And they are.

And that means, according to House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, that records of those communications need to be given to Congress.

Jordan confirmed on Tuesday that he sent letters to the chiefs of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft as well as Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI chief Chris Wray.

He wants documents of Biden's "recent interactions with social media and technology companies."

"Given the FITF's improper role in communicating with social media and technology companies during the 2020 presidential election, the resumption of meetings between the FITF and Big Tech before the 2024 presidential election is deeply troubling. These meetings stopped after the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction against the FBI that prohibited it from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to censor content, which was largely affirmed by a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. But following the Supreme Court’s recent stay of the injunction, the FITF 'resumed outreach' with social media companies. According to an FBI spokesperson, the purpose of this outreach is 'to facilitate sharing information about foreign malign influence with social media companies,'" charged the letter to Mark Zuckerberg of Meta.

Jordan's announcement explained his committee "is conducting oversight of how and to what extent the executive branch has coerced or colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor lawful speech. In February 2023, the committee issued subpoenas for documents related to Big Tech's communications with the executive branch, including the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) and San Francisco field office."

It continued, "A federal court enjoined the executive branch's collusion with Big Tech in July 2023; but the injunction was stayed. On March 20, 2024, an FBI spokesperson confirmed that the FITF has recently resumed communicating with major social media and technology companies."

The letter to Zuckerberg notes, "The communications and documentation pertaining to Meta's ongoing communications with the FBI are covered by the February 15, 2023, subpoena. The subpoena is 'continuing in nature.' Therefore, all documents and communications relating to the FBI's new outreach efforts to Meta and FITF meetings are responsive to the committee's subpoena as they refer or relate to how the FBI is communicating with Meta regarding content moderation."

WND has reported on the fight that is before the Supreme Court already.

It recently heard arguments that Biden, using the influence of the federal government, pushed social media companies to censor ideas and comments that the administration dislikes.

And Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which brought the dispute to the court system, said it's just not allowed under the Constitution for politicians to pick "disfavored" statements and order them suppressed.

"Our clients, who include top doctors and scientists, were censored for social media posts that turned out to be factually accurate, depriving the public of valuable perspectives during a public health crisis. We’re optimistic that the majority will look at the record and recognize that this was a sprawling government censorship enterprise without precedent in this country, and that this cannot be permitted to continue if the First Amendment is to survive," Younes said.

A ruling in the case isn't expected from the court for some time, but it likely will have a massive impact of the concept of free speech and the First Amendment across America.

The trial court judge likened the government's scheming in the case to the Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" that propagated nothing but lies.

Many of the details of that ruling were affirmed by an appeals court, but the government, insisting on the right to determine the information to which people have access, took it to the Supreme Court.

Much of the censorship at the time concerned the COVID-19 pandemic and the experimental shots that were developed and given to millions of people at the time, shots that evidence shows now actually injured many.

A report from NCLA said the case is Murthy v. Missouri, and the high court considered whether to affirm a historic preliminary injunction granted by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

It originally was U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty who blasted the government for its program to blacklist, shadow-ban, de-boost, throttle and suspend social media activity by those who disagreed with the Biden administration's chosen, and sometimes faulty, opinions on COVID.