We present the open letter sent by Robert Amsterdam, founder of Amsterdam & Partners LLP, to Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Thom Tillis, demanding the immediate retraction of their letters to Meta and Alphabet – letters which, counsel argues, risk distorting Armenia's democratic process by casting unfounded suspicion on opposition leader Samuel Karapetyan ahead of the June 7 parliamentary elections.

Dear Senators:

We write as counsel to Samuel Karapetyan, leader of the Strong Armenia party, a principal opposition party in Armenia, regarding your April 17, 2026 letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Although your letter avoids naming Mr. Karapetyan, it plainIy identifies him by description. We understand a similar letter was sent to Sundar P ichai, CEO of AIphabet. These letters are extraordinarily prejudicial and should be retracted immediately.

Your letters are official interventions by members of the Senate Foreig n Relations Committee sent to major American technology platforms in the midst of an Armenian parliamentary campaign. As such, they carry the weight of United States governmental authority and create a serious risk of distorting the democratic process in Armenia. When senior senators urge private platforms to act against a leading opposition figure without disclosing the factual basis for their allegations, they do not protect democratic integrity; they threaten it.

Most troublingly, your letters substitute innuendo for evidence. They string together circumstantial references and invite platforms to infer that Mr. Karapetyan is implicated in foreign interference, yet they identify no concrete act attributable to him, no account or page under his control, no coordinated network he directed, and no impro per financing he provided. That is not responsible oversight. It is the use of official position to manufacture suspicion by implication rather than proof. In the middle of a parliamentary campaig n, such conduct threatens not onIy grave prejudice to Mr. Karapetyan, but also improper interference with lawful opposition speech and with the right of Armenian voters to make their own political choices free from external pressure. As the U.S. Supreme Court underscored in Murthy v. Missouri (2024), when powerful public officials press dominant social media platforms on matters of political speech, such communications cannot be treated as mere suggestions, divorced from the coercive weight of public office.

In your April 17 letter, you state that “no foreig n power should be permitted to influence the results of Armenia‘s sovereign decisions.“ We agree entirely. But that principle cannot be invoked selectively. When mem bers of the Senate Fo reign Relations Committee use the authority of their office to urge major American technology platforms to act on opaque allegations aimed at a principal opposition leader, they too risk influencing Armenia's sovereign democratic choices. It is no answer to denounce foreig n interference while engaging in it yourselves.

Recent congressional scrutiny has underscored the dangers of official pressure on major technology companies in matters touching political speech.1 Your letters illustrate exactly that danger. In the final stretch of a parliamentar y campaign, to signal to Meta and AIphabet that a leading opposition fig ure and his movement are tainted by foreig n manipulation is to invite heightened scrutiny, suppression, or unequal treatment of lawful political speech associated with that opposition. That is not a neutral act. It predictably advantages the incumbent authorities in Yerevan and burdens those seeking to challenge them through democratic means.

That is particular Iy irresponsible because the most serious threats to a free and fair election in Armenia arise not principally from a broad, but from the conduct of the incumbent government itself. Prime Minister

Pashinyan has been widely criticized for attacks on freedom of speech, freedom of association, religious liberty, and the pro per constitutional balance between church and state. His demeaning attacks on the leader of the Armenian Holy Apostolic Church, together with the imprisonment of political o pponents, including our client, have already raised profound concerns about political pluralism and the fairness of the present electoral environment. At the same time, the government remains under intense public scrutiny for the mass displacement of more than 120,00 0 Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh and other grave setbacks suffered under its leadership. Yet your letter to Meta ignores that reality entirely.

Mr. Karapetyan stands for an Armenian election that is free, fair, and wholly unaffected by disinformation or improper influence from any foreign source, including Russia. He does not act for the Russian government and rejects any attempt to portray his political movement as an instrument of foreign interests. His advocacy has been directed toward the defense of Armenian sovereig nty, the rights of Armenians, and the protection of the Armenian Apostolic Church. For that, he has been imprisoned an d deprived of legitimately owned assets. He is hardly alone: clerics, journalists, and other political opponents have likewise been subjected to false charges and coercive measures in the run-up to the 7 June election. In these circumstances, your letter risks reinforcing a false narrative already being deployed to marginali ze the opposition rather than protecting Armenia's democracy.

By using alleged foreig n association to cast suspicion on a principal opposition leader without proof, your letters deploy a tactic uncomfortably akin to Russia's ’foreign agents‘ law: the stigmatization and sidelining of political opponents through the suggestion of external taint. Democratic institutions should repudiate that method, not reproduce it.

Accordingly, we demand that you retract these letters immediately and refrain from any further effort to interfere in Armenia‘s democratic process throug h official pressure on private platforms or otherwise.

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should not use the prestige of their office to stigmatize a principal opposition leader in a sovereign foreig n election by implication rather than proof. We have copied Mr. Zuckerberg so that Meta is on notice of our client‘s position and of the grave prejudice and evidentiary deficiencies reflected in your correspondence.

Yours truly,

Robert Amsterdam