Katie Hobbs Used Official Email Urging Social Media Platforms to Censor Her Critics

Emails showing that Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, while serving as Secretary of State, contacted Twitter regarding posts from political critics have resurfaced, drawing renewed attention as federal courts continue to examine government interaction with social media platforms. The emails, originally obtained through public records requests and some of which were previously reported in 2023, were highlighted this week by watchdog site FOIAzona founder Brian Anderson in a March 25 post. 

Yes – @KatieHobbs used her government office to censor her opponents during the 2022 #AZGov race

The emails below show (1) Hobbs personally engaging in this behavior and (2) her CoS trying to erase an @AZGOP tweet

Hobbs internal emails available here – https://t.co/21HH6DMGIm pic.twitter.com/XejTFSLDWT

— Brian Anderson (@AZBrianAnderson) March 25, 2026

The communications show Hobbs’ office and Hobbs herself using an official government email account to flag Twitter (now known as X) posts that made statements about her during her tenure overseeing Arizona elections.

The emails show multiple requests to Twitter from Hobbs’ office flagging posts characterized as ‘harassing’ or ‘misinformation,’ including posts critical of Hobbs, rather than issues related to election administration.

On November 13, 2020, Hobbs emailed Twitter support, using her official government account during a government workweek, to complain that “alt-right” critics had resurfaced a three-year-old tweet from her personal campaign account. In that 2017 post, Hobbs had accused then-President Donald Trump of “pandering to his neo-nazi base.” Instead of addressing legitimate political pushback, Hobbs labeled the responses “harassing, abusive, and threatening” and demanded Twitter take action. 

Her office also targeted an Arizona Republican Party (AZGOP) tweet, with her Chief of Staff describing it as “deranged and unhinged” and coordinating with the Center for Internet Security (CIS) — a federally funded nonprofit — to have it reviewed or removed. Additional emails show Hobbs’ staff flagging Facebook posts by a sitting state lawmaker and other critics, often branding them as “misinformation” even when they raised questions about election procedures or Hobbs’ own statements.

Anderson, whose FOIAzona.org site published the full internal emails on March 25, put it bluntly: “These emails leave no doubt that Katie Hobbs abused her position of power in government. She violated the First Amendment rights of Arizonans in order to suppress valid criticism and prop up her 2022 gubernatorial campaign.” 

Hobbs’ office has long maintained that any outreach to social media platforms was limited to addressing online harassment, threats, or legitimate election-related misinformation. Yet the newly highlighted records show at least one direct instance involved personal political criticism rather than provable falsehoods or threats to voting systems.

Similar emails involving state election officials and social media platforms were also included in document productions tied to the federal case Missouri v. Biden, later reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court as Murthy v. Missouri, which has examined whether government officials improperly pressured platforms to moderate content. 

Court filings and disclosures in that case have detailed a broader pattern of communications between public officials and technology companies, as detailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s 2023 opinion in Missouri v. Biden.

According to the released correspondence, Hobbs’ office requested that the platform review or take action on certain posts it characterized as problematic. The extent to which Twitter acted on those requests and under what internal policies remains unclear from the publicly available materials, according to FactCheck.org.

The resurfacing of the emails comes as courts continue to weigh whether such communications cross constitutional lines. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in 2024, according to SCOTUSblog, after lower court rulings addressed whether government officials’ interactions with social media companies could amount to coercion or unconstitutional censorship. The Court later dismissed the case on standing, leaving the underlying constitutional question unresolved.

Critics argue that using official government resources to flag content about political opponents raises First Amendment concerns, particularly when the official in question is also a candidate for office. Others have characterized similar communications as routine efforts to report harassment or misinformation.

Hobbs’ office has previously maintained that any outreach to social media platforms was conducted in line with efforts to address online threats and election-related misinformation. Nationally, federal officials, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Biden-era White House, have also faced scrutiny for communications with platforms during recent election cycles and the COVID-19 pandemic, further fueling debate over the proper boundaries of such engagement.

The renewed attention to the Hobbs emails reflects a broader national debate over the role of government in moderating online content, and where the constitutional boundary lies between public communication and impermissible pressure on private platforms.