As Ed wrote earlier, things are getting testy between the United States and Europe. Definitely read his piece to get the full picture. Me? I’m going to make the case, once again, that these countries cannot be called “allies” if they attack the rights of Americans.
The war on free speech in the West isn’t going away, and until President Trump re-assumed office, the Biden administration was as belligerent against our rights to speak our minds as any petty tyrant in the UK, the EU, or other countries that we like to call the “Free World.”
The issue of free speech has been a flashpoint between the Trump administration and our “allies” in the West, and by now it should be clear that Trump—and even more so Rubio and Vance—are not merely making performative statements for the cameras. They clearly mean what they say.
Rubio has turned out to be a superstar and the clearest-speaking Secretary of State in my lifetime. He rarely minces words, so it doesn’t take an interpreter to parse out diplo-speak to understand the message he just delivered to our allies in Europe.
“Are we going to live in a world where some American puts up a social media post and then gets to some airport somewhere and is arrested?”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio issues a warning to Americans over Europe’s assault on the First Amendment. pic.twitter.com/tOG8Lf8Ov0
— Free Speech America (@FreeSpeechAmer) December 23, 2025
Are we gonna live in a world where some American puts up a social media posts and then gets to some airport somewhere and is arrested? Um, we’re also concerned about the impact that some of their policies are having on our social media platforms. As you recently saw, you know, X. Is facing this massive multimillion dollar fine that they’re gonna have to pay, I guess, if they want to continue to operate. But I think more importantly, I think it, it, it, it touches on the broader question that was asked a little bit earlier. We all talk about how these alliances, in many cases, our alliances with our European partners are built on our, on our common principles are common values as much as anything else. These aren’t just a geopolitical arrangement. It is an alliance with like-minded countries with whom we share values and principles. And one of those values and principles, we hope is freedom and the freedom of expression, and we’re concerned that that is eroding.
In other words, the United States’ defense of Europe is predicated on preserving shared values, and Americans won’t be inclined to spend so much blood and treasure to defend countries that are determined to erode Americans’ rights and even pervert our political system.
And make no mistake, speech policies in other Western countries are aimed directly at Americans and American elections. In the 2024 election, the Europeans and the United Kingdom did far more to interfere in the outcome than Vladimir Putin ever could have. The United Kingdom actually sent election workers to help Kamala Harris, and the European Union actually threatened to fine Elon Musk billions of dollars for having an online discussion with Donald Trump during the campaign.
I remember thinking last year that this was one of the most chilling letters I’d ever read. It treats freedom of speech as merely one factor to be weighed in the balance against “detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security.” And the letter was targeted specifically… pic.twitter.com/IOvqYc0jV6
— Christopher Landau (@DeputySecState) December 24, 2025
I remember thinking last year that this was one of the most chilling letters I’d ever read. It treats freedom of speech as merely one factor to be weighed in the balance against “detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security.” And the letter was targeted specifically at a conversation on this very platform between @elonmusk, an American, and @realDonaldTrump, also an American then running for the US Presidency. When the letter talks about “content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political—or societal—events around the world” in this context, it’s talking about core political speech. More than any other document I’ve ever read, this letter bares the fangs of the global censorship-industrial complex and underscores that unelected bureaucrats in the EU are ready, willing, and able to use their regulatory reach to try to influence elections and nullify the First Amendment in the US. When I wrote earlier this month about the glaring inconsistency between US relations with the EU and NATO, this is exactly what I had in mind. If the sovereign nations of Europe allow the EU to attack fundamental freedoms in the US, those same nations cannot expect the US to defend fundamental freedoms in Europe.
Seriously, now. How can we call countries that interfere with Americans’ rights and our political system in such ways “allies?” Over the decades, Americans have spilled the blood of hundreds of thousands of our men and spent trillions of dollars to ensure the freedom and independence of these countries.
That letter from the EU is long, but it boils down to this: The EU hates Donald Trump and believes that his every utterance is “hate speech,” so if you let him onto X, we will fine your company billions of dollars. The fine for violating the EU’s Digital Services Act is 6% of worldwide revenues, and Breton made clear than in Musk’s case that would include all his businesses, and not just X.
Dear Mr Musk,
I am writing to you in the context of recent events in the United Kingdom and in relation to the planned broadcast on your platform X of a live conversation between a US presidential candidate and yourself, which will also be accessible to users in the EU.
I understand that you are currently doing a stress test of the platform. In this context, 1 am compelled to remind you of the due diligence obligations set out in the Digital Services Act (DSA), as outlined in my previous letter. As the individual entity ultimately controlling a platform with over 300 million users worldwide, of which one third in the EU, that has been designated as a Very Large Online Platform, you have the legal obligation to ensure X’s compliance with EU law and in particular the DSA in the EU.
This notably means ensuring, on one hand, that freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism, are effectively protected and, on the other hand, that all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events, including live streaming. which, if unaddressed, might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security. This is important against the background of recent examples of public unrest brought about by the amplification of content that promotes hatred, disorder, incitement to violence, or certain instances of disinformation.
It also implies i) informing EU judicial and administrative authorities without undue delay on the measures taken to address their orders against content considered illegal, according to national and/ or EU law, ii) taking timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective action upon receipt of notices by users considering certain content illegal, ill) informing users concerning the measures taken upon receipt of the relevant notice, and iv publicly reporting about content moderation
In this respect, I note that the DA obligations apply without exceptions or discrimination to the moderation of the whole user community and content of X (including yourself as a user with over 190 million followers) which is accessible to EU users and should be fulfilled in line with the risk-based approach of the DA, which requires greater due diligence in case of a foreseeable increase of the risk profile.
As you know, formal proceedings are already ongoing against X under the DSA, notably in areas linked to the dissemination of illegal content and the effectiveness of the measures taken to combat disinformation.
As the relevant content is accessible to EU users and being amplified also in our jurisdiction, we cannot exclude potential spillovers in the EU. Therefore, we are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political – or societal – events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.
Let me clarify that any negative effect of illegal content on X in the EU, which could be attributed to the ineffectiveness of the way in which X applies the relevant provisions of the DSA, may be relevant in the context of the ongoing proceedings and of the overall assessment of X’s compliance with EU law. This is in line with what has already been done in the recent past, for example in relation to the repercussions and amplification of terrorist content or content that incites violence, hate and racism in the EU, such as in the context of the recent riots in the United Kingdom.
I therefore urge you to promptly ensure the effectiveness of your systems and to report measures taken to my team.
My services and I will be extremely vigilant to any evidence that points to breaches of the DA and will not hesitate to make full use of our toolbox, including by adopting interim measures, should it be warranted to protect EU citizens from serious harm.
Yours sincerely,
Thierry Breton
Ce: Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X
Breton literally compared allowing Donald Trump to speak to amplifying terrorism.
Letting Donald Trump speak, according to the European Union, was a threat to its existence and an illegal act.
Every American’s right to free speech is enshrined in our US Constitution. Foreign nations seeking to impose their anti-freedom policies to censor American voices and force American platforms to regulate or silence our free speech is a gross violation of our sovereignty that must… https://t.co/mPBp6KMmBb
— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) December 24, 2025
Is it any wonder why the State Department is making clear to our “allies” that their status as such is in question? If Vladimir Putin had tried to pull something like that, everybody would be screaming bloody murder. They screamed bloody murder when a few hundred thousand dollars were spent on unintelligible social media ads in 2016.
This is @_ConnieShaw spokesperson for the Free @SpeechUnion commenting on the Online Safety Act. She describes it as a “disaster” as perfectly legal content has been censored, including a speech in Parliament by Katie Lam.
Or was that the idea?
Connie praises the Americans. pic.twitter.com/8ZL9yfyOBg
— David Atherton (@DaveAtherton20) December 24, 2025
The European Union tried to make Trump’s presidential campaign illegal. Which, to be fair, is on brand. The EU keeps pushing to cancel elections it doesn’t like and ban political parties within its own borders, so why not make a play for the American elections as well?
When both the Secretary of State and his deputy make the same point on the same day about the questionable status of our NATO allies, they should sit up and take notice.
NATO countries have forgotten that they are junior partners in this alliance. They seem to believe that, by their status as the older partners, they are the senior partners. This attitude ignores the fact that the United States was founded by people who left the continent’s tyrannical leaders and have no desire to be ruled over by them again.
If they want our help—and the United States has been very generous with it—they have to play by our rules. And Americans believe in freedom.
