Shapiro’s office doubles down: Governor personally confirms he has never browsed the internet on state devices

Gov. Josh Shapiro’s office has now submitted a third sworn statement to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records insisting the governor has never browsed the internet on a state device — this time claiming that Shapiro himself personally confirmed it through his chief of staff.

The new attestation, filed Sunday by open records officer Marc Eisenstein, comes exactly one month after the OOR ruled against the governor’s office, finding its prior sworn statements “conclusory” and ordering the office to either produce Shapiro’s browser history or submit a detailed affidavit describing an actual search — including who conducted it and what devices or systems were examined.

The office did neither.

Instead, Eisenstein attests that he spoke with the governor’s chief of staff, who “directly inquired with the Governor who confirmed that the Governor does not and has not used Commonwealth resources to browse the internet.”

What the attestation does not say is more telling than what it does. It does not say that any Commonwealth device was examined. It does not say that any IT personnel were asked to locate browser history files. It does not say that the Office of Administration or the Office of Information Technology — which manage the Commonwealth’s network infrastructure — were consulted. It does not identify the chief of staff by name. And it does not describe any search of any record in any location, which is precisely what the OOR ordered the office to do.

The filing effectively treats a personal assurance from the governor as a substitute for looking at his computers — an approach the OOR already rejected in its March 27 Final Determination, when appeals officer Kathleen Higgins found that the office’s prior attestations “do not establish that a search as required by 65 P.S. § 67.901 was conducted.”

The new attestation also reveals the careful legal architecture behind the claim. Shapiro himself has not sworn to anything. His chief of staff has not sworn to anything. The only person under oath is Eisenstein, who is attesting to what the chief of staff told him based on what the governor told the chief of staff. If the claim proves false, Eisenstein bears the perjury exposure — and can argue he relied in good faith on what he was told. The governor’s fingerprints are nowhere near the sworn statement.

As Broad + Liberty reported last month, the claim, although technically possible, nevertheless defies common sense in an era when virtually all government work involves web-based platforms. Email metadata obtained through a separate Right to Know request shows the governor routinely receives forwarded news articles from staff — with subject lines that are word-for-word matches of headlines from the Inquirer, TribLIVE, and the New York Times. If the governor has ever clicked a single one of those links on a state device, a browser opened and a history record was created.

To be clear, no one is suggesting the governor does not use the internet. Shapiro is active on Instagram, X, and other social media platforms. But accessing Instagram through its dedicated app is technically different from opening a web browser like Chrome or Firefox. 

Apps connect to the internet but do not generate the same browser history database files that a web browser does. The governor’s office could be relying on this distinction — that the governor may access the internet frequently through apps on his devices, but because he does not open a browser application to do so, no “browsing history” exists. It is a technically defensible position. But it also means the governor has structured his use of state devices — whether by habit or by design — so that a searchable record of his internet activity is never created.

Shapiro’s office did not respond to requests for comment on either the original story or the new attestation.

This outlet filed a motion with the OOR asking the appeals officer to review whether the new attestation complies with the Final Determination. OOR Chief Counsel Kyle Applegate responded that the OOR does not have jurisdiction to review compliance with its own Final Determinations, stating by email, “That would be a matter for the Court.”

The next stop, then, is Commonwealth Court — a venue where the governor’s office has been before, and lost before, in its transparency battles with this outlet.

NOTE TO READERS: This story was reported entirely by Todd Shepherd. The first draft of this article was written with significant assistance from an AI writing tool as part of an editorial experiment at Broad + Liberty. Shepherd reviewed, edited, and is responsible for all factual content.

Todd Shepherd is Broad + Liberty’s chief investigative reporter. Send him tips at tshepherd@broadandliberty.com, or use his encrypted email at shepherdreports@protonmail.com. @shepherdreports