GAO U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548 B-326944 December 14, 2015 The Honorable James M. Inhale Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Subject: Environmental Protection Agency-Application of Publicity or Propaganda and Anti-Lobbying Provisions Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your request for our opinion concerning whether the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) use of certain social media platforms in association with its "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) rulemaking in fiscal years (FY) 2014 and 2015 violated publicity or propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions contained in appropriations acts. Letter from Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, to Comptroller General (June 16, 2015). Section 718 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. 2014, prohibited the use of EPA's appropriations for unauthorized publicity or propaganda purposes. 1 Section 715 of the act prohibited the use of EPA's appropriations for indirect or grassroots lobbying in support of or opposition to pending legislation. 2 These same restrictions applied to EPA's FY 2015 appropriations. 3 Section 401 of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, similarly prohibited the use of EPA's appropriations for grassroots lobbying.4 1 Pub. L. No. 113-76, div. E, title VII,§ 718, 128 Stat. 5, 234 (Jan. 17, 2014). 2 Id.,§ 715. 3 Pub. L. No. 113-235, div. E, title VII,§§ 715, 718, 128 Stat. 2130, 2382-83 (Dec. 16, 2014). 4 Id.,§ 401. In accordance with our regular practice, we contacted EPA to seek factual information and its legal views on this matter. Letter from Assistant General Counsel for Appropriations Law, GAO, to General Counsel, EPA (July 10, 2015); Procedures and Practices for Legal Decisions and Opinions, GA0-06-1064SP (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2006), available at www.gao.gov/productslGA0-06-1064SP. In response, EPA provided its legal analysis and electronic access to factual documentation. Email from Interim Secretary, EPA, to Managing Associate General Counsel, et al., GAO, Subject: EPA Response to GAO regarding social media (Aug. 7, 2015) (providing access to SharePoint site); EPA, Associate General Counsel Memorandum for General Counsel, Analysis in response to an inquiry from the Government Accountability Office regarding EPA use of Social Media and the Clean Water Rule (Aug. 6, 2015) (EPA Response). As explained below, we conclude that EPA violated the described provisions through its use of social media in association with its rulemaking efforts to define "Waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act (CWA) during FYs 2014 and 2015. Because EPA obligated and expended appropriated funds in violation of statutory prohibitions, we also conclude that EPA violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1 )(A), as the agency's appropriations were not available for these prohibited purposes. EPA did not quantify an exact cost associated with the use of any particular social media platform. The agency noted that staff is paid for time spent developing and posting a message but time is not tracked by platform or project. EPA Response, at 3. EPA explained to us that it spent $64,610 on video and graphic assets to raise awareness surrounding the proposed rule, but it does not appear to us that the aspects of EPA's campaign with which we have concerns would involve these video and graphic assets. Id. The agency should determine the cost associated with the prohibited conduct and include the amount in its report of its Antideficiency Act violation. BACKGROUND In March 2014, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released a proposed rule defining the scope of waters protected under the CWA to "provid[e] clarity" and to minimize the number of case-specific determinations made by regulators, which, according to the agencies, had increased following two Supreme Court decisions. 5 79 Fed. Reg. 22188 (Apr. 21, 2014). 6 The public comment period was initially set to 5 Rapanos v. United States, 546 U.S. 932 (2006); Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cly. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531U.S.159 (2001). 6 See EPA, News Releases - Water, EPA and Anny Corps of Engineers Clarify Protection for Nation's Streams and Wetlands (Mar. 25, 2014), available at (continued ... ) Page 2 B-326944 expire on July 21, 2014, but was ultimately extended until November 14, 2014. 7 According to EPA, the agency used social media platforms in connection with the WOTUS rulemaking from February 2014 through July 2015. EPA Response, at 2. To understand how EPA used social media platforms, it is necessary to understand how the various platforms facilitate communications among their users. Social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr, enable users to create and share content, like messages and photos. This content becomes archived on each user's individual page or "time1ine." When users log into a social media platform, they see a "newsfeed" or "dashboard," which is a real-time aggregate of the recent content of other users that they follow on the network. While we describe social media platforms at a basic level, we note that there are variations and distinct capabilities associated with different forums. EPA explained to us that through social media, it sought to clarify the issues concerning the WOTUS proposed rule, to provide information about streams and wetlands, to demonstrate the rule's relevance, to provide opportunities for public engagement, and to correct what it viewed as misinformation concerning the rule. Id., at 2. For ease of discussion in this opinion, we describe EPA's social media campaign using four categories: Thunderclap, the #DitchtheMyth Campaign, the #CleanWaterRules Campaign, and EPA's Links to External Websites. 1. EPA's Use of Thunderclap Thunderclap is a "crowdspeaking platform" that allows a single message to be shared across multiple Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr accounts at the same time. Thunderclap, FAQ, available at www.thunderclap.iUfaq (last visited Dec. 7, 2015). The website allows what the site calls "campaign organizers" to create a Thunderclap page. The Thunderclap page is used to describe the organizer's social media campaign, including a message of no more than 117 characters to be shared by those who sign up to support the campaign. Thunderclap, Getting Started, available atwww.thunderclap.iUguide (last visited Dec. 7, 2015). Each organizer selects what the site calls a "supporter goal" (for example, 500 supporters). If the campaign reaches the supporter goal, Thunderclap will automatically post the message on the social media accounts of the campaign's supporters on the same date and at the same time. The date and time are chosen by the campaign (... continued) http://yosemite. epa.qov/opa/admpress. nsf/3881 d73f4d4aaa0b85257359003f5348/ae 90dedd9595a02485257ca600557e30 (last visited Dec. 7, 2014). 7 79 Fed. Reg. 22188; 79 Fed. Reg. 35712 (June 24, 2014) (extending public comment period to October 20, 2014); 79 Fed. Reg. 61590 (Oct. 14, 2014) (extending public comment period to November 14, 2014). Page 3 8-326944 organizer. Thunderclap will post the message as drafted by the organizer, although an individual supporter has the option of customizing the message when signing up for a campaign. During the public comment period for the WOTUS proposed rule, EPA created a Thunderclap campaign page titled, "I Choose Clean Water." The page was visibly attributed to EPA, as it displayed the agency's profile photo and, under the title, "by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." The Story seclion of the page describing the campaign read as follows: "Clean water is important - for drinking, swimming, and fishing. We need it for our communities, farms, and businesses. But right now 60 percent of the streams and millions of acres of wetlands across the country aren't clearly protected from pollution and destruction. In fact, one in three Americans-117 million of US-9et our drinking water from streams that are vulnerable. To have clean water downstream in the rivers and lakes in our neighborhoods we need healthy headwaters upstream. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has [sic] proposed to strengthen protection for the clean water that is vital to all Americans. "8 If EPA met its goal of 500 supporters, Thunderclap would post the following message to supporter accounts: "Clean water is important to me. I support EPA's efforts to protect it for my health, my family, and my community. http://thndr.it/1slh51M." At the time of the campaign, the hyperlink 9 connected to EPA's webpage on the proposed rule. 10 8 EPA, I Choose Clean Water, Thunderclap, available at www.thunderclap.it/projects/16052-i-choose-clean-water (last visited Dec. 7, 2015) (EPA Thunderclap). 8 A hyperlink is text or a photo in a document or webpage that when clicked, connects to another webpage, section, or document. 10 This opinion focuses on the Thunderclap message created by EPA, despite the possibility that supporters could have altered or otherwise customized the message when joining the campaign. Further, depending on the forum authorized by the campaign supporter (Facebook, Tumblr, and/or Twitter), the posted message may have been accompanied by a photo of a child drinking water or other text. As we cannot be certain of every variation of the Thunderclap message that was posted, or how or why one message may have appeared differently than others, our discussion concerns EPA's message as included on its campaign page, "Clean water is important to me. I support EPA's efforts to protect it for my health, my family, and (continued .. ) Page4 B-326944 EPA actively promoted its Thunderclap campaign by encouraging people to sign up and to spread the word so that others might sign up as well. See, e.g., Communications Director for Water, Do You Choose Clean Water?, The EPA Blog (Sept. 9, 2014), available at http://blog.epa.gov/blogl20141091do-you-choose-cleanwaterl (last visited Dec. 7, 2015). The EPA blog post announcing the campaign stated, after explaining that the greater protection proposed was necessary to ensure clean water, "We hope you'll support our clean water proposal. To help you do that, and get your friends to also voice their support, we're using a new tool called Thunderclap; it's like a virtual flash-mob." Id. Leading up to the post date for the Thunderclap message, EPA's Twitter and Facebook accounts advertised the campaign with posts like, "Help us send a strong message about supporting clean water," "Tell your friends that you choose clean water: let Thunderclap send a message," and "Help us spread the word about the importance of clean water. We need 500 people to sign up to share the message." EPA met and exceeded its supporter goal, causing Thunderclap to post the agency's message on 980 social media accounts on September 29, 2014, at 2 p.m. Based on the followers and friends of these supporters, Thunderclap estimates that EPA's message potentially reached about 1.8 million people. 2. EPA's #DitchtheMyth Campaign In another social media effort, EPA attempted to dispel what it views as inaccuracies on the rule being circulated by external interest groups. For this purpose, EPA created a hashtag (#): #DitchtheMyth-" The #DitchtheMyth campaign included graphics regarding aspects of the rule, along with statements that people could tweet using their own Twitter accounts. The Ditch the Myth website showed as a "Myth," for example, that "[g]roundwater is regulated by the Clean Water Act." Below the "Myth," EPA included what it called a ''Truth"-in this example: ''The proposed ( ... continued) my community," with the link to EPA's webpage on its proposed rule. EPA Thunderclap. 11 Including the hashtag symbol before a word, without spaces, allows users to click on the hashtagged phrase and see other posts that have used the same hashtag. Users can also perform searches for a hashtag to locate relevant posts. Hashtags that become very popular can become "Trending Topics," which may highlight or elevate the hashtag's visibility on users' newsfeeds. Twitter, Using hashtags on Twitter, available at http://support.twitter.com1articlesl49309# (last visited Dec. 7, 2015). Page 5 B-326944 rule specifically excludes groundwater"-followed by a hyperlink of the phrase "Tweet the truth."12 See below: Figure 1: Image from EPA's Ditch the Myth Webpage \JYTH: Groun1 beJC ll &• .g ~".: ... . ti 0 g~er~ Tl!l/TrER Source: Surfllder Foundabon. I GAO S.326944 The "Get Involved" button leads to an action page. When we visited the page on June 5, 2015, the action page stated: "Federal lawmakers in DC are trying to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from restoring Clean Water Act (CWA) protection for nearly 20 million acres of wetlands, two million miles of streams, 15 Chad Nelsen, Surfrider Foundation, Five reasons why surfers are more likely to get sick from polluted ocean water than beach goers (July 30, 2010), available at www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entrv/five .reasons-why ·surfers-are· more-likely ·to-getsick-from-polluted-ocean-wa (last visited Dec. 7, 2015) (Surfrider Blog Post). 16 This screenshot was taken on September 15, 2015. We note that the Surfrider Foundation has since redesigned its website. The "Take Action" column, along with the other information in side bar, no longer appears alongside the blog posts. Page8 B-326944 and the drinking water for 117 million Americans. Members of both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives have proposed attaching 'dirty water' riders to spending bills to block the EPA's efforts. "These small streams and wetlands need our protection as they impact the quality and health of downstream waters, and ultimately our coasts and the ocean. Clean water at the beach starts with healthy waters upstream. 'Tell Congress to stand strong for clean water and oppose any amendments that undermine the Clean Water Act in appropriations legislation." We visited the Surfrider blog post again on September 15, 2015. The text of the action page linked through the "Get Involved" button had changed to state the following, along with an associated form letter for submission: "Congress is considering legislation to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing the recent Clean Water Rule, despite the fact that 80% of Americans support this science-based decision. 'The Clean Water Rule is necessary to protect nearly 20 million acres of wetlands and two million miles of streams that provide drinking water for 117 million Americans and support healthy water downstream at the beach. "Tell Congress to listen to the American public instead of industry polluters and oppose any legislation or spending bills that would undermine the Clean Water Rule." In June and July 2014, provisions that would prohibit the use of appropriated funds in connection with the proposed rule were introduced in the Army Corps of Engineers' and EPA's FY 2015 appropriations bills, but were not ultimately enacted. H.R. 4923, 113th Cong.,§ 106 (2014); H.R. 5171, 1131h Cong.,§ 429 (2014). In June 2015, a similar provision was proposed for inclusion in EPA's FY 2016 appropriations bill. See H.R. 2822, 1141h Cong., § 422 (2015). Regarding beer, the EPA blogger explains that "brewers depend on a reliable supply of clean water,'' and that "there is an alliance of brewers speaking out for clean water." The phrase "alliance of brewers" hyperlinks to an NRDC page, "Brewers for Clean Water." NRDC, Brewers for Clean Water, available at www.nrdc.orglwaterlbrewers-for-clean-waterl (last visited Dec. 7, 2015) (Brewers Alliance Page). In a box embedded alongside the text of the Brewers for Clean Water page, describing NRDC's partnership with breweries to defend the CWA, is Page 9 8-326944 an orange link button ("Add Your Voice and Help Make Great Beer") leading to an action page. We include below the NRDC webpage hyperlinked in the EPA blog.17 Figure 4: Screenshot of NRDC Webpage r I .,., .H~ft-r Wt I •l\ \'ool "• ·•·· ••• l1 1 Ill·" ' "' ' "••)·• I •' •,. ' 1•q I h• )*j ~ I ., , !)~ ! 1 + ,•1 r fl t 111 I\, 11 f, I • • I 'y II 'f1 o••Ull •'"• 'r •l' l f)o tf V1m rJ•~hulµ1>-f<•• 1 dt• l·f t Thffe tn •nn r. • ta .,, tne 0.ari Wa!W Pted;e pe11:1e ;ng ~~,. fitnd t'M ci..,, IV• er At! Source NROC. lo' .a f• •4• ol... 11 wiah·1111 tl \I• ' • d i ~~"' " i•m ;o(,., y. a...s .... I GAO 8-326944 The action page states the following: "We shouldn't have to worry if the water sources we rely on for drinking, fishing , and swimming are polluted. But a legal loophole has undermined the Clean Water Act safeguards that are supposed to prevent big polluters from dumping dangerous pollutants into our waters. "The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers are ready to make important changes to close this loophole, but polluters and their allies in Congress could try to block them from moving forward . You can step up to help stop the polluter attack on these needed clean water safeguards. 17 This screenshot was taken on September 15, 2015. Page 10 8 -326944 "Protect clean water. Urge your senators to defend Clean Water Act safeguards for critical streams and wetlands." Below the text is a form for readers to send to their senators, urging support for the "Clean Water Protection Rule." At the time of EPA's April 7, 2015 blog post, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2015 was pending in the House. H.R. 594, 1141h Cong. (2015). If enacted, the provision would prevent implementation of the WOTUS proposed rule. The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015, which would require withdrawal of the rule, was introduced in the House on April 13, 2015. H.R. 1732, 114~ Cong. (2015). Several other proposed measures that would similarly impact the rule were pending at or near the time of EPA's blog post. As of December 2015, the EPA blog post continues to hyperlink to the Surfrider Foundation blog post and the NRDC Brewers for Clean Water web page. DISCUSSION At issue here is whether EPA violated publicity or propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions concerning the use of its FY 2014 and FY 2015 appropriations. In this opinion, we first address the publicity or propaganda prohibition, including its application to EPA's Thunderclap, #DitchtheMyth, and #CleanWaterRules social media campaigns. Then we address the grassroots lobbying prohibition, as applied to the hyperlinks in EPA's "Tell us why #CleanWaterRules" blog post, which connected to NRDC and Surfrider Foundation webpages containing appeals to readers to contact Congress. As discussed below, we conclude that EPA's use of Thunderclap constituted covert propaganda, in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition. The agency's #DitchtheMyth and #CleanWaterRules social media campaigns, however, did not implicate the publicity or propaganda prohibition. We also conclude that EPA hyperlinks to the NRDC and Surfrider Foundation webpages provided in the EPA blog post constitute grassroots lobbying, in violation of the grassroots lobbying prohibition. A. Publicity or Propaganda Section 718 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2014, provides: "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used directly or indirectly, including by private contractor, for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress." Pub. L. No. 113-76, div. E, § 718. This same provision appears in section 718 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2015. Pub. l. No. 113-235, div. E, § 718. Page 11 B-326944 EPA's activities raise issues concerning two forms of restricted communications: covert propaganda and self-aggrandizement. Covert propaganda refers to communications that fail to disclose the agency's role as the source of information. B-320482, Oct. 19, 2010. Communications tending to emphasize the importance of the agency, its officials, or the activity in question constitute self-aggrandizement. Id. See a/so 31 Comp. Gen. 311 (1952). As explained below, we conclude that EPA's use of Thunderclap constitutes covert propaganda, in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition. The #DitchtheMyth social media campaign, however, did not amount to covert propaganda. We also conclude that the #CleanWaterRules social media campaign was not self-aggrandizement. 1. EPA's Use of Thunderclap and the #DitchtheMyth Campaign Here, because EPA created a Thunderclap message that did not identify EPA as the author to those who would read it when Thunderclap shared the message across social media accounts, we consider whether EPA's use of Thunderclap constituted covert propaganda. The critical element of covert propaganda is the agency's concealment from the target audience of its role in creating the material. B-305368, Sept. 30, 2005 ("A critical element of this violation is the concealment of, or failure to disclose, the agency's role in sponsoring the material"); B-302710, May 19, 2004 ("[F]indings of propaganda are predicated upon the fact that the target audience could not ascertain the information source"). It is not enough that an agency disclose its role to the conduit of such material if it has not taken measures to identify its role to the intended recipient. For example, when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided prepackaged news videos to news stations to be reproduced without alteration, and did not, within the story or script, identify the agency as the source, we determined that CMS engaged in covert propaganda. B-302710. The labeling of the materials which identified CMS as the source to the news organizations did not identify CMS's role to the viewers. Id. Rather, the agency designed the videos to appear to the television viewing audience as though developed by the news stations. Id. Similarly, we concluded that suggested editorials prepared by the Small Business Administration (SBA) and distributed to newspapers constituted covert propaganda. B-223098, Oct. 10, 1986. The newspapers printing the editorials would know of SBA's role; however, as the tex1 of the pieces did not identify SBA as the source, the readers would not. Id. A Thunderclap campaign, by its nature, requires supporters for Thunderclap to post the campaign's message. Accordingly, reaching and acquiring these supporters is an inherent objective. For these supporters, EPA's role in the campaign and construction of the message to be shared was evident: EPA advertised the campaign, and the webpage on which supporters joined the campaign was visibly attributed to the agency. Like CMS's prepackaged news videos and its relationship Page 12 B-326944 with television stations, these supporters, while certainly one target audience of the campaign, were not the target audience of the Thunderclap message itself; they were conduits of EPA's message. The message 18 was not written for the supporters who joined the campaign-it was written for their networks of friends and followers who would see the message in their newsfeeds and dashboards when Thunderclap posted on their accounts. This notion is supported by EPA's many social media messages encouraging people to "tell [their] friends," "spread the word" and "help [EPA] send a strong message." Similar to CMS's prepackaged news videos and SSA's suggested editorials, EPA designed its Thunderclap message so that it could be shared without alteration. While EPA's role was transparent to supporters who joined the campaign, this does not constitute disclosure to the 1.8 million people potentially reached by the Thunderclap. To those people, it appeared that their friend independently shared a message of his or her support for EPA and clean water. We recognize that by allowing Thunderclap to post EPA's message to their social media accounts, supporters may have adopted the message. But the purpose of the pub1'1city or propaganda prohibition is to ensure that the government identifies itself as the source of its communications. A supporter's adoption or acceptance of EPA's message does not alter the fact that EPA used supporters as conduits of an EPA message campaign intended to reach a much broader audience than just these conduits, and EPA failed to disclose to that broader audience that the message was prepared and disseminated by EPA. EPA constructed a message to be shared by others that refers to EPA in the third person and advocates support of the agency's efforts. In stating "clean water is important to me" and"/ support EPA's efforts," EPA deliberately disassociates itself as the writer, when the message was in fact written, and its posting solicited, by EPA. Compare B-305368 (concluding that contract for positive commentary on the No Child Left Behind Act constituted covert propaganda, despite the commentator's personal belief in the Act), with B-320482 (deciding that contractor's opinion pieces and public statements on healthcare policy did not violate the prohibition, because the agency was not involved in procuring his opinion, nor were the actions taken as part of his contract). EPA argues that it made no attempt to conceal or otherwise mislead recipients as to its role in creating the information conveyed on social media. EPA Response, at 8. Concerning Thunderclap specifically, the agency notes the campaign was clearly identified as an EPA social media effort. Id., at 10. The agency stipulates that the message retained EPA's identifying information, included reference to EPA, and also linked to the website for the proposed rule, which made it easy for subsequent recipients of the message to discern EPA's involvement. Id. 18 "Clean water is important to me. I support EPA's efforts to protect it for my health, my family, and my community," with a link to EPA's website on the proposed rule. Page 13 B-326944 As we previously noted, EPA made its role evident to those in its social media networks who viewed its posts regarding the campaign and to those who joined the campaign allowing Thunderclap to post on their accounts. But EPA did not identify its role to its ultimate audience. The reference to EPA within the Thunderclap message ("I support EPA's efforts") and the link to the website for the proposed rule did not identify EPA as the creator of the message, or even the Thunderclap campaign, to the 1.8 million viewers. A Thunderclap post is not the equivalent of "retweeting" or sharing another's Facebook post, in which cases the new message would reflect its previous or original author. Generally, retweets and shared Facebook posts make clear from whom the post was derived. Thunderclap posts do not retain identifying information in the same manner as these other forms of sharing. From the post, one could possibly discern that the message was associated with Thunderclap, but even that possibility does not constitute a visible indication to readers that EPA was the source of the statement. As it relates to the potential 1.8 million viewers of the agency's Thunderclap campaign, EPA argues its message could not be considered covert, because EPA did not contract with the Thunderclap recipients nor conceal its role. As support, the agency cites to our decision concluding that the Department of Defense's (DOD) outreach to Retired Military Officers (RMO) serving as media-analysts did not violate the prohibition. See B-316443, July 21, 2009. EPA's Thunderclap, however, is distinguishable from DO D's outreach to RMOs. DOD sought to influence public opinion of its war policies by providing the RMOs with talking points and information and by organizing meetings and travel. As the opinion emphasized, the agency did not engage RMOs to have them deliver a DOD message to the public. Id. Here, however, EPA identified a particular message that it wanted to convey and sought supporters to authorize Thunderclap to deliver that message using their social media accounts. In this way, EPA's use of appropriations is legally indistinguishable from our decisions in which agencies constructed a message intended for a third party to distribute. See, e.g., B-302710; B-223098. EPA also notes that use of its messages beyond the agency's initial action is outside the scope of the publicity or propaganda prohibition as such use did not involve appropriated funds. EPA Response, at 9-10 (citing B-304829, June 6, 2005). To the contrary, the publicity or propaganda prohibition is concerned with the perception of the 1.8 million viewers. As with our CMS decision where the concern was that a prepackaged news video could be included in a news segment and the viewing audience would not be able to discern the source, here we focus on the message constructed by EPA with appropriated funds, and whether that message identified EPA's role to its target audience. It did not. Similar to the suggested editorials submitted by SBA for newspapers to print for the target audience, the Thunderclap was specifically designed for transmission through an intermediary making that transmission precisely the communication at issue. See 8-223098. See also Page 14 8-326944 B-302710. Thus, we find EPA's use of Thunderclap violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition. For purposes of the publicity or propaganda prohibition, we distinguish EPA's #DitchtheMyth campaign from Thunderclap. Despite the fact that the #DitchtheMyth campaign, like Thunderclap, was designed to permit people to post EPA's message from their own accounts, the facts are different. The graphics used in the #DitchtheMyth campaign contained the EPA logo, and the prewritten tweets contained the "#DitchtheMyth I @EPAWater" ascription at the end. We agree with EPA that including the @EPAWater Twitter handle at the end of the tweets identified EPA to the intended audience as the source of the information. Consequently, we conclude that EPA did not violate the prohibition in using appropriations to fund its #DitchtheMyth campaign. 2. EPA's #CleanWaterRules Campaign The #CleanWaterRules campaign was designed to spread positive commentary on clean water and the WOTUS rule. EPA used the hashtag itself in numerous social media messages providing information and emphasizing the importance of the agency's new rule. EPA's #CleanWaterRules campaign raises a question about self-aggrandizement because certain posts described what EPA declared as benefits or positive changes that would come about, and attributed such benefits to the agency's new rule. Examples of such posts include: • • • • "Our new rule protects clean water and in turn protects everything that depends on it - including your neighborhood grocery store. #CleanWaterRules" "Our communities and our economy depend on clean water. That's why we're finalizing our Clean Water Rule. #CleanWaterRules" "Millions of acres of America's wetlands lacked clear protections - until our new #CleanWaterRules" "Some big news this morning: Our Clean Water Rule was just finalized. This rule will better protect upstream waters, ensuring cleaner water downstream. That's great news for people's health, the environment and our economy .... #CleanWaterRules" Self-aggrandizement is defined as publicity of a nature tending to emphasize the importance of the agency or activity in question, noting that one of the prohibition's primary targets is communication with an obvious purpose of puffery. B-302504, Mar. 10, 2004. Balancing the restriction with an agency's right to disseminate information regarding its views and policies, we have traditionally afforded agencies wide discretion in their informational activities. Id. We do not view EPA's use of the #CleanWaterRules hashtag as self-aggrandizing. The campaign and associated social media posts certainly emphasized the Page 15 B-326944 significance of the agency's rule and the perceived benefits that would result from its implementation, but engendering praise for the agency was not the goal. We note that this situation concerns an agency's rulemaking and not an agency's backing of particular legislation-when EPA refers to "our rule," the attribution is a factual statement rather than evidence of an attempt to laud or credit EPA for the stated benefits. See B-302504 (HHS cover letter touting the benefits of a new Medicare law with statements including "[a]s a result of a new law, Medicare is making some of the most significant improvements to the program since its inception" and an accompanying letter advising beneficiaries that "[t]his new law preserves and strengthens the current Medicare program" did not constitute self-aggrandizement, as HHS did not attribute the enactment of new benefits to HHS). See also B-319075, Apr. 23, 2010 (HHS's creation of the HealthRefonn.govwebsite and the State Your Support webpage dedicated to advocating the Administration's position on health-care reform during the pendency of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did not constitute self-aggrandizement, as they were not designed to persuade the public of HHS's importance). 3. EPA's Informational Authorities EPA points to authority in the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 (NEEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 5501-5510, and section 206 of the E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, as providing statutory authority to use the Internet and other information technologies to educate the public and achieve the "widest possible dissemination of information," and to create opportunities for public participation in Government. EPA Response, at 5-