The government doesn't care about the editorial policy so long as if it's not managed by a foreign adversary or proxies of a foreign adversary, which obviously fall out of scope of the First Amendment. This is consistent with the wholly uncontroversial indictments of the owners of Tenet Media who allegedly conspired with Russia. Meanwhile, the commentators on the channel, such as Tim Pool and Dave Rubin, claimed to have had full editorial control over their content that just so happened to align exactly with Russian propaganda, yet they were free to go.

>which obviously fall out of scope of the First Amendment.

It obviously doesn't. That would mean the US Government can ban all foreign press, just by designating countries as "foreign adversaries". And "foreign adversaries" is a euphemism for "countries that don't submit". The SCOTUS just invented another exception to the absolutist interpretation.

>wholly uncontroversial indictments of the owners of Tenet Media

>were charged with failing to register as a foreign agent

This entire narrative together with the banning of Tiktok is wholly hypocritical, given the American media, tech, and NGO's influence/dominance around the world.

The moment someone achieved what the American entities have been doing around the world, the non-stop wailing of "foreign adversaries this, foreign adversaries that" started.

Meanwhile in Georgia, a country bordering Russia, the law requiring foreign-financed NGOs to register was declared to "stigmatize organizations that serve the citizens of Georgia" with accompanying travel bans for the authoritarian evil doers who passed said law by the US state department.