LinkedIn Removes and Restores Post Supporting Immigration Enforcement Policy

A conservative advocacy group criticized LinkedIn after the social media platform temporarily removed a post supporting a Trump-era immigration enforcement policy. LinkedIn later restored the post, saying the removal was an error.

What Happened

According to Fox News, a LinkedIn spokesperson confirmed:

“This was removed in error, and we quickly corrected it.” (Fox News)

The post had been flagged as “hateful speech” by LinkedIn’s moderation system. After review and public backlash, the platform reinstated the post.

Public Reaction

The removal prompted criticism from the conservative advocacy group and some social media users, who called for boycotts of LinkedIn. Inquisitr News reported that many users saw the removal as censorship, even though LinkedIn attributed it to a mistake. (Inquisitr)

Confirmation from Other Outlets

Several other news organizations confirmed the incident:

• The Federalist reported LinkedIn quickly corrected the error. (The Federalist)
• AOL News noted the post was restored and emphasized that the removal was unintentional. (AOL)

Social Media Platforms That Have Removed Posts Supporting Trump’s Policies

Based on official statements and reports from government archives, oversight bodies, and congressional documents, several major social media platforms have removed or restricted content that supported or promoted policies associated with former (and current) President Donald Trump. These actions often involved claims related to election integrity, immigration, or public health policies during his administration, but were frequently justified by platforms under rules against misinformation, incitement to violence, or hate speech. Note that platforms’ official policies emphasize neutral enforcement, though critics, including Trump administration officials, have argued these removals disproportionately targeted conservative viewpoints. Below are key examples from authoritative sources, focusing on platforms beyond LinkedIn (as mentioned in your query snippet).

• Twitter (now X): Twitter removed multiple tweets from Trump’s account that supported his policies on election security and postal voting, labeling them as disputed or misleading. For instance, during the 2020 election, tweets falsely suggesting electoral fraud (tied to Trump’s policy stance on voter integrity) were removed or hidden. The platform also permanently suspended Trump’s account on January 8, 2021, citing risks of further violence after the January 6 Capitol events, where posts echoed his policy narratives on election results. Official Twitter statements (via archived government briefings) described these as editorial decisions to prevent harm, not political bias.
• Facebook: Facebook removed posts from Trump praising the January 6 events, which supporters framed as backing his immigration and law-and-order policies amid election disputes. These were deleted under the platform’s Community Standards on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations, leading to an indefinite suspension of his account (later set to two years, lifted in 2023). The Oversight Board, an independent body reviewing Facebook decisions, upheld the initial suspension but criticized the indefinite nature as inconsistent with rules. Similar removals affected content supporting Trump’s COVID-19 or election policies deemed misinformation.
• Instagram (Meta-owned): As part of the same ecosystem as Facebook, Instagram applied identical restrictions, removing Trump’s posts that glorified the January 6 events (seen by some as supporting his border security and anti-fraud policies). The suspension was extended indefinitely in January 2021 for at least two weeks, later formalized to two years.
• YouTube (Google-owned): YouTube suspended Trump’s channel in January 2021 for “content violating policies on incitement, including videos supporting his election-related policies that allegedly risked violence”. The suspension was lifted in March 2023. Google has general policies against incitement to hatred, which have led to removals of content aligned with conservative policy advocacy.

Other platforms like Snapchat, Twitch, and Pinterest have banned Trump-related accounts or content supporting his policies (e.g., on immigration or election fraud), but these are less documented in official government sites and more in oversight reports. Platforms maintain these actions are content-neutral, aimed at curbing harm, but analyses from sources like the White House and Congress suggest asymmetries, with conservative content flagged more often due to higher rates of associated misinformation.

Approaches to Stopping Such Removals

Official sources, including White House executive orders, congressional proposals, and think tank analyses, outline several strategies to address perceived censorship of conservative or Trump-supporting content. These range from legal reforms to promoting transparency, though viewpoints differ: Some conservatives advocate aggressive regulation to limit platform power, while others (including free speech advocates) warn that government intervention could worsen censorship. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that platforms have First Amendment rights to moderate content, but government pressure on them can be unconstitutional. Here’s a high-level overview of proposed solutions from balanced sources:

Approach	Description	Key Proponents/Sources	Potential Challenges
Reform Section 230	Amend the Communications Decency Act to strip liability protections from platforms that engage in “editorial” moderation (e.g., removing political content). This would make platforms liable for user content unless they act neutrally, potentially discouraging removals. Bills like the Stop Shielding Culpable Platforms Act aim to clarify this.	Republican Study Committee, House Republicans rsc-pfluger.house.gov/	Could lead to over-removal of all content to avoid lawsuits, harming free speech overall. brookings.edu
Executive Orders and Federal Accountability	Prohibit federal agencies from pressuring platforms to censor speech. The 2025 White House order requires agencies to report and correct past misconduct, ensuring no taxpayer funds support censorship. It accuses prior administrations of coercing platforms.	Trump Administration (2020 and 2025 orders) whitehouse.gov	Enforcement relies on administration priorities; critics say it risks politicizing speech. npr.org/
Transparency and Due Process Requirements	Mandate platforms to disclose moderation policies, provide appeals for removals, and report annually on actions (e.g., how many conservative posts were removed). Legislation could require public reports on government-platform communications.	FTC inquiries, ACLU, Brookings Institution thefire.org	Platforms resist full disclosure; may not stop removals but increases accountability.
Promote Competition and Alternatives	Encourage new platforms (e.g., Truth Social, Parler) via antitrust actions or reduced barriers, allowing users to migrate to less-moderated spaces. Avoid nondiscrimination mandates that force platforms to host all content.	ITIF, Public Knowledge itif.org	New platforms struggle with scale and app store restrictions. washingtonpost.com
Multistakeholder Guidelines	Create international forums (e.g., proposed International Forum on Content Moderation) for voluntary standards on handling political speech, including definitions of harmful content and appeals processes.	ITIF, Oversight Board itif.org	Non-binding; adoption varies by platform.

These approaches emphasize balancing free speech with harm reduction, but implementation depends on political will.

Sources

1. Fox News — confirmation of LinkedIn post removal and restoration, including LinkedIn’s statement about the “error”
2. Inquisitr — audience reaction and criticism of the post removal
3. The Federalist — LinkedIn restored the post and provided official comment
4. Midtown Tribune Independent USA news from New York