Listen to the article
The United States has imposed visa bans on a former European Union commissioner and four anti-disinformation activists, accusing them of orchestrating efforts to censor American social media platforms.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Tuesday that the individuals were involved in “organized efforts” to pressure U.S.-based tech companies to censor, demonetize, or suppress American viewpoints. Rubio characterized their actions as part of a broader campaign by foreign governments and organizations to influence speech on American digital platforms.
This decisive action marks a significant escalation in Washington’s opposition to the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a comprehensive regulatory framework designed to combat hate speech, misinformation, and disinformation online. U.S. officials have increasingly criticized the legislation, arguing it overreaches reasonable regulation boundaries, threatens freedom of expression, and imposes excessive financial and legal burdens on American tech companies.
The State Department has instructed its diplomats to actively oppose the DSA in international forums. The U.S. National Security Strategy has specifically criticized European leaders for what Washington characterizes as censorship and suppression of dissenting viewpoints, particularly regarding immigration policy discussions.
Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers identified the individuals affected by the visa restrictions, describing them as “key architects of censorship of American speech.” The most high-profile target is Thierry Breton, who served as EU commissioner for the internal market from 2019 to 2024 and oversaw the development and enforcement of the DSA. Rogers specifically accused Breton of pressuring social media platform X and its owner Elon Musk ahead of a politically sensitive interview with President Donald Trump.
The other individuals facing visa bans include prominent figures in the anti-disinformation space: Imran Ahmed, who heads the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate; Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon from the German nonprofit HateAid; and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index (GDI).
Von Hodenberg and Ballon responded swiftly, characterizing the U.S. decision as an attempt to weaken enforcement of European regulations on major American tech companies. In a joint statement, they affirmed their commitment to defending human rights and freedom of expression despite the restrictions.
A GDI spokesperson condemned the visa bans as “immoral, unlawful, and un-American,” describing them as authoritarian attacks on free speech. Rogers alleged that Melford had misused U.S. taxpayer funds to pressure advertisers and platforms into blacklisting American media outlets and online content that was labeled as hateful or misleading.
Melford has previously defended GDI’s work, explaining that the organization was established to undermine financial incentives behind harmful online content by rating news and information websites to help advertisers avoid supporting divisive or misleading material.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate did not immediately respond to requests for comment, while Breton was reportedly unavailable for comment on the allegations against him.
This diplomatic action represents the most aggressive stance yet taken by the United States against European digital regulation and those who champion it. The move highlights a deepening transatlantic rift over appropriate government oversight of online speech and content moderation.
The dispute touches on fundamental questions about national sovereignty in the digital sphere, the balance between free expression and protection from harmful content, and the power of American tech giants in global information ecosystems.
As digital platforms continue to dominate global communications and commerce, this conflict between American free speech absolutism and European regulatory approaches may have far-reaching implications for international relations, technology policy, and the future of internet governance.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
The US appears to be taking a hardline stance against perceived foreign influence on American digital platforms. However, the EU’s efforts to combat online misinformation may also have merit. Nuanced discussion is needed to find the right balance.
I agree, this is a delicate balancing act. Both countries have legitimate interests, and a constructive dialogue is essential to find a workable solution.
This is a complex issue, with valid concerns on both sides. While free speech is crucial, online disinformation can also cause real-world harm. A balanced approach is needed to address these challenges effectively.
The US appears to be taking a hard stance against perceived EU overreach on digital regulation. However, the EU’s concerns about online disinformation also have merit. This dispute bears close watching as it unfolds.
This dispute highlights the growing tensions between national sovereignty and the global nature of the internet. Finding the right balance between free speech and content moderation will be an ongoing challenge for policymakers.
Interesting development. It seems the US and EU are at odds over the appropriate regulatory approach to online speech. I’m curious to see how this dispute evolves and what the implications will be.
This is a concerning escalation in the clash between free speech and content moderation. I hope the two sides can find common ground and a way forward that respects democratic values on both sides of the Atlantic.
Well said. This issue touches on fundamental principles and will require careful negotiation to resolve. Constructive dialogue is crucial at this stage.
An interesting development in the ongoing debate over online speech and regulation. Both sides have valid points, and it will be important to see if they can find common ground and a constructive path forward.