The U.S. government imposed visa restrictions on five European individuals accused of promoting what Washington described as “extraterritorial censorship” of American speech, marking a rare use of U.S. immigration powers in a transatlantic digital policy dispute. 

The measures were announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio under the second Trump administration and framed as a response to foreign efforts to pressure U.S.-based technology platforms into moderating content that originates in the United States.

Unlike traditional sanctions administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the actions do not include asset freezes, financial prohibitions, or trade restrictions.

Instead, they bar the named individuals from entering the United States and potentially render them deportable if already present. 

The State Department characterized the move as necessary to counter what it called a “global censorship-industrial complex” with implications for U.S. foreign policy and domestic political discourse.

The most prominent individual targeted is Thierry Breton, France’s former European Commissioner for the Internal Market and Digital Services, who served from 2019 to 2024 and was a central architect of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). 

In a series of posts on X, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah B. Rogers described Breton as the “mastermind” of the DSA and cited a specific incident from August 2024 as the basis for the U.S. action.

On August 12, 2024, Breton published an open letter to Elon Musk ahead of a livestreamed interview between Musk and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump on X. 

The letter reminded Musk of X’s legal obligations under the DSA, a 2022 regulation requiring large platforms to mitigate illegal content, hate speech, and disinformation accessible within the EU. 

Breton warned of risks related to the “amplification of harmful content” during high-profile events and urged “proportionate and effective mitigation measures,” noting that EU proceedings against X were already under way.

U.S. officials have portrayed that letter as an “ominous threat” aimed at suppressing political speech and interfering in American elections. 

European officials and Breton himself have countered that the communication was a routine enforcement reminder applying only to content reachable by EU users and not a demand for preemptive censorship of specific speech.

In addition to Breton, the visa bans apply to four figures linked to European civil society organizations focused on countering disinformation and online abuse. 

These include Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate; Clare Melford, associated with the Global Disinformation Index; and two German figures tied to HateAid, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon. None of the five are current government officials.

According to the State Department, these individuals and their organizations allegedly coerced U.S. technology companies, including X, into suppressing viewpoints deemed objectionable by foreign governments or non-governmental actors. 

The sanctions announcement warned that the list could be expanded if similar activities continue, signaling that Washington views the issue as ongoing rather than resolved.

Reaction in Europe was swift and critical. 

Breton responded publicly by questioning whether a “McCarthy’s witch hunt” had returned and wrote, “To our American friends: ‘Censorship isn’t where you think it is.’” 

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot condemned the measures as unacceptable interference in European sovereignty, while affected NGOs described the visa bans as authoritarian attacks on free expression.

The episode underscores widening U.S.–EU tensions over technology regulation. 

The Trump administration has repeatedly criticized laws such as the DSA and the UK’s Online Safety Act as tools that disproportionately restrict conservative or dissenting views and place U.S. platforms under foreign regulatory pressure. 

The EU, by contrast, has defended the DSA, which was adopted in 2022 with unanimous support from all 27 member states and backing from roughly 90 percent of the European Parliament, as a necessary framework to protect users from illegal content without dictating political outcomes.