The United States government has imposed entry bans on former EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton and four European activists, escalating a transatlantic dispute over content regulation and perceived censorship. The sanctions, announced by Senator Marco Rubio, cite the individuals’ alleged involvement in coordinated efforts to pressure US-based platforms into suppressing American viewpoints.
Rubio’s statement accused the targeted activists and associated non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of acting as instruments to advance censorship agendas on behalf of foreign governments. He declared that their activities posed a “potentially severe negative foreign policy consequence” for the United States, justifying the visa restrictions levied against those he termed “representatives of a global censorship industry complex.
The move is particularly pointed given Breton’s central role in shaping the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). This legislation, a key source of contention between Brussels and Washington under the Trump administration, mandates that large technology platforms actively curtail the spread of illegal and harmful content. Critics in the US, including proponents of the sanctions, argue the DSA infringes on free speech principles and exerts undue influence on online platforms.
Breton responded with forceful condemnation, drawing a parallel between the sanctions and the McCarthy era of anti-communist paranoia during the Cold War. His statement, released publicly, questioned the US’s accusations, suggesting the censorship they claim originates elsewhere. Other organizations affected by the sanctions echoed this sentiment, denouncing the action as an authoritarian assault on freedom of expression.
The sanctions highlight a deepening ideological rift regarding the regulation of online content and the balance between free speech and platform responsibility. They also raise questions about the transparency and justification of US sanctions policy, particularly when aimed at European political figures and civil society actors. While the US government frames this as a defense of American values, critics argue it represents a clumsy attempt to silence legitimate concerns about the power and reach of digital platforms and a chilling effect on international cooperation on crucial issues like online safety and disinformation. The long-term ramifications of the entry bans for transatlantic relations and the future of digital regulation remain to be seen.