EU Digital Regulations Misrepresented by US Republicans

A Republican-led House Committee report claiming the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) threatens free speech fundamentally mischaracterizes the European regulation’s purpose and mechanisms, according to policy experts.

The report, titled “The Foreign Censorship Threat: How the European Union’s Digital Services Act Compels Global Censorship and Infringes on American Free Speech,” presents the DSA as an authoritarian measure rather than a democratically established regulatory framework designed to bring accountability to online platforms.

Policy analysts familiar with the legislation argue the report’s framing is not merely a misunderstanding but a strategic political maneuver aimed at preserving an under-regulated online environment where platforms face minimal responsibility for the content they amplify and monetize.

The DSA, which came into force after extensive public consultation and parliamentary debate, establishes transparency requirements and accountability measures for tech platforms operating in Europe. It requires companies to conduct risk assessments and implement due diligence processes regarding content moderation, while operating under judicial oversight from the European Court of Justice.

“The committee’s description of the DSA as ‘digital fascism’ and a ‘foreign threat to US speech’ significantly distorts both its intent and mechanisms,” says Chris Kremidas-Courtney, Senior Visiting Fellow at the European Policy Centre. “The act’s enforcement is anchored in fundamental rights and subject to legal tests examining necessity and proportionality.”

The controversy highlights a fundamental philosophical difference in approaches to online regulation between the EU and certain US political factions. Where European regulators have moved toward establishing democratic oversight of digital platforms, the United States has largely allowed tech companies to self-regulate, creating what critics describe as a regulatory vacuum.

This regulatory gap has real-world consequences. Without federal standards for platform transparency and accountability in the US, organized disinformation campaigns and targeted harassment can flourish with limited oversight. The report’s rejection of the DSA suggests that Republican leadership may intend to maintain this status quo.

Industry observers note that the report largely ignores the DSA’s built-in safeguards, including judicial review, due process requirements, and proportionality tests that prevent overreach—protections that contradict the narrative of an unchecked European bureaucracy imposing censorship.

While comprehensive federal action remains stalled in Washington, some US states have begun implementing their own regulatory frameworks that mirror aspects of the European approach. California’s Social Media Transparency Act and New York’s Hateful Conduct Law both incorporate elements similar to the DSA’s transparency and accountability model, though on a more limited scale.

The transatlantic dispute over digital regulation comes at a time when both regions face similar challenges from harmful online content, foreign disinformation campaigns, and questions about platform responsibility. Policy experts suggest that rather than framing the issue as an ideological battle, both sides would benefit from collaborative approaches to shared digital governance challenges.

“Framing the DSA as ‘censorship’ primarily benefits those who profit from an absence of democratic rules in digital spaces,” Kremidas-Courtney argues. “That absence doesn’t protect freedom; it creates an information environment shaped by private entities with minimal public accountability.”

The debate underscores a critical choice facing democracies worldwide: whether the digital public square should be governed primarily by corporate policies or democratic institutions. While Europe has chosen a path that emphasizes accountability, the United States continues to debate what approach best balances free expression with responsibility in the digital age.