Document Type


Publication Date



This short essay responds to Professor Nathan Cortez’s argument describing an emerging “information policy” reflecting on the practices of President Donald J. Trump’s executive administration (the “Trump Administration”) regarding the development, release, and management of official information. Professor Cortez argues that viewed holistically, this information policy suggests a shift toward the use of information practices by administrative agencies for purposes other than “neutral principles” and rather focusing on a “more cynical [use] of government information.”

This argument may be well-founded, and the Trump Administration certainly has been criticized widely for the relationship between its public statements and widespread media interpretation of the facts underlying those statements. A critical element implied in Cortez’s argument, however, is the idea that there is some ability to identify “neutral” information as a doctrinal matter. Drawing upon the work of Professors James Grimmelmann, Frank Pasquale, and others in the context of questioning the “neutrality” of Internet search engines, this essay argues that while Cortez’s argument likely is correct, any doctrinal response must carefully consider the slippery slope of attempting to define “neutrality” as a first step towards defining “truth.”