation for power and for profit.

MARTIN: You would think that elected officials in this country would be concerned about that. And I’m just — this maybe beyond your wheel house, but why do you think they are not?

JANKOWCZ: Well, Michel, I have done a number of hearings on Capitol Hill, serving as both Republican and Democratic witness, ironically some of the very folks who have attacked me have supported my work in the past when I’ve been testifying before them. And I have always been dismayed to see the partisanship on this issue. There are many Republicans on Capitol Hill that are happy to talk about disinformation behind closed doors. But when it comes to hearings, they’ll stay for opening statements and not engage in discussion afterward or they just won’t show up for hearings, point blank. I have had one hearing where there has been equal Democratic and Republican representation at that hearing. And it’s because this issue has become such a political kind of firebrand, it is not something that Republicans want to be seen by their base as supporting and addressing. And that is extremely upsetting. And I think Republicans recognize that it really fires up their base to say that people are trampling on First Amendment rights when there are ways to address disinformation without trampling on First Amendment rights.

MARTIN: We have seen a recent real-time example when Ukrainians successfully got out in front of disinformation campaigns that were clearly being planned by the Russians to justify their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. And Americans, it is my understanding, it seems to me that the Biden administration and the military were effective in supporting that effort by strategically releasing intelligence information that supported the fact basis of what the Ukrainians were saying, right? You’re wondering what it is that they could not do when it came to Americans interests. I’m guessing that — has that question occurred to you?

JANKOWCZ: Oh, absolutely. You know, I think Ukraine has learned a lot over the past eight years and they have paid for it with Ukrainian lives, right? They understand that this is an issue that does have a material and human effect on people. They recognize that Russian disinformation has led two lives lost in their country. Now, when we are talking about disinformation here, I think we can point to a couple of examples. COVID, for instance, the violent insurrection of the capital on January 6th, the number of other violent events that have occurred, that been spawned by disinformation. But we haven’t had this national reckoning yet, that this is something that really does put people in danger. And after the insurrection, you know, I wrote a piece in “Foreign Affairs” asking, you know, if this was enough. Now that the internet has come for you, Member of Congress, are we going to wake up and address this issue? And we have not been able to yet. And I think, you know, the administration, to some extent, feels hemmed in by Congress’s polarization and their lack of action on this issue is afraid to really come out in front and pushback using executive branch powers. And there are also, you know, legitimate First Amendment concerns. But, again, I think there are ways to fight disinformation, through public and private partnership, through, you know, putting together some really good guardrails, which, again, the Disinformation Governance Board was meant to do in order to be able to monitor what is being said in the public sphere, not for individual Americans, but the general narratives that are going around, and to pre bunk them, to make sure that we are keeping Americans safe and, again, we’re protecting your national security.

MARTIN: We reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment knowing, obviously, that we were going to speak with you today. And this is what they said. They said, the Board’s purpose has been grossly and intentionally mischaracterized. It was never about censorship or policing speech in any manner. Quit the opposite. It was designed to assure we fulfill our mission to protect the homeland while protecting who core constitutional rights. As it’s executive director, Nina Jankowcz, was subjected to unjustified and vile personal attacks and physical threats. As the secretary has repeatedly said in Congressional hearings and media interviews, Nina is eminently qualified to do this work. We know she will continue to be a leader in this field. So, that is their statement, however they decided to disseminate it. What about that? I mean, what’s — does that make you — I don’t know. Maybe it is a stupid question. Does that make you feel better?

JANKOWCZ: Well, it’s what the department had been saying for the past several weeks. I wish that we were able to come out sooner and, again, more strongly. As the attacks began, the week of April 27th when we made the announcement, and I wish we were able to provide more information more quickly, because if that had been the case, I might still be at the department today. But I do hope that as, again, this board is examined by the Homeland Security Advisory Committee, that the folks who are advising the department recognize the importance of its work and go forward with it, do not succumb to these partisan attacks. And whoever they empower to lead it in the future, I hope they are ready to support them vocally, because that person is also going to come under, you know, serious attack. And I think it is important to recognize that, you know, I was potentially the most prepared person to deal with those sorts of attacks and it was still quite difficult for me. And we need to think about in the internet era how, not only government agencies but media organizations, academic institutions are willing to support the people who are out there in the public sphere, you know, doing the work as figureheads as it were. Because this is the reality of the internet now, unfortunately. And I talk about this in my second book. Too many organizations do not recognize that and leave their employees to just kind twist in the wind.

MARTIN: Do you believe that the Biden administration basically left you to twist in the wind?

JANKOWCZ: I would have really preferred a more forceful response that focused on my bonafide (ph) days of which there are many. I wrote two books. I’ve written hundreds of pages of academic and other articles that they could have pulled from and rebooted these attacks. And frankly, I was not allowed to speak during those three weeks when my own personal reputation was being attacked every single day. I would have loved to have gotten out there and rebutted these attacks personally, both, you know, about my reputation and about the board, but that wasn’t something the administration was willing to do. And again, I think that created more of an informational vacuum. And frankly, you know, I worry about the young women who are looking at my Twitter feed and I respond to a tweet or I send a tweet now and it’s just hundreds of filthy and terrible messages, some of them violent coming back at me and I wonder what they are thinking, you know, that downstream effect. If I am offered a position in the national security apparatus, will I take it or should I, you know, look for something a little bit less public because I don’t want to deal with these attacks? Or even worse, you know, if I want a position in national security or politics in the future, do I need to stay silent? Should I not send this tweet? Should I not engage online? That is the silencing effect that I think these campaigns have. And I just want everyone to know that I am not going to be silent in the future. These attacks are not going to stop me. It’s going to change perhaps the way I engage online, which is a reality for most women and especially women of color. But I am going to continue doing what I have always done and speaking out against this behavior because I think it really is a detriment to our political discourse and our democracy.

MARTIN: Nina Jankowcz, thank you so much for talking with us today.

JANKOWCZ: My pleasure, Michel.