On August 9, 2025, United States Vice-President JD Vance made headlines during his visit to the United Kingdom, issuing a stark warning to Foreign Secretary David Lammy. Vance cautioned the British government against proceeding down what he called a “very dark path” of restricting speech—a message that resonated beyond Britain’s borders and reignited international debate over free expression in the digital age. This diplomatic exchange was swiftly followed by the U.S. State Department’s annual reports on human rights practices, which singled out France, Germany, and the U.K. for what it described as “serious restrictions on freedom of expression” and a troubling rise in antisemitic violence.
For many in the United States, where the First Amendment is a bedrock principle, the focus on Europe’s increasingly censorious laws initially seemed surprising. But, as the National Post reports, the issue quickly becomes clearer when considering Europe’s heavy reliance on—and legal leverage over—American technology companies. The global influence of European regulation, sometimes referred to as the “Brussels Effect,” means that rules crafted in Brussels can have far-reaching consequences for speech and innovation worldwide.
During his visit with Lammy, Vance, who is known for maintaining a cordial relationship with his British counterpart, was measured in his critique. He accused Western governments, including the Biden administration that preceded Donald Trump’s presidency, of being “a little too comfortable with censoring rather than engaging with a diverse array of opinions.” Yet, Vance’s tone was sharper earlier in February, when he acknowledged that while British policies are ultimately for Britons to decide, infringements on free speech in the U.K. “also affect American technology companies and by extension, American citizens.”
Vance’s comments drew immediate pushback from British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, but he is far from alone in his concerns. The U.S.-based Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has been a vocal critic of the U.K.’s approach, urging the government to seek “alternatives to censorship” and to embrace “more speech.” Sarah McLaughlin, a senior scholar at FIRE, underscored the gravity of the situation, stating, “restrictions on speech—including online speech—in countries like the United Kingdom and Germany in recent years have been alarming.”
Other experts have echoed these warnings. In May, Jacob Mchangama, who leads The Future of Free Speech think-tank at Vanderbilt University, remarked, “in Europe free speech has been in steep decline for years, but there’s no real public outcry, no mainstream concern about democratic backsliding.” He went so far as to accuse European societies of existing in a state of “delusional ‘Censorship Denial.’” Yascha Mounk, a German-born international studies professor at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in April that “by American standards, Germany’s limits on free speech have long been shockingly restrictive” and that the situation is only getting worse. Mounk harbors similar concerns about the United Kingdom.
It’s not just a matter of principle. Vance’s remarks about the impact of British censorship on American companies and citizens hint at the complex web of global interdependence. As the National Post explains, Europe excels at producing rules and regulations but has lagged behind the U.S. and China in entrepreneurship, innovation, and wealth creation. Recognizing this shortfall, the European Commission’s 2025 Competitiveness Compass committed to “simplifying rules and laws” and “creating a friendly environment for young companies to start and expand.” Despite these efforts, Europe remains highly dependent on American technology.
This dependency was starkly highlighted in an August 2025 report by Swiss company Proton, which found that three-quarters of publicly listed European companies rely on U.S.-based technology firms. This reliance means that when European governments impose censorship laws on tech platforms, American companies like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) are inevitably caught in the crosshairs.
The global reach of European regulation was on full display last year when former EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X chief Elon Musk with legal action if American political content deemed objectionable in Europe was accessible to EU residents via the platform. Such moves, widely covered by outlets including the National Post, have raised concerns among civil libertarians worldwide.
Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, pointed out in 2023 that “many companies find it easier to have a single set of standards around issues—such as content moderation—rather than have specific rules for each country of operation.” The result? Companies often default to the most restrictive rules—usually Europe’s—since they face penalties for allowing too much speech, but rarely for censoring too much. FIRE has warned that this dynamic means “other countries’ censorship laws might affect what readers see in the U.S.” as tech platforms try to accommodate incompatible laws and default to the strictest standards.
The problem doesn’t end with Europe. Officials from the EU, Brazil, and Australia have all asserted the right to punish speech published outside their jurisdictions if the platforms transmitting that speech operate within their countries. This puts American tech companies, which have a global presence, in a precarious position if they adhere to U.S. free speech norms.
Yet, the United States is not immune to criticism on this front. The Biden administration has faced accusations of pressuring social media companies to suppress criticism of its policies, particularly during the pandemic. One federal judge described these efforts as an “Orwellian” scheme. FIRE, which has been critical of both Democratic and Republican administrations, is currently suing the Trump administration for allegedly punishing noncitizens over their public comments, emphasizing that “the First Amendment applies to everybody within the U.S.”
As debates over speech, technology, and sovereignty continue to swirl on both sides of the Atlantic, the stakes could hardly be higher. The influence of European regulation on global tech platforms is undeniable, and the risk, as many experts warn, is that the most restrictive standards will become the default everywhere—chilling speech not only for Europeans but for Americans and others around the world.
For now, U.S. officials like Vice-President Vance are determined to keep the spotlight on these issues, arguing that defending freedom of expression at home and abroad is not just a matter of national pride, but a necessity in a world where speech can be regulated by distant lawmakers. As the National Post puts it, they are “right to speak out for greater freedom of expression”—and the world will be watching to see what comes next.
