1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION 

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC et al.,

Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE et al.,

Defendants.

 Civil Action No. 6:23-cv-00609 (JDK)

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER 

Defendants hereby answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 1, as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

Defendants note that the Complaint contains headers and sub-titles, which do not consist of 

numbered paragraphs. To the extent those headers contain allegations requiring a response, denied. 

Those headers and sub-titles are included in this Answer solely for the convenience of the reader in 

cross-referencing the allegations in the Complaint with the response in the Answer. Additionally, the 

unnumbered introductory paragraph in the Complaint consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of this 

action, which require no response. To the extent those characterizations contain allegations requiring 

a response, denied.

1. Denied. 

2. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions and characterizations of Plaintiffs’ claims 

to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, denied. 

3. With respect to the first sentence of this paragraph, denied. As to the second sentence 

of this paragraph, Defendants admit that Disinformation Index Ltd. (“GDI”), and NewsGuard 

Technologies, Inc. (“NewsGuard”) received subawards in 2020 and 2021 under a Global Engagement 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 2168
2

Center (“GEC”) grant to Park Capital Investment Group (“Park Advisors”), admit that one of each 

of these companies’ Tweets were retweeted on the Disinfo Cloud’s now-retired Twitter account in 

2021, and admit that GDI was referenced in the now-retired Disinfo Cloud Digest, but deny the 

remainder of the allegations in this sentence, which consist of Plaintiffs’ characterizations. As to the 

third sentence of this paragraph, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny. 

4. Defendants deny the allegation that GDI and NewsGuard are “government-funded 

and government-promoted censorship enterprises,” and that Defendants have an “unlawful 

censorship scheme” or caused Media Plaintiffs harm. In all other respects, Defendants lack sufficient 

knowledge to admit or deny this paragraph. 

5. Denied.

6. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions and characterizations of Plaintiffs’ claims 

to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, deny that Plaintiffs are 

entitled to any relief.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions regarding jurisdiction to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, admitted that Plaintiffs’ claims arise 

under the Constitution and federal laws and that the agencies, officers, and/or the employees of the 

United States are Defendants but denied that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case

because, in Defendants’ view, Plaintiffs lack Article III standing.

8. This paragraph consists of characterizations of Plaintiffs’ request for relief to which 

no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, admitted.

9. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions regarding venue to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is deemed required, denied.

10. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions regarding the Court’s authority to which 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 2169
3

no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, denied.

PARTIES

11. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny this paragraph. 

12. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny this paragraph. 

13. Admitted. 

14. The first sentence of this paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of the 

purposes of this lawsuit, to which no response is required. The second sentence consists of legal 

conclusions and characterizations of Plaintiffs’ claims to which no response is required. Defendants 

lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the third sentence.

15. Admitted. 

16. Admitted. 

17. Defendants admit that the GEC is housed in, and funded by, the State Department. 

Defendants deny that the GEC is an “interagency center.”

18. Defendants admit that Leah Bray is the Deputy Coordinator for Policy, Plans, and 

Operations at the GEC and that she is sued in her official capacity.

19. Defendants admit that James P. Rubin is the Special Envoy and Coordinator for the 

GEC and that he is sued in his official capacity. 

20. Admitted.

21. Admitted.

22. Defendants admit that Patricia Watts was formerly the director of the Technology 

Engagement Team (“TET”) of the GEC, and that she is sued in her official capacity, but deny that 

she currently serves in that role. Defendants further aver that Ms. Watts is currently serving as the 

Acting Deputy Coordinator for Support for the GEC.

23. This paragraph consists of characterizations of Plaintiffs’ claims to which no response 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 2170
4

is required. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

24. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of history that purportedly 

underlies their claims, to which no response is required. 

25. Defendants admit that this paragraph cites a CNN.com article indicating that in 1960 

there were “three channels (CBS, NBC, and ABC)”. Defendants otherwise lack sufficient knowledge 

to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

26. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph. 

27. Defendants admit that this paragraph cites an article indicating that there was “a 

proliferation of news providers and platforms” in the “digital era.” Defendants otherwise lack 

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

28. Defendants admit that the quoted material appears in the cited article. Defendants 

otherwise lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

29. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph. 

30. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph. 

31. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph. 

32. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph. 

33. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 2171
5

34. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

35. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

36. Denied.

37. As to the first sentence, which consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of public 

perception, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations. As to the second 

sentence, denied. 

38. This paragraph consists of characterizations of Plaintiffs’ claims to which no response 

is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, denied. 

“Media Plaintiffs: The Daily Wire and The Federalist” 

39. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

40. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

41. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

42. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

43. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

44. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

“Federal Government Conspires with Big Tech & Social Media Outlets to Silence New 

Media” 

45. Denied. Defendants further aver that the allegations in this paragraph rely solely on

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 2172
6

judicial opinions that have since been reversed by the Supreme Court. See Murthy v. Missouri, 144 S. 

Ct. 1972 (2024).

46. Denied. Defendants further aver that the allegations in this paragraph rely solely on 

judicial opinions that have since been reversed by the Supreme Court. See id.

47. Denied. Defendants further aver that the allegations in this paragraph rely solely on 

judicial opinions that have since been reversed by the Supreme Court. See id.

“State Department’s GEC Leads One Arm of the Government’s Censorship Complex, 

Targeting Speech by Americans, to Americans, in America” 

48. Denied.

49. Defendants admit that GEC is housed within the Department of State, and that in 

2011, Executive Order 13584 tasked the Department of State’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism 

Communications (“CSCC”) with coordinating Government-wide public communications activities

directed at audiences abroad and targeted against violent extremism and terrorist organizations. 

Defendants deny that GEC is a “multi-agency center.” 

50. Defendants admit that Executive Order 13721, issued in 2016, revoked Executive 

Order 13584, and established the Global Engagement Center within the Department of State to 

coordinate Government-wide communications activities directed at foreign audiences abroad in order 

to counter the messaging and diminish the influence of international terrorist organizations and other 

violent extremists abroad. In all other respects, denied.

51. Admitted. 

52. Defendants admit that, after amendments to section 1287 of FY 17 NDAA in the FY 

19 NDAA, GEC’s statutorily-identified purpose includes countering foreign state and foreign nonstate propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the policies, security, 

or stability of the United States and United States allies and partner nations. In all other respects, 

denied.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 2173
7

53. With respect to the first sentence, Defendants admit that the GEC’s purpose, as 

established by statute, is to direct, lead, synchronize, integrate, and coordinate efforts of the Federal 

Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and foreign non-state 

propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the policies, security, or 

stability of the United States and United States allies an partner nations. In all other respects, denied.

With respect to the second sentence, Defendants admit that the quoted language is incorporated in 

section 1287 of FY 17 NDAA.

“GEC Violates Its Congressional Mandate by Targeting Americans’ Speech”

54. Denied.

“Disinfo Cloud: State Department’s Alter Ego”

55. Admitted that the GEC awarded an approximately three-million-dollar grant to Park 

Capital Investment Group LLC (“Park Advisors”) to perform activities related to countering foreign 

propaganda and disinformation in September 2018, and that Park Advisors was a private, for-profit 

entity that is now closed. No response is required as to Plaintiffs’ characterization of Park Advisors as 

the Department of State’s “alter ego,” which Plaintiffs do not define. To the extent a response is 

required, denied. Defendants otherwise deny the allegations in this Paragraph. 

56. Denied.

57. Denied, except Defendants admit that GEC used Park Advisors to develop and 

manage multiple initiatives of the GEC and Park Advisors launched the Disinfo Cloud platform. 

58. Admitted. Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the September 2022 report from 

the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) referenced in this paragraph for a complete and accurate 

statement of its contents.

59. As to the first sentence, Defendants admit that Park Advisors awarded a $100,000

subgrant to the London-based company Disinformation Index Ltd. as a part of the U.S.-Paris Tech 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 2174
8

Challenge in 2021. Defendants also admit that the U.S.-Paris Tech Challenge was an invitation-only 

event meant to counter propaganda and disinformation in Europe. In all other respects, denied. As to 

the second sentence, Defendants admit that this is how the event is described on the referenced 

website but aver that the event was not sponsored in collaboration with Disinfo Cloud because 

Disinfo Cloud was a platform managed by Park Advisors, not an entity. 

60. Defendants admit that Christina Nemr served as the director of Park Advisors and the 

administrator of Disinfo Cloud but otherwise lack sufficient information to admit or deny the 

allegations in this paragraph. 

61. Defendants admit that Park Advisors managed Disinfo Cloud under its grants from 

the GEC. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of allegations in this 

paragraph.

62. Admitted. Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the OIG report referenced in 

this paragraph for a complete and accurate statement of its contents.

63. Defendants admit that in a September 2022 OIG Report, the OIG found GEC lacked 

“necessary internal controls to ensure contractors did not perform inherently governmental 

functions.” Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the OIG report referenced in this paragraph 

for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. In all other respects, denied. 

“Disinfo Cloud Served as a De Facto Arm of GEC’s TET”

64. Denied.

65. Defendants admit that Disinfo Cloud was a platform that acted as a repository to 

catalog technologies to counter foreign information manipulation. Defendants further aver that 

Disinfo Cloud was a former platform and is no longer in use. In all other respects, denied. 

66. Admitted that the quoted description of Disinfo Cloud was included on an archived 

version of the State Department’s website. 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 2175
9

67. Admitted, except to deny that the quoted language is a direct quote from the cited 

website. The reference to entities being “significant to this complaint” is a characterization of 

Plaintiffs’ claims to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, denied

68. Denied. 

69. Defendants admit that the flyer available on the referenced website refers to factchecking technologies, media literacy, media intelligence platforms, social network mapping, and 

machine learning/artificial intelligence, but deny that Disinfo Cloud contained the technologies 

themselves.

70. Defendants admit that the actions alleged in the paragraph were taken, but aver that 

they were taken by Park Advisors or GEC. Defendants deny that Disinfo Cloud took the actions 

described in this paragraph as Disinfo Cloud was a repository where assessments of technologies were 

stored.

71. As to the first sentence, Defendants deny that Disinfo Cloud took the alleged actions, 

deny that these technologies amount to “censorship tools and technologies,” and admit that Park 

Advisors or GEC would conduct further research of technologies as described in the video at the time 

stamp indicated in footnote 44 of the Complaint. Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the 

referenced video for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. As to the second sentence, 

deny that Disinfo Cloud compiled any reports, but admit that Park Advisors or GEC compiled the 

alleged reports.

72. Defendants admit that Park Advisors and GEC identified and assessed over 365 tools 

and technologies, and this information was placed on Disinfo Cloud, but deny that these technologies 

were “identified and assessed” by Disinfo Cloud.

73. Defendants admit that the Disinfo Cloud webpage was originally available only to “.mil 

and .gov” users. In all other respects, denied. 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 2176
10

74. Admitted that Nemr was the Administrator of Disinfo Cloud and that she made the 

statement referenced in the cited video. Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the referenced 

video for a complete and accurate statement of its contents.

“GEC Takes Its Censorship Team on the Road”

75. Denied. 

76. As to the first sentence, denied. As to the second sentence, Defendants admit that the 

quoted language is contained on the referenced website. In all other respects, denied.

“The State Department Gifts the Tech Industry GEC’s Censorship Infrastructure” 

77. Denied.

78. Defendants admit that Samaruddin Stewart was a Senior Advisor with the GEC and 

that he had meetings to discuss countering foreign disinformation with social media platforms. 

Defendants lack sufficient information about the documents produced by other defendants or third 

parties in Missouri v. Biden to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 

79. Admitted, except that Defendants deny that “Disinfo Cloud marketed itself,” and aver 

that Park Advisors marketed Disinfo Cloud as such. 

80. Admitted.

81. Defendants admit that Defendant State Department’s webpage contains the quoted 

material. Denied that this encompassed “American technology companies.”

82. Defendants admit that Disinfo Cloud contained a newsfeed of the latest research, 

news, and related events published by third parties. Denied that Disinfo Cloud contained a “repository 

of censorship tools and technologies.” 

“Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud” 

83. Defendants admit that the quoted language is contained in the referenced video. 

Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the referenced video for a complete and accurate statement 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 2177
11

of its contents.

84. Defendants admit that Alexis Frisbie stated that the GEC is “certainly not looking to 

influence anything on the national level.” In all other respects, denied. 

85. Defendants admit that the quoted language is reflected in documents cited in in the 

referenced court opinion, but aver that these statements come from Daniel Kimmage, not Alexis 

Frisbie. Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the referenced opinion for a complete and accurate 

statement of its contents. 

86. Denied. 

“Disinfo Cloud’s Other Censorship-Promoting Activities”

87. As to the first sentence, Defendants admit that Park Advisors maintained a Twitter 

account for Disinfo Cloud which is still publicly available (although it has been inactive since 2021). 

Defendants deny that Disinfo Cloud maintained a Twitter account for itself. No response is required 

as to Plaintiffs’ characterization of Disinfo Cloud as the Department of State’s “alter ego,” which 

Plaintiffs do not define. To the extent a response is required, denied. As to the second sentence,

Defendants admit that the quoted language appears in the pictures in this paragraph, and respectfully 

refers the Court to the pictures for a complete and accurate picture of their contents. Defendants 

otherwise deny the allegations in this paragraph.

88. As to the first sentence, Defendants admit that the Disinfo Cloud Digest was launched 

by Park Advisors in December 2020 and was a weekly newsletter. In all other respects, denied. As to 

the second sentence, admitted.

89. Defendants admit that on April 6, 2021, the Disinfo Cloud Digest stated, “NewsGuard 

launched a new tool, Responsible Advertising for News Segments (RANS), to help advertising 

companies avoid websites known to host or produce mis/disinformation.” In all other respects, 

denied.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 2178
12

“Disinfo Cloud Served as Defendant State Department’s Alter Ego in Running TET’s 

Testbed”

90. Defendants admit that Disinfo Cloud was labeled as a “gateway” to the TET’s Testbed

initiative, but deny that Disinfo Cloud “managed” the initiative. No response is required as to 

Plaintiffs’ characterization of Disinfo Cloud as the Department of State’s “alter ego,” which Plaintiffs 

do not define. To the extent a response is required, denied.

91. Defendants admit that the Testbed program seeks to counter foreign propaganda and 

disinformation by testing specific tools or technologies against a submitted proposal for a rapid 

assessment of technologies that are employed against real operational challenges. No response is 

required as to Plaintiffs’ characterization of propaganda as “supposed propaganda.” To the extent a 

response is required, denied.

92. Defendants admit that the Testbed program was established to rapidly identify, assess, 

and test technologies to counter adversarial propaganda and disinformation and that the testbed ran 

pilots of the technologies. Denied that the technologies are “censorship technologies.”

93. Defendants deny that pilots of technology in connection with the Testbed target 

domestic speech, including Media Plaintiffs’ speech.

94. Denied.

95. Defendants admit that Disinfo Cloud users included some members of academia, the 

private sector, and tech vendors, including some located within the United States. Defendants also 

admit that Disinfo Cloud users were able to ask for assistance in identifying a technological solution 

or draft a test proposal for a tool, but aver that this feature was intended for foreign governments and 

interagency partners. In all other respects, denied.

“GEC Hosted Tech Challenges to Find and Fund Censorship Technology Through Its Alter 

Ego Disinfo Cloud” 

96. Denied. No response is required as to Plaintiffs’ characterization of Disinfo Cloud as 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 2179
13

the Department of State’s “alter ego,” which Plaintiffs do not define. To the extent a response is 

required, denied.

97. Admitted, but aver that tech challenges were aimed at countering disinformation and 

propaganda overseas.

98. Defendants admit that, under a grant from the GEC, Park Advisors supported the 

administration of three international Tech Challenges, where over 110 technologies were identified.

In all other respects, denied.

99. Denied. Defendants aver that the tools and technologies identified through the tech 

challenges are content neutral in that they do not themselves “target” particular audiences, and that 

the purpose of the tech challenges is to identify tools and technologies only for the purpose of 

countering foreign disinformation and propaganda. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ allegations concern 

how tools and technologies are leveraged by individuals or entities outside of the Department of State, 

Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny. 

100. As to the first sentence, admitted. As to the second sentence, denied. 

“At Least Two Censorship Technologies Funded and/or Promoted by GEC Targeted Media 

Plaintiffs” 

101. Admitted that Disinfo Cloud included assessments of over 365 tools and technologies, 

including GDI and NewsGuard. In all other respects, denied. 

102. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

103. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

104. Denied.

“GDI’s Blacklist” 

105. Defendants admit that the referenced website contains the quoted material. For all 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 2180
14

other purposes, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

106. Defendants deny that the referenced website contains the quoted material. For all 

other purposes, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

107. Admitted.

108. Defendants admit that the referenced website contains the quoted material. For all 

other purposes, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

109. As to the first sentence, denied. As to the second sentence, Defendants admit that the 

referenced document contains the quoted material. For all other purposes, Defendants lack sufficient 

knowledge to admit or deny the allegations.

110. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

111. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

112. Defendants admit that the referenced article contains the quoted material. For all other 

purposes, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph.

113. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

114. Defendants admit that GDI received funding under a State Department grant, but 

aver that Defendants did not fund or participate in the creation of the Dynamic Exclusion List. With 

respect to the rest of the allegation in this paragraph, denied.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 2181
15

“GDI’s Less Secret Blacklist” 

115. As to the first sentence, Defendants admit that GDI published a report which included 

a list of the 10 “least risky” and the 10 “most risky” of only those sixty-nine news sites manually 

reviewed for the purposes of that report, but aver that Defendants did not fund or participate in the 

creation of the report or the Dynamic Exclusion List. As to the second sentence, Defendants admit 

that the referenced website contains the quoted material. For all other purposes, Defendants lack 

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations.

116. Defendants admit that, in GDI’s 2022 Disinformation Risk Assessment Report, Media 

Plaintiffs were listed among the “riskiest sites.” As to the date of the report, denied as Defendants 

understand that the report was published in November 2022.

“NewsGuard’s Rating Service Also Seeks to Censor Speech” 

117. Defendants admit that NewsGuard rates the credibility of news sources, but in all 

other respects, lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph.

118. Admitted that the cited webpage contains the quoted language. For all other purposes, 

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations.

119. Defendants admit that the quoted language appears on the referenced website. In all 

other respects, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

120. Defendants admit that the quoted language appears on the referenced website. In all 

other respects, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

121. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph. 

122. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph. 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 2182
16

“The Press Non Grata” 

123. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

124. Denied.

“GEC Funds GDI” 

125. Defendants admit that the London-based company Disinformation Index Ltd. 

received a $100,000 subgrant from Park Advisors as a part of the U.S.-Paris Tech Challenge in 2021. 

126. Admitted, except that Defendants deny that GDI “blacklisted Media Plaintiffs” and 

deny that the tech challenges only “purport[]” to fund foreign-based technology and technology 

companies.

127. Admitted.

128. Defendants admit that Daniel Rogers, Co-founder and a Director of the 

Disinformation Index Ltd., stated at the 2021 U.S.-Paris Tech Challenge that GDI was giving the “ad 

tech industry” the “ability to steer ad dollars away from disinformation and towards quality 

journalism.” Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the video for a complete and accurate 

statement of its contents. In all other respects, denied.

129. Defendants admit that Daniel Rogers, Co-founder and a Director of the 

Disinformation Index Ltd., stated the quoted language in the referenced video during the U.S.-Paris 

Tech Challenge. Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the video for a complete and accurate 

statement of its contents. 

130. Defendants admit that the quoted language appears on the referenced website. In all 

other respects, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations.

131. Defendants admit that Clare Melford stated the quoted language in the referenced 

video. Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the video for a complete and accurate statement of 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 16 of 32 PageID #: 2183
17

its contents. In all other respects, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the 

allegations.

132. Defendants admit that Patricia Watts stated the quoted language in the referenced 

video, but deny that she “championed GDI and the other censorship enterprises.” Defendants 

respectfully refer the Court to the video for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. 

133. Defendants admit that the London-based company Disinformation Index Ltd. 

received a $100,000 subgrant from Park Advisors as a part of the U.S.-Paris Tech Challenge in 2021 

and that GDI was mentioned on the Disinfo Cloud Twitter platform. No response is required as to 

Plaintiffs’ characterization of Disinfo Cloud as the Department of State’s “alter ego,” which Plaintiffs 

do not define. To the extent a response is required, denied. In all other respects, denied.

“GDI’s Government-Sponsored Blacklist is Exposed” 

134. Defendants admit that the referenced website is entitled “Disinformation Inc: 

Watchdog launches sweeping investigation into conservative blacklists.” Defendants respectfully refer 

the Court to the article for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. In all other respects, 

denied. 

“NED’s Funding of the Disinformation Index, Inc.” 

135. Defendants admit that the referenced website reflects that the National Endowment 

for Democracy (“NED”) awarded “Disinformation Index, Inc.” a $315,570 award for “Strengthening 

Information Integrity in the Digital Space.” In all other respects, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge 

to admit or deny the allegations. 

136. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

137. Defendants admit that Disinformation Index, Inc. is the United States-based affiliate 

of the British-based Disinformation Index, Ltd. In all other respects, Defendants lack sufficient 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 17 of 32 PageID #: 2184
18

knowledge to admit or deny the allegations. 

138. As to the first sentence, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the 

allegations. As to the second sentence, Defendants admit that at least one of the referenced websites 

contains the quoted material. In all other respects, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or 

deny the allegations. 

139. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph.

140. Admitted that the referenced website contains the quoted material. In all other 

respects, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations. 

141. Denied that the referenced website contains the quoted material. In all other respects, 

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph.

“Disinfo Cloud Funneled Money to Other American Censorship Companies” 

142. Admitted.

143. Defendants admit that NewsGuard, Peak Metrics, and Omelas were named winners 

of the 2020 NSIN Challenge. In all other respects, denied.

144. Defendants admit that winners of the tech challenge received a $25,000 governmentfunded award. No response is required as to Plaintiffs’ characterization of Disinfo Cloud as the 

Department of State’s “alter ego,” which Plaintiffs do not define. To the extent a response is required, 

denied. In all other respects, denied.

145. Defendants admit that winners received $25,000 for a test in connection with the 

Testbed initiative; in all other respects, denied.

146. Admitted that the cited press release contains the quoted material. In all other respects, 

denied.

147. Denied that NewsGaurd used its technology in connection with the NSIN tech 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 18 of 32 PageID #: 2185
19

challenge to rate American media outlets. In all other respects, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge 

to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph.

148. Admitted that the quoted language appears on the referenced website. Defendants 

respectfully refer the Court to the referenced website for a complete and accurate statement of its 

contents.

149. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph. 

150. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph, but aver that the purpose of work done under the Testbed in connection with the NSIN 

Challenge was focused on countering foreign disinformation and propaganda.

151. Admit that PeakMetrics received a $25,000 award under the NSIN Challenge. In all 

other respects, denied.

152. Admitted that Omelas was named a winner of the 2020 NSIN Challenge, and that the 

quoted language appears on the referenced website. Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the 

referenced website for a complete and accurate statement of its contents.

153. Admit that Omelas received a $25,000 award under the NSIN Challenge. In all other 

respects, denied. 

154. Denied.

“Disinfo Cloud: Cheerleaders for NewsGuard” 

155. Admitted that NewsGuard was at one point mentioned on the DisinfoCloud Twitter 

feed, but Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations as to the Tweet 

mentioned in this paragraph. 

156. Admitted that NewsGuard was featured in at least one Disinfo Cloud Digest. In all 

other respects, denied.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 19 of 32 PageID #: 2186
20

“GEC Funded and Promoted Hundreds of Censorship Tools” 

157. Denied.

158. Denied.

159. Denied.

“Media Plaintiffs Suffer Ongoing Harm from Alter Ego Disinfo Cloud’s Abridgment of Their 

First Amendment Rights” 

160. Admitted.

161. Defendants admit that the Disinfo Cloud platform and the Disinfo Cloud Digest have 

been retired. Defendants also admit that Disinfo Cloud’s Twitter account remains accessible and has 

posts that reference and/or link to GDI, NewsGuard, and the DisinfoCloud Digest. In all other 

respects, denied.

162. Denied. 

163. Denied. 

164. As to the first sentence, denied. The second and third sentences contain legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied.

“Defendants Continue to Infringement on Media Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights” 

165. Defendants admit that DisinfoCloud.com is no longer publicly accessible, but deny 

the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.

166. Defendants admit that in the September 2022 OIG report, the OIG found that 

analytics platforms operated with unapproved non-governmental domain names. The remainder of 

the allegations consist of characterizations of the OIG report, to which no response is required. To 

the extent a response is deemed required, denied. Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the OIG 

report referenced in this paragraph for a complete and accurate statement of its contents.

“The Censorship Continues” 

167. Defendants admit that Disinfo Cloud and the Disinfo Cloud Digest have been retired 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 20 of 32 PageID #: 2187
21

but deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.

168. Admitted.

169. Denied. Defendants aver that the tools and technologies assessed by the GEC are 

content neutral in that they do not themselves “target” particular audiences, and that Defendants work 

with tools and technologies only for the purpose of countering foreign disinformation and 

propaganda. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ allegations concern how tools and technologies are leveraged 

by individuals or entities outside of the Department of State, Defendants lack sufficient information 

to admit or deny. 

170. Defendants admit that the TET continues to host tech challenges, but deny the 

remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 

171. Admitted. 

172. Denied.

173. Denied.

174. As to the first sentence, admitted. As to the second sentence, Defendants lack 

sufficient information to admit or deny how “counter-disinfo” “solutions, dashboards, and research”

are leveraged or promoted by individuals or entities outside of the Department of State.

175. Denied.

“Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss” 

176. Defendants admit that the Disinfo Cloud platform is now retired. As to the specifics 

of Becera’s founding, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegation. In all 

other respects, denied.

177. Defendants admit that the referenced website contains the quoted material.

178. Defendants admit that Becera has received State Department funding through a subaward under a GEC contract. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 21 of 32 PageID #: 2188
22

regarding the amount of the award and the timing of the award. In all other respects, denied.

179. Admitted.

180. Denied. 

RELEVANT PRINCIPLES 

I. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS ABRIDGEMENT OF THE RIGHT 

TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

181. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

182. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

183. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

184. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

185. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

186. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

187. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

188. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

189. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

190. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

191. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 22 of 32 PageID #: 2189
23

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

192. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

193. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

194. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

195. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

196. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

197. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

198. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

II. The GOVERNMENT MAY NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ABRIDGE 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS

“Defendant State Department’s Own Conduct Abridged Plaintiffs’ Rights” 

199. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

200. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

201. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

202. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

203. Denied.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 23 of 32 PageID #: 2190
24

204. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

205. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

“The State Department Defendants Are Also Responsible for Private Censorship Efforts” 

206. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

207. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

208. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

209. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

210. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

211. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

212. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

213. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

214. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

215. Denied.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 24 of 32 PageID #: 2191
25

216. Denied.

217. Denied.

218. Denied.

219. Denied.

220. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

221. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

III. AGENCIES ARE ONLY PERMITTED TO EXERCISE CONGRESSIONALLY 

DELEGATED AUTHORITY 

222. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

223. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

224. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

225. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

226. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

227. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

228. Denied.

229. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

230. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

IV. CONGRESS MAY NOT DELEGATE AUTHORITY VIOLATIVE OF THE 

CONSTITUTION 

231. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 25 of 32 PageID #: 2192
26

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

232. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

233. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

V. DEFENDANTS UNLAWFUL ACTIONS INTERFERE WITH TEXAS

234. Denied. 

235. Denied. 

236. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

237. Denied.

238. Denied. 

239. Denied. 

VI. DEFENDANTS’ FUNDING, DEVELOPMENT, MARKETING, AND 

PROMOTION OF PRIVATE CENSORSHIP TOOLS, TECHNOLOGIES, 

AND CENSORSHIP ENTERPRISES IS A NON-FINAL UNLAWFUL 

AGENCY ACTION THAT MUST BE ENJOINED.

240. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

241. Denied. 

242. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required.

243. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

244. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

245. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 26 of 32 PageID #: 2193
27

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

246. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

247. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

248. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

249. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

250. Denied. 

251. Denied.

252. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

253. Denied. 

254. Denied. 

255. This paragraph is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 

VII. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEFENDANTS’ FUNDING OF PRIVATE 

CENSORSHIP TOOLS IS FINAL AGENCY ACTION THAT MUST BE SET 

ASIDE AND VACATED

256. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

257. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

258. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 27 of 32 PageID #: 2194
28

259. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

260. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

261. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

262. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

263. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

264. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

265. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

266. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

267. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

268. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

269. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

270. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 28 of 32 PageID #: 2195
29

271. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

COUNT ONE: ABRIDGEMENT OF MEDIA PLAINTIFS’ RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF 

SPEECH 

272. Defendants restate and incorporate by reference the responses contained in all 

preceding paragraphs. 

273. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

274. Denied.

275. Denied.

276. Denied.

COUNT TWO: ABRIDGEMENT OF MEDIA PLAINTIFS’ RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF 

PRESS

277. Defendants restate and incorporate by reference the responses contained in all 

preceding paragraphs. 

278. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

279. Denied.

280. Denied. 

281. Denied. 

282. Denied.

COUNT THREE: ULTRA VIRES NON-FINAL AGENCY ACTION BEYOND 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

283. Defendants restate and incorporate by reference the responses contained in all 

preceding paragraphs.

284. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 29 of 32 PageID #: 2196
30

285. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

286. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

287. Denied.

288. Denied.

289. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

290. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

291. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

292. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

293. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

294. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

295. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

296. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

297. Denied.

298. Denied.

299. Denied.

300. Denied. 

COUNT FOUR: FINAL AGENCY ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE 

ADMINISTATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

301. Defendants restate and incorporate by reference the responses contained in all 

preceding paragraphs.

302. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 30 of 32 PageID #: 2197
31

required.

303. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

304. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

305. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

306. This paragraph relates to a claim that has been dismissed and thus no response is 

required.

COUNT FIVE: ULTRA VIRES ACTION BEYOND CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS

307. Defendants restate and incorporate by reference the responses contained in all 

preceding paragraphs.

308. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

309. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

310. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of caselaw and legal conclusions 

regarding that caselaw to which no response is required. 

311. Denied.

312. Denied.

313. Denied.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 31 of 32 PageID #: 2198
32

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 Paragraphs A through I of this Section consist of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of their request 

for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants 

deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or to any relief whatsoever. 

Defendants hereby deny all allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint not expressly admitted herein. 

Date: September 3, 2024

 Respectfully submitted, 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

JOSHUA E. GARDNER

Special Counsel

Federal Programs Branch

JOSEPH E. BORSON 

Assistant Branch Director 

Federal Programs Branch

/s/ Dorothy Matilda Canevari 

DOROTHY M. CANEVARI (NY # 5989694)

CRISTEN C. HANDLEY 

JOSHUA KOLSKY 

ARJUN MODY 

Trial Attorneys

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

1100 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Tel: (202) 616-8040

Email: Dorothy.M.Canevari@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Defendants

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 75 Filed 09/03/24 Page 32 of 32 PageID #: 2199