The Revolving Door: Deep State Operatives Control Big Tech

How Big Tech Became a Government Proxy

In the past decade, a peculiar phenomenon has emerged, blending the power of unelected bureaucracies with the unparalleled influence of Big Tech companies. Google, Meta, Twitter, and even OpenAI now operate as soft extensions of the federal government, employing hundreds of former FBI, CIA, DOJ, and DHS officials. These figures, long familiar with surveillance and information control, have seamlessly transitioned into roles dictating content moderation, security policy, and even artificial intelligence ethics. This phenomenon, which mushroomed during the Biden administration, reveals a disturbing reality: the government’s ability to outsource censorship to private entities, effectively sidestepping constitutional constraints.

A quick LinkedIn search reveals that hundreds of former federal employees, many from surveillance and justice agencies, have taken key roles at Big Tech companies. Google alone absorbed 130 former DOJ, FBI, and CIA officials. Meta followed suit, hiring 47 ex-government operatives for politically sensitive positions in trust and safety, security, and content moderation. TikTok, despite its Chinese ownership, employed 25 former U.S. intelligence officials, while Twitter (pre-Elon Musk) had 46 former FBI employees, many of whom held significant positions.

The stories behind these hires underscore the tight integration between government and tech. James Baker, the former FBI general counsel who played a controversial role in the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, became Twitter’s deputy general counsel, where he oversaw legal and policy decisions, including those related to content moderation. Aaron Berman, a CIA veteran, now manages misinformation policy at Meta, influencing decisions on what content is allowed to circulate. OpenAI has followed suit, hiring Paul Nakasone, the former Director of the National Security Agency, to advise on security and policy issues, ensuring government-aligned priorities shape AI development. These individuals are not mere advisors; they hold significant sway over policies that directly shape the flow of information and public discourse, as evidenced by their roles in suppressing key stories such as the Hunter Biden laptop controversy and moderating pandemic-related dissent. Their embedded presence within corporate hierarchies demonstrates how deeply government-aligned priorities can permeate private platforms.

This revolving door is not a benign exchange of expertise. It represents the federal government’s strategic use of private platforms to suppress dissent and control narratives. In a candid admission, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that the Biden administration exerted significant pressure on Facebook to censor COVID-19 content during the pandemic. In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Zuckerberg expressed regret for complying with these demands, acknowledging that the company had limited the spread of certain posts, including humor and satire related to the pandemic. He emphasized that such government pressure was "wrong" and that he came to "regret" his company's actions. The involvement of former government officials in key positions within Meta, such as Joel Kaplan, Vice President of Global Public Policy, may have facilitated these interactions. Kaplan, a former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy under President George W. Bush, has played a pivotal role in shaping Meta’s policy decisions, including its approach to content moderation. Through backchannels, former officials maintain informal ties with their previous agencies, creating a feedback loop that ensures alignment between government priorities and Big Tech policies. The result is a privatized censorship regime, insulated from First Amendment challenges.

The Twitter Files, released post-Musk, exposed how deeply entrenched this influence was. The FBI flagged accounts for suspension, including satire and political commentary critical of leftist narratives. Likewise, the Hunter Biden laptop story—one of the most significant political scandals of recent years—was buried under the guise of combating "foreign disinformation." Facebook’s suppression of the story mirrored Twitter’s actions, illustrating the coordinated approach to narrative control.

Content moderation, ostensibly aimed at protecting users from harm, has morphed into a tool for ideological enforcement. Former intelligence officials bring their training in counterintelligence and propaganda suppression to these platforms, applying those skills to stifle conservative viewpoints. Whistleblowers have highlighted that Twitter’s moderation decisions disproportionately targeted right-leaning accounts, with policy teams packed with individuals whose careers were built on government agendas.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, dissenting voices questioning lockdowns, mandates, or the origins of the virus faced suppression. This chilling of debate—led by platforms working closely with government agencies—was a direct attack on free speech. The revolving door ensured that the mindset of control, cultivated in federal agencies, seamlessly transferred into Big Tech.

Under the Biden administration, the integration of state and corporate power reached dystopian proportions. Despite publicly criticizing Big Tech for "spreading misinformation," Biden’s DOJ maintained a cozy relationship with these companies. A staggering 360 former DOJ employees now work in Big Tech, according to the American Accountability Foundation. The administration’s weaponization of these platforms to suppress conservative viewpoints was not an accident; it was a feature of this unholy alliance.

The subpoena targeting Tara Reade’s private Twitter account—shortly after she accused Biden of sexual assault—exemplifies how this system is exploited for political ends. Reade’s subscriber data, login history, and payment details were sought under vague pretenses, illustrating how the government’s partnership with tech companies enables targeted harassment.

This alliance between state and corporate power is reminiscent of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, which amassed dossiers on private citizens to stifle dissent. However, the modern iteration is far more insidious. Where Hoover relied on limited technology, today’s apparatus operates with algorithms and AI, capable of surveilling and suppressing on a massive scale. George Orwell’s "1984" warned of state-run censorship, but the current model—a privatized, opaque, and unaccountable system—is perhaps even more dangerous.

The integration of intelligence officials into Big Tech poses grave risks. The perception of platforms as neutral spaces is shattered when they operate as proxies for state power, leading users to distrust these companies and undermining their credibility. This blending of state and corporate power creates an environment hostile to free expression, where dissenting views are not debated but silenced. Former government operatives bring a surveillance mindset, normalizing invasive data practices and eroding user privacy. With minimal oversight, these platforms wield immense power over public discourse, influencing elections and shaping societal norms.

To address this alarming trend, Congress must enact robust legislation to end the revolving door between government agencies and Big Tech. One promising proposal is to impose mandatory cooling-off periods, such as banning former intelligence and law enforcement officials from joining technology companies for several years after leaving public service. Similar restrictions have been effective in other sectors, such as the financial industry, where cooling-off periods have reduced regulatory capture and conflicts of interest. Additionally, Congress should criminalize the outsourcing of censorship to private companies, ensuring that the government cannot use Big Tech to suppress speech or collect data that would require a warrant if done directly by federal agencies. This legislative framework would safeguard civil liberties and reinforce accountability.

These steps are vital to preserving the principles of liberty and free expression. Without decisive action, the current trajectory threatens to erode public trust, stifle dissent, and concentrate power in ways that are antithetical to American democracy. Reagan’s warning that "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction" has never been more relevant. The fusion of surveillance agencies and Big Tech represents the gravest threat to freedom in our time. Lawmakers must act decisively to ensure that the rights and liberties enshrined in our Constitution are upheld, preventing private entities from becoming tools of government overreach.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.