On December 24, 2025, the Trump administration sharply escalated its campaign against European digital regulations by imposing visa bans on a group of high-profile European officials and anti-disinformation activists. The move, announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, targets individuals whom the U.S. government accuses of orchestrating efforts to censor American viewpoints on social media platforms—a charge that has ignited intense backlash on both sides of the Atlantic and deepened the rift over the future of online speech.
The five individuals singled out for visa restrictions include Thierry Breton, the former European commissioner for the internal market and a central architect of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA); Imran Ahmed, CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate; Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index; and Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, leaders of the German nonprofit HateAid. According to the U.S. State Department, these figures have led “organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose,” as Secretary Rubio stated in a public post.
The DSA, which came into force in 2022, obliges large tech platforms to take meaningful steps to reduce illegal and harmful content online. The law was passed unanimously by all 27 EU member states, as Breton pointed out in his response to the U.S. action. The former commissioner, who has repeatedly clashed with tech billionaire Elon Musk over compliance with the DSA, responded with a pointed message on X: “To our American friends: ‘Censorship isn’t where you think it is.’” He also referenced the infamous McCarthy era, asking, “Is McCarthy’s witch hunt back?”
The U.S. government’s decision follows the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, which, earlier in December, accused European leaders of suppressing free speech and stifling opposition to immigration policies. The administration has framed the DSA and related European initiatives as existential threats to American free expression and the interests of U.S. tech companies. “The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship,” Rubio wrote, adding that the visa bans were necessary to counter “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the United States.
Sarah Rogers, the U.S. under secretary for public diplomacy, was explicit in her criticism, calling Breton “a mastermind” of the DSA and accusing him of threatening Elon Musk ahead of Musk’s interview with Donald Trump in August 2024. Rogers also accused Clare Melford of “falsely labeling online comments as hate speech or disinformation” and using U.S. taxpayer money to “exhort censorship and blacklisting of American speech and press.” She further alleged that Imran Ahmed was a “key collaborator with the Biden Administration’s effort to weaponize the government against U.S. citizens,” referencing the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s 2022 report that targeted so-called “Disinformation Dozen” anti-vaccine activists.
The response from Europe was swift and fierce. The European Commission condemned the U.S. visa bans, demanding clarifications and warning that it would “respond swiftly and decisively to defend our regulatory autonomy against unjustified measures.” French President Emmanuel Macron took to social media to denounce the move, calling it “intimidation and coercion aimed at undermining European digital sovereignty.” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot echoed that sentiment, emphasizing that the DSA “has absolutely no extraterritorial reach and in no way concerns the United States.”
Those directly affected by the sanctions have also spoken out. Breton, for his part, emphasized the democratic legitimacy of the DSA, while the leaders of HateAid, Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, issued a joint statement calling the U.S. action “an act of repression by a government that is increasingly disregarding the rule of law and trying to silence its critics by any means necessary.” They added, “We will not be intimidated by a government that uses accusations of censorship to silence those who stand up for human rights and freedom of expression.” Despite the visa restrictions and the strain imposed on their families, they vowed to “continue our work with all our strength — now more than ever.”
Clare Melford’s organization, the Global Disinformation Index, described the sanctions as “an authoritarian attack on free speech and an egregious act of government censorship.” In a statement to CNN, a spokesperson said, “The Trump Administration is, once again, using the full weight of the federal government to intimidate, censor, and silence voices they disagree with. Their actions today are immoral, unlawful, and un-American.”
While most Europeans are covered by the U.S. Visa Waiver Program and do not require a visa for short visits, the new restrictions mean that the targeted individuals could be flagged by the Department of Homeland Security and denied entry under the existing electronic travel authorization system. The administration has also hinted that the list of sanctioned individuals could be expanded if other foreign actors “do not reverse course.”
This latest move is part of a broader Trump administration push to use immigration law as a tool to counter what it sees as foreign interference in American online speech. Other visa restriction policies announced in 2025 have targeted visitors from certain African and Middle Eastern countries, as well as the Palestinian Authority. The administration’s approach has drawn both praise and criticism within the U.S., with supporters arguing it is a necessary defense of free speech and American sovereignty, and critics warning that it undermines longstanding alliances and risks retaliatory measures.
Vice President JD Vance, in a major speech at the Munich Security Conference in February, criticized European “censorship efforts,” claiming that European leaders had “threatened and bullied social media companies to censor so-called misinformation,” and invoking the controversy over the Covid-19 lab leak theory as an example. Vance argued, “It looks more and more like old entrenched interest, hiding behind ugly, Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation, who simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion.”
As the diplomatic fallout continues, the dispute highlights the growing divide between the U.S. and EU over the regulation of digital spaces. For the Trump administration, the visa bans are a bold assertion of American values and interests. For European officials and activists, they represent an alarming attempt to silence and intimidate those working to make the internet safer and more accountable. The standoff may well shape the next chapter in the global debate over free speech, digital regulation, and the limits of government power—on both sides of the Atlantic.
