In October 2020, just weeks before the U.S. presidential election, the New York Post broke a bombshell story: a laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden, son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden, contained a trove of emails, messages, and financial records that suggested questionable business dealings involving foreign entities. While this revelation had the potential to shift the political landscape, it was met with an unprecedented wave of suppression by major institutions, including the FBI and social media giants.
Reports indicate that the FBI had already authenticated the Hunter Biden laptop nearly a year before the New York Post's reporting. However, instead of making this information public, the agency allegedly instructed its personnel not to discuss the laptop's contents. Internal FBI chat messages from October 14, 2020, revealed that Elvis Chan, an assistant special agent in charge at the FBI's San Francisco cyber division, confirmed an active investigation into the laptop but refused to elaborate further.
Critics argue that this suppression wasn't an isolated decision but part of a broader effort to prevent the laptop story from gaining traction in the final stretch of the presidential race.
At the same time, social media companies took unprecedented steps to limit the reach of the laptop story. Facebook and Twitter actively censored links to the New York Post article, flagging it as potential "misinformation." It was later revealed that the FBI had warned these tech companies that a potential "Russian disinformation" campaign was incoming—implying that the Hunter Biden laptop story was not credible.
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg later admitted in an interview that the FBI played a role in shaping their decision to suppress the story. Twitter's internal communications, revealed in the Twitter Files leaks, also showed that the company's trust and safety teams were influenced by government agencies to take down or limit discussion of the laptop.
The core question emerging from these revelations is whether the FBI and social media giants actively interfered in the 2020 election. If voters had been made aware that the laptop was real and not Russian disinformation, could the election outcome have been different? A 2022 poll indicated that a significant portion of voters believed that if they had known the laptop's authenticity, they might have reconsidered their vote.
The fact that the laptop's existence was downplayed, censored, and even called "Russian disinformation" has led to accusations that key government agencies overstepped their roles in a way that effectively manipulated public perception.
Since these revelations, there have been increasing calls for transparency and accountability. Congressional hearings have scrutinised the FBI's actions, with lawmakers questioning the extent to which intelligence agencies should be involved in media narratives. Some have argued that the FBI's actions set a dangerous precedent for future elections, where agencies could exert undue influence over public discourse.
Additionally, Big Tech's role in information suppression has come under fire, with discussions about breaking up tech monopolies or enforcing stronger free speech protections on digital platforms. The intersection of government agencies and corporate media power presents a clear challenge for maintaining a free and open democratic process.
The Hunter Biden laptop scandal and the FBI's handling of the situation highlight the growing concern over information control, censorship, and election interference. Whether intentional or not, the suppression of this story raises uncomfortable questions about the influence of federal agencies on democratic processes. If institutions entrusted with upholding the truth instead act as gatekeepers of information, the very fabric of free speech and democracy comes into question.
Moving forward, the public and policymakers alike must address these issues to ensure that future elections are conducted with transparency and fairness, without the shadow of censorship looming over the national conversation.
"The FBI sat on the knowledge that the Hunter Biden laptop story was credible and barred employees from saying so.
Weeks ahead of the 2020 election, the New York Post dropped a possibly election-altering bombshell report about the discovery and damning contents of Hunter Biden's laptop, which the FBI authenticated nearly one year earlier.
A 2022 poll found that the supermajority of Americans believed that President Donald Trump would have won re-election that election cycle had voters known the Post's report was accurate. Apparently aware that the report could have this kind of impact, the liberal media, social media platforms, a cabal of former intelligence officials, active CIA contractors, and other politically motivated forces worked to discredit and suppress the story.
The FBI was a major player in this campaign to gaslight the American people.
According to chat logs shared by Republicans on the House Committee on the Judiciary, the bureau not only misled social media companies into believing the Post story was Russian disinformation but actively worked to prevent employees from discussing the laptop's authenticity, going so far as to impose a "gag order" regarding discussions of Hunter Biden's laptop.
In chat messages dated Oct. 14, 2020 — the date the Post's story was published — an individual whose name was redacted informs Elvis Chan, the assistant special agent in charge of the San Francisco FBI field office's cyber program, of the "gag order."
An October 2024 congressional report released by the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government identified Chan as the "primary point of contact at the FBI" for the meetings between the bureau and Big Tech that "led to the prebunking of the laptop story in 2020."
When asked, "Anyone discussing that NYPost article on the Biden's?" Chan responds, "Yes we are. c d confirmed an active investigation. no further comment."
'It failed to disclose that it possessed and had authenticated the laptop — a key fact.'
Michael Shellenberger's investigative outfit Public, which first reported on the FBI chat messages, noted that "c d" was likely shorthand for the bureau's Criminal Division.
Chan then asks, "Actually what kind of case is the laptop thing?" adding, "Corruption? campaign financing?"
Another FBI employee whose identity was redacted responds, "CLOSE HOLD —" followed by a blacked-out response.
Chan responds, "oh crap," then notes, "ok. It ends here."
In another series of messages, one FBI employee can be seen telling another, "Nobody on call is is [sic] authorized to comment upon NY Post story," to which another employee responds, "gotta love it."
A bureau insider made clear: "do not discuss biden matter."
It is clear from the messages that the FBI was aware of active efforts to discredit the story. One FBI employee noted, for instance, that "twitter is treating [the story] as disinformation."
In the days following the publication of the Post story, the FBI clammed up, refusing to provide censorious social media companies with more details and repeatedly leaning on the response "no comment" as indicated by the newly released chat messages.
The Judiciary report noted that "while the FBI clarified that it had no specific evidence of a Russian hack-and-leak operation [in communications with social media platforms], it failed to disclose that it possessed and had authenticated the laptop — a key fact that likely would have ended any justification for censorship."
The report emphasized that "if the FBI's intent was truly to help social media companies combat actual foreign influence operations, the FBI should have shared the single most important fact: the influence-peddling allegations in the Post story were based off of real, credible information, including information in the FBI's possession. The FBI failed to do so."
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) said in response to the revelations about the gag order, "The FBI's groupchats revealed they were directly involved in election interference," adding, "Where is the outrage?"
"When will there be a criminal investigation?" asked Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton."