Judges overseeing trials have a duty to remain impartial. The executive and legislative branches have no such duty. In fact to the contrary they have a right to express opinions. (Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans)
For example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren can publish a letter to Amazon demanding they remove books containing misleading or false information about the Covid pandemic. (Kennedy vs. Warren 9th cir) The government and it agencies are also free to publicly or privately identify and request removal of information it finds objectionable.
What the government is likely to have done, and cannot do is to actually force the removal of content. Amazon, the court found, could have kept those books on sale and not suffered any official consequences. In this case, the court finds it likely that the requests could not have been refused.
Whether, the government should have taken certain anti-trust or Section 230 reforms* is open for debate. But when government agencies tied decisions on such actions directly to companies compliance with the government's preferred content moderation regime it crosses a line.
We have a tendency to get sucked in to eschewing #FreeSpeech protections when we agree that the speech is objectionable, and the platform where the speech is hosted is also monopolistic, but we cannot always be assured that our speech will be well liked. If we want to protect minority voices then we cannot allow the government to pick and choose which speech may have a platform.
* - My reading of *Warren* is that if the only threat had been legislative reforms the government would have been acceptable because the Executive branch does not have the ability to unilaterally enact legislation. It can unilaterally bring [SLAPP lawsuits](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1019/slapp-suits).
