Prominent US Republicans are considering legislation to strip sovereign immunity from European Union officials enforcing content moderation rules under the Digital Services Act (DSA).
They are mulling a bar on US social media platforms from complying with EU censorship directives on US users and opening the door for private lawsuits against foreign entities involved.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, who has been leading the charge against what he calls EU censorship, told Brussels Signal yesterday: “Free speech empowers citizens to debate policies on their merits in the marketplace of ideas.”
“The committee hopes that the European Commission changes course and stops restricting the modern town square in a heavy-handed and extraterritorial fashion. If not, given the stakes for American sovereignty, all options remain on the table,” he said.
This comes after his comments about the recently approved US GRANITE Act (Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion).
This legislation is aimed at stopping foreign governments from censoring US-based platforms and individuals. It allows Americans to sue foreign entities in US courts for overreaching content-moderation rules, primarily addressing threats from laws such as the DSA or its British variant, the UK Online Safety Act.
There is a push by US Conservatives for a federal version to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), enabling stronger nationwide protection.
Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah B Rogers told GB News on January 13 that the US Government could take legal action against UK’s regulator for communications services Ofcom if they were trying to overreach.
She noted there was already action proposed, pointing to the proposed federal version of the GRANITE Act, which would clarify that fines by Ofcom are unenforceable against US companies while also keeping open other options “if the British Government insists upon trying to nullify the first amendment on American soil with respect to American companies”.
During a speech in London on February 4 for the think-tank Prosperity Institute, she described the UK’s Online Safety Act as “tyrannical and absurd”, calling it part of a “tangle of laws that have these censorious effects”.
Jordan said earlier that new legislation protecting US free speech should be used during trade talks by the administration and that he was open for the House to do more.
In a reaction to the arrest of Irish comedy writer Graham Linehan, who was held over his views on trans-activism, Jordan said those involved in censoring speech should not be granted their visa to the US but that other solutions were also on the table.
In the EU, officials did not appear impressed.
Spokesman for tech sovereignty and disinformation of the European Commsion, Thomas Regnier, said on February 6 that the EU follows the rule of law and that due process should be used by both sides, noting that the bloc is transparent in its decision making.
Asked about the legality of a post by US President Donald Trump, depicting former US president Barack Obama and his wife Michelle as monkeys, with it possibly falling under hate speech laws, Regnier replied: “It feels good to feel safe in Europe,” and that “is precisely why we have a regulation in place”.
“Racism, hate speech, illegal content has no place online. Not because the Commission says so, because it is illegal in real life,” he said.
He added that what is illegal offline should be illegal online, giving the example of running around in the street with a poster showing paedo-pornographic or terrorist content. People doing this would be stopped immediately. The same holds in cases of hate speech or racism.
Criminal investigations were not the domain of the EC, Regnier said, nor were individual cases but amplifying certain messages via algorithms makes companies liable and the EC can investigate and sanction.
He stressed that it was about systems platforms put in place to boost and amplify certain content because of its potential harm.
Regnier said he has seen “massive attacks” on member states “for holding platforms accountable” and that the EC was fully with them.
Germany just fined a US company with no German presence €31,650 ($37,700) for violating its speech law.
The target is Gab, a free speech platform operating under US law.
The penalty comes from Germany’s NetzDG, which forces platforms to maintain local compliance offices and… https://t.co/cFAkqfLT8L
— Reclaim The Net (@ReclaimTheNetHQ) February 9, 2026
