Lawmaker sees political payback in fight over ‘deepfakes’ measure
A congressional push to examine the threat of so-called deepfake videos was derailed last year after a key House lawmaker blocked a measure that would have provided government funding to study the insidious technology.
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers — Reps. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and now-former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) — sought to add an amendment to the 2019 Intelligence Authorization Act that would have allowed the use of federal funds to research the threat posed by fake but believable content.
The amendment would have required the director of national intelligence to submit a written report to congressional intelligence panels detailing the impact deepfake technology could have on national security, as well as technologies that could effectively deter or detect such technology, according to a copy of the text obtained.
But the amendment was unexpectedly killed by then-House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) for reasons that are unclear.
The allegations: Murphy and two GOP sources familiar with the matter now allege that Sessions, who lost his bid for reelection in the 2018 midterms, spiked the amendment out of political consideration and loyalty to his friend, former Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), who was defeated by Murphy in 2016.
“I found it unconscionable that he would punish a friend’s rival,” Murphy told The Hill, calling it a “serious mistake.”
“Obviously, I was disappointed to see politics play a role in national security,” she added.
Murphy claims Sessions killed the bill either on Mica’s behalf or because he didn’t want to let her have a “win.”
“That kind of retribution is what makes this environment so partisan and toxic,” Murphy said.
Sessions’ side: Sessions described things differently.
“We don’t take amendments just because you present them,” Sessions told The Hill, while noting he does not recall Murphy’s amendment. “It is a process. You need to work the dang thing, especially with Intel.”
He said lawmakers on both sides of the aisle need to fight for their amendments and testify before the Rules Committee to make their case.
“I’m not challenging Stephanie,” he said. “I found in several instances she did not come to the committee or did not work it, and you have to do both.”
Sessions defended his six-year tenure as committee chairman, saying he conducted the process in a “fair” and “straight-up way” for both Democrats and Republicans.
He also rejected Murphy’s claims that he killed her amendment for political purposes, noting that Mica is not running for the seat again.
“I don’t think that is a fair characterization for her to blame somebody for her own frailties,” Sessions said. “If she came up and worked it, that is different. But otherwise, that is a cheap shot.”
The top Democrat and Republican on the Rules Committee both acknowledged that politics plays a role in the panel’s decisions, but each said they don’t know the specifics about the deepfakes amendment.
