The US House Judiciary Committee Republicans have ramped up their blistering assault on the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), exposing what they call a “secret censorship order”.
In a bombshell thread that has gone viral, they label the EU’s moves as an outright attack on free speech and US sovereignty.
Yesterday, they put up a scathing X post announcing they had legally forced the EU to release its 183-page secret decision fining Elon Musk’s X €120 million — nearly 6 per cent of its global revenue.
The thread, seen more than a million times in a few hours, argued that the fine targeted X for “defending free speech”.
Laced with sarcasm and outrage, the Republicans in the US House of Representatives targeted the EU’s justification of the mega-fine.
🚨@JudiciaryGOP subpoenaed Europe’s secret 183-page censorship order to X 🚨
The @EU_Commission’s first ever fine under the Digital Services Act (DSA) was against @X and @elonmusk for €120 million—nearly 6% of its GLOBAL revenue—for defending free speech.
Now we know why:… pic.twitter.com/FdLUScvkdQ
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) January 28, 2026
They highlighted the €45 million the EU fined X for “misappropriating” the blue checkmark verification symbol.
The European Commission criticised X’s shift to a paid premium model, claiming it made the verification “deceptive” by allowing users, including parody accounts, to obtain the badge without traditional identity checks.
US House Representatives gave a specific example cited in the decision: A Donald Duck parody account receiving verification, which the EC said could mislead users into believing “this fictional duck had come to life” and was a genuine user.
They also noted that it “turns out the European leftists were VERY upset about losing their blue checkmarks“.
Republicans said the EU wanted to penalise innovation and punish X for differing from other Big Tech platforms.
The EC found X had not provided sufficiently free, unrestricted and timely access to public data for qualified researchers studying systemic risks.
US House Representatives contend the decision applied DSA requirements extraterritorially, demanding data on US content and users for EU-based researchers, which they call a violation of US sovereignty.
They said they were sceptical about the EC’s use of “pro-censorship pseudoscientists”, linking this to prior US findings on misinformation research influencing content moderation, with many so-called fact-checkers proving to be highly political actors.
The EC, itself regarded by some as struggling to be open and transparent about its own decision making, deemed X’s system deficient because it delivered ad data via spreadsheets rather than a fully searchable web interface or robust Application Programming Interface (API), with limitations on custom queries and data retention.
US Republicans dismissed this as a “minor technicality” used as a pretext.
Beyond the fines, the EC’s decision requires X to submit remedial action plans including interface redesigns, improved data access, and audits.
Non-compliance could trigger periodic penalty payments – up to 5 per cent of daily global turnover, or, in extreme cases, a suspension of services in the EU.
The House Representatives frame the fines and requirements as part of a broader pattern since Musk’s acquisition of the platform, accusing the EC of using the DSA to target X for permitting open debate.
In July 2025, the Judiciary Committee released an interim staff report titled “The Foreign Censorship Threat: How the European Union’s Digital Services Act Compels Global Censorship and Infringes on American Free Speech.” Based on subpoenaed documents from US tech companies, the report stated that the DSA targets political speech protected under the US First Amendment.
In September 2025, the committee held a hearing titled Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation, where witnesses, including Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, discussed the DSA’s role in government-directed censorship under the guise of online safety.
The US Representatives ended by pointing to a new EU probe into X’s Grok AI and say they will keep a close eye on it to defend American innovation and free speech.
Just this week, the Commission announced yet another investigation into X, this time blaming Grok.
Make no mistake—the Commission’s actions are a pretext and its punitive fines against X are disproportionate because X permits free debate.https://t.co/AdfmQRx0Qx
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) January 28, 2026
The EC has presented the fine as enforcement of transparency rules under the DSA, aimed at protecting users from deceptive practices and ensuring accountability, rather than content-related censorship. The decision remains the first formal non-compliance finding under the regulation.
In a reaction to Brussels Signal, a spokesperson of the EC said: “The Commission publishes all decisions that it adopts.
“We, however, always follow due process and ensure that all decisions protect the rights and interests of the companies, as well as sensitive or confidential information of third parties.
“Only after this thorough check, the decisions can be published.
“We have no comment to make on a company’s decision to publish our decision that concerns them.”
European regulators are facing criticism for sidelining concerns about censorship and free speech in their ongoing review of the Digital Services Act. https://t.co/qycC0JGboS
— Brussels Signal (@brusselssignal) November 21, 2025
