The FBI knew Hunter Biden’s laptop was authentic in 2020 but purposely stayed silent while misinformation spread, damaging election integrity.
At a Glance
- An FBI agent accidentally confirmed the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop during a 2020 call with Twitter
- After this revelation, FBI leadership imposed a “gag order” on discussing the laptop
- Facebook and Twitter restricted the New York Post’s Hunter Biden story after receiving FBI warnings about potential misinformation
- Mark Zuckerberg later expressed regret over Facebook’s decision to limit the story’s reach
- The FBI’s inaction allowed false narratives to circulate during a critical election period
FBI’s Critical Misstep Revealed
Independent journalists Catherine Herridge and Michael Shellenberger have uncovered a bombshell revelation in the ongoing Hunter Biden laptop controversy. According to their investigation, an FBI agent inadvertently confirmed the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop during a conference call with Twitter executives on October 14, 2020 – just weeks before the presidential election.
This confirmation directly contradicted the narrative being pushed at the time that the laptop story was Russian disinformation. What followed appears to be a coordinated effort within the FBI to ensure no further verification reached the public.
Rather than correcting the false narrative surrounding the laptop, FBI leadership reportedly imposed what internal communications described as a “gag order.” Special agent Elvis M. Chan was explicitly instructed to give “no comment” as the official response regarding the laptop. This silence allowed the unfounded “Russian disinformation” claim to persist unchallenged by the very agency that knew otherwise. The FBI had possession of the laptop since December 2019 and was aware it contained potential evidence of criminal activity.
Big Tech’s Response Under FBI Guidance
The impact of the FBI’s actions extended beyond internal communications. Both Facebook and Twitter took extraordinary steps to limit the spread of the New York Post’s October 2020 article about Hunter Biden’s laptop. The Post’s reporting alleged that emails from the laptop implicated then-candidate Joe Biden in his son’s business dealings in Ukraine. This restriction of information occurred during the crucial final weeks of a presidential election, raising serious questions about interference in the democratic process.
Facebook implemented what Zuckerberg described as a limited restriction, allowing the article to remain visible but reducing its distribution while fact-checkers reviewed it. Twitter took an even more aggressive approach, initially banning the sharing of the Post article entirely.
Both companies later reversed course amid accusations of censorship, but the damage to information flow had already occurred. The restrictions remained in place during a critical period when many Americans were making their voting decisions.
Zuckerberg’s Regret and FBI Influence
In an August 2022 appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Mark Zuckerberg expressed regret over Facebook’s handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story. He acknowledged that removing content incorrectly represents a serious failure. Zuckerberg explicitly linked Facebook’s decision to restrict the story to warnings received from the FBI about potential Russian propaganda, though he noted they didn’t specifically mention the Biden story in those warnings.
Describing the FBI’s warning, Zuckerberg told Rogan: “The background here is that the FBI came to us – some folks on our team – and was like ‘hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that’.” This revelation demonstrates how federal law enforcement agencies significantly influenced content moderation decisions affecting political information during an election.
Implications for Election Integrity
The FBI’s deliberate silence about the laptop’s authenticity while simultaneously warning platforms about potential misinformation represents a troubling intersection of government authority and information control. Critics argue that national security agencies, Big Tech, and corporate media effectively suppressed truthful information while promoting false narratives during the 2020 election. The laptop’s contents allegedly contained emails suggesting then-Vice President Biden was influenced by actors in Ukraine and China.
The FBI had established a dedicated task force to counter foreign election interference, yet failed to correct widespread misinformation about the laptop’s authenticity. The saga raises fundamental questions about the proper role of government agencies in managing public narratives during elections. Americans expect federal law enforcement to provide accurate information and protect election integrity – not selectively withhold critical facts that could influence voter decisions.
