This article was originally published by Allen Mendenhall at The Mises Institute. 

The Deep State has struck again. The Biden Administration’s intrepid Department of Justice (DOJ), ever-vigilant in its quest for Russian bogeymen, has proudly announced the seizure of 32 internet domains. Their purported crime? Daring to challenge the regime’s approved narratives.

According to the allegations, Russian entities such as Social Design Agency (SDA), Structura National Technology, and ANO Dialog operated these domains under the guidance of the Russian government. These “Doppelganger” campaigns reportedly sought to reduce international support for Ukraine, promote pro-Russian policies, and influence voters in U.S. and foreign elections, including the upcoming 2024 U.S. Presidential Election.

The methods allegedly used in these efforts include cybersquatting (registering domain names closely resembling legitimate news sites), creating fake media brands, deploying paid influencers, utilizing AI-generated content, running social media advertisements, and producing bogus social media profiles that impersonate U.S. citizens or non-Russian individuals. According to the DOJ, these campaigns target audiences across several countries, including the U.S., Germany, Mexico, and Israel.

The U.S. Treasury Department has designated ten individuals and two entities connected to these activities, stating that their actions violate U.S. money laundering laws, criminal trademark laws, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The FBI spearheads the investigation while various U.S. Attorney’s offices and Justice Department divisions manage the prosecutions.

Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks of “Russian government propaganda,” but what’s the real propaganda here? Is it the belief that endless proxy wars and foreign election interference are in America’s best interest? Or the idea that our intelligence agencies aren’t actively shaping public opinion?

The authorities speak of “malign influence” and “disinformation,” but what they fear is the truth—about our political class’s corruption, the American economy’s decline, and the regulation of what people read and discuss.

Make no mistake: This isn’t just about Russia or “protecting democracy.” The real threat isn’t some shadowy Russian troll farm.

It’s about control—control of information, control of narratives, control of you. The regime trembles at the thought of freethinking Americans questioning the prevailing orthodoxies upheld by universities, mainstream journalists, and corporate America.

In our society’s intricate web of power relations, we find ourselves entangled in a discourse of truth and falsehood, legitimacy and illegitimacy. The state, that grand apparatus of control, wields its power through force and strategic manipulation of knowledge and narrative, amplified by a compliant and enabling legacy media.

Consider the continued withholding of information about the Kennedy assassination: a perfect illustration of how power operates through the control of knowledge. The state maintains its authority not by revealing truth but by managing what is known and unknown, creating a system of truth that serves its interests.

The Russia collusion narrative and the Steele dossier exemplify how power constructs its own truths. These are not mere lies or mistakes but manifestations of how institutional power shapes reality through discourse. The “truth” here is not an objective fact waiting to be uncovered but a product of power relations, carefully crafted to maintain existing authorities.

When we examine the treatment of ordinary individuals—the Duke lacrosse players or the Covington high school students—we see the disciplinary power of media at work. Far from being neutral conveyors of information, these institutions actively create and enforce societal norms and conventions.

These recent actions of the DOJ against people and firms expressing pro-Russian views reveal the state’s attempt to police the boundaries of acceptable discourse. This is not merely about protecting truth from falsehood but about maintaining a specific regime of truth that aligns with state interests.

State censorship is harmful, as are state propaganda and interference in the political affairs of other sovereign nations. The question is the extent to which the individuals and entities charged here act as state agents.

Regardless, state manipulation is a problem, and no government is entirely free from censorship or propaganda because these elements are inherent in the nature of state power. If actual money laundering is involved in this case, then prosecution is warranted. However, the authorities’ reliance on IEEPA raises grave doubts. This broad, amorphous law grants the president wide latitude to regulate international commerce in response to perceived threats, which suggests that the case may be weak. The act itself is problematic due to the excessive power it places in the executive branch.

Labeling dissenting speech as “disinformation” or “propaganda” is, in any event, an attempt to delegitimize and exclude certain forms of knowledge from acceptable discourse. The pattern of controlling knowledge and narrative is neither new nor limited to foreign interference. It reflects a deeper, ongoing struggle over who dictates the terms of discourse in our society.

Be skeptical when the government labels certain information as false, disinformation, or misinformation. Withhold judgment and refrain from accepting claims as fact until you have independently verified them. In our age of contested truths, the power to define reality is the ultimate sign of control. Do you control yourself, or does someone else?