No. It's not obvious. Conservatives have been saying for YEARS that the state departments are becoming political. Personally, I think they've always been political. However, the politics have changed enough to upset the balance that had been there previously. Some people want to believe this is malicious, but I think it's beyond that. Minus the natural hiring and promoting bias that has been shown in studies to be true of the left, I think most of this is a natural result of government bloat, which is more in line with progressive ideology. Couple that with entrenched, unelected bureaucrats and the shifting influence of corporations that are increasingly identifying with the left, and you have a recipe for agencies within departments that can and do function in their own interests.

None of this should be debatable (though I'm sure Mikey will find a way). I only bring it up because if the state departments do not share values with their commander-in-chief, you will see rogue behavior. I don't think it's possible to police this without a top-down structure that is working in unison. That's just not happening in DC. When you do see it (or think you see it), I think it's more because the President is in line with the establishment apparatus than it is that the departments are bending to the President's will. For example, Chuck Schumer specifically talked about this with regards to Trump. He said, "“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Why'd he say that if these departments function at the discretion of the President? You don't find that odd?

I realize that's a bit of a digression, but it's all context setting the stage for the battle between Trump and his internal agencies. It also roundaboutly addresses why a misinformation and disinformation board is dangerous politically, especially for conservatives.

Back to the topic: Can you tell me who approved the partnership with the EIP? I can't. I spent hours looking for that specific information the other day and the closest I got was Trump's administration attorneys (keep in mind that there are many, many administration attorneys for each department). Again, the acting DHS department head and deputy director of the DHS vehemently deny doing any operations like this that were approved by Trump. They said they ONLY had permission to address foreign misinformation and disinformation and not anything domestic.

Wolf responded after the Biden White House said this program started under the Trump administration: ""WH wrong again. New DHS Disinfo Board is not the same as efforts during the Trump Admin," he tweeted. "We focused primarily on foreign influence in elections — not domestic speech. New Board is located in the Secretary's office and has much broader authority than anything under CISA authorities." He added in a later statement that the creation of the board is likely an abuse of authority by DHS: "There is no operational reason to take this responsibility from largely non-political operating components and move this mission to the secretary’s office filled with political appointees, including a politically charged individual with no government experience," he said, referring to the board's recently named director, Nina Jankowicz. "The move represents a further politicization of the department under this administration."

Now, he DID mention a DHS mandate authorized by Trump in 2019 to fight FOREIGN disinformation but said any attempt to police citizens is an abuse of the authority of that department. He also called for the DHS to release the charter that outlines the roles of DHS, but it hasn't been done. I looked for it.

This information does not line up with what you claim.

---