Introduction
On 14th February 2025, JD Vance the Vice President of the United States of America made a speech at the Munich Security Conference, in which he called out European governments for censoring speech and not listening to their electorates [1]. This exceptional and well-delivered speech defending citizens’ rights was made just after the inauguration of President Trump, and it was seen by some as a turning point in American and European relations. This report examines the context and outcomes for free speech in Europe and in the USA following this significant speech.
The USA and the First Amendment
The USA is the only country in the world that has a constitution that protects its citizens’ right to free speech and free assembly. The 1791 Amendment to the Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” [2].
Originally the First Amendment only restricted the Federal government from interfering in the liberty of American citizens, but this was extended in 1868 by the much longer Fourteenth Amendment. It prohibited states from depriving people of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and it also requires equal protection for all persons under the law [3].
Hence, under the US Constitution in 2025, no federal, state or local governments can call out speech they do not like, such as antiwar speech, or racist speech, nor can they take any other action that interferes with the liberty of its citizens. This restriction applies not only to political speech, but all other types of speech, for example, science, religion or morality. However, this restriction does not apply to other entities, such as corporations, or a private employer, nor to governments outside the USA.
Hence, potentially at least, any US government action that restricts the speech of American citizens is unconstitutional. However, after the social media platform Twitter was sold to Elon Musk in 2022, emails and other documents relating to interactions between the Biden administration and censorship organisations were passed to a number of American journalists. These revelations are commonly referred to as the Twitter Files. Although some, particularly supporters of the then Democratic administration, stated that these documents had little significance, copies of emails revealed extensive communications between government officials and social media executives. These included details of censorship requests [4].
Further evidence of government interference with First Amendment rights was presented in the Biden V. Missouri (Murphy V. Missouri) case. Documents presented to the court demonstrated how “the Biden administration communicates with social media companies — including bullying and cajoling through back channels when trying to encourage the sites to take down posts” [5]. Although the defendants won the case on technicalities, many claimed it was still a win for free speech as censorship policies were clearly exposed during the court hearing. It was claimed by many conservative Americans that conservatives were far more likely to have their speech restricted [6]. This included social media posts by President Trump [7].
Europe and the Digital Services Act
European countries and the European Union (EU) are not restricted by constitutional decrees that defend the freedom of expression of its citizens. However, as Europe claims that it is democratic, the EU cannot openly state that it censors speech but has to cloak its intentions in issues such as fairness and protection. Censorship legislation forms a single set of rules that apply across the whole EU. The EU states that the first goal of legislation to moderate content is to create a safer digital space, and the second is to provide a level playing field both within the EU and globally [8]. The Digital Services Act (DSA) 2022 is put forward as a protection for EU citizens, with an emphasis on safeguarding the vulnerable, naming children, minorities, and ‘gender’.
In 2018, before the DSA was passed, the EU launched an action plan enshrined in its Code of Conduct to Combat Disinformation (CCCD). Disinformation was defined as “verifiably false or misleading information” presented for financial gain, to deceive or to cause harm.” Named problems included threats to democracy, health, the environment, or security [9]. In practice, since that date accusations of misinformation, disinformation and malinformation have been consistently applied to information that challenges EU directives or policy, even when relayed by credible actors, or when supported by academic research. The view of many media observers is that disinformation often originates from government sources, described as propaganda, ‘spin’, or public relations [10] and [11]. However, EU documents do not address this as a possibility.
The 2018 CCCD was a voluntary code, agreed between service providers and the EU. After 2018, the EU began to fund a swathe of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) that now contribute to moderation of content and control of information; their function is as enforcers of any censorship legislation that may be passed by the EU. This vast network stretching across Europe consists of universities, schools of technology, journalism schools, think tanks, AI/tech companies, fact check platforms, newswires and other media organisations, NGOs, media literacy trainers, and PR companies. These are largely paid for by the EU, although government-funded NGOs from non-EU countries such as UK and Switzerland share funding obligations. Their specific functions include:
- mapping fact-checking organisations in Europe and supporting joint and cross-border activities
- ensuring coordination of censorship activities across Europe and globally through standard setting activities
- funding content moderation practices, along with other governments and their NGOs, philanthropic organisations and corporations
- training journalists, students, children and other members of the public in approved fact checking techniques
- mapping, supporting and coordinating censorship research
- funding and/or undertaking development of censorship tools and systems
- building a public portal providing media practitioners, teachers and citizens with information and materials aimed at building resilience to what is called online disinformation
- supporting media literacy campaigns with funding and research
- training students, children and other members of society in media literacy in order to shape minds to think in a particular manner (i.e., applying ‘brainwashing’ techniques)
- designing a framework to ensure secure and privacy-protected access to platforms’ data
- giving support to public authorities in the monitoring of policies put in place by online platforms to limit the spread and impact of what is defined by the EU as disinformation
- creating and coordinating approved media and social media content that meets with the needs of policy makers, rather than that of European citizens.
The CCDC voluntary code was strengthened by the Digital Services Act (DSA) that came into force in 2022. The DSA is, however, a flawed document. Marcella Atzori analysed the DSA in 2024 and found that the lack of any clear definition of illegal content means that it cannot guarantee harmonisation nor legal certainty in the regulation of content. The terms used are broad and vague, which strategically opens the way to restriction of freedoms and the criminalisation of anything that the EU defines as disinformation. Both social media platforms and the administration are granted broad powers in the governance of speech, putting the liberties of civil society at risk. Atzori suggests that the strict obligations imposed by the DSA will encourage platforms and search engines to utilise rigorous content filtering technologies and terms of service. Atzori questions whether the noble objectives as described in the Preamble of the DSA were actually different from the outset [12].
Astonishingly, the DSA appoints those that police the Act – making judgements and imposing penalties, – without there being any legal redress for those accused. The American Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) states:
“Article 8 empowers national judicial or administrative authorities to issue mandatory takedown orders directly to “intermediary services” such as social media networks…the Parliament followed the Commission’s proposal and allowed a broad category of non-independent authorities to exercise this power. Taking down user communication is a highly intrusive act that interferes with the right to privacy and threatens the foundation of a democratic society. This is why only judicial authorities should be authorized to issue such orders. They are best able to determine with certainty that the material at issue is unlawful. By contrast, non-independent administrative authorities are often under the supervision of executive political power and don’t necessarily consider the legitimate interests of all parties involved, including the protection of their fundamental rights” [13].
In effect, the DSA legalises censorship in the EU, subcontracting content moderation to those who operate in the digital space, with onerous obligations for non-compliance placed on platforms with over 45 million users per month. These are named as Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSE) such as Google, and Very Large Online Platforms (VLOP) such as Facebook and X. As well as having the most obligations and duties under the DSA, they are subject to large penalties for non-compliance, with fines of up to 6% of their annual turnover [14]. As described by Atzori, this will encourage ‘over-compliance’ of VLOSE and VLOP in order to reduce risk of non-compliance. This is concerning as the policing of the DSA is by appointees of the EU. Hence, American corporations that operate search engines and social media platforms will face increased risks and costs, and American citizens can be censored through a ‘backdoor’ mechanism in Europe that may prevent their free expression.
According to cyber expert and media freedom researcher Mike Benz, due to First Amendment restrictions, the US has concentrated on getting censorship legislation passed in other countries, putting pressure on countries and entities such as the EU to enact such legislation. Benz argues that it is the intention of the DSA to control and curb American companies [15]. Indeed, global coordination of content moderation is one of the two main goals of the DSA. As a sign of American involvement in European censorship, investigations by the Foundation for Freedom Online (FFO) found ten US government funded organisations had signed the EU’s Code of Practice on Disinformation, 20% of its total signatories. A further thirteen American-funded news agencies, non-profits, analytics companies, and universities are involved in EU censorship activities through Europe’s network of digital observatories [16].
The Dichotomy
On the face of it, the USA and Europe have opposing positions, which will place a burden on the enforcers, such as corporations that operate platforms such as Facebook and X. The European demand for censorship is juxtaposed with a new executive order in the USA that requires an end to censorship. There are financial and other penalties for not protecting free speech of American citizens, whereas in Europe there are financial and other penalties for not censoring speech. There is the possibility of cross border enforcement which applies to both the DSA and the British Online Safety Act (OSA); Americans can offend laws that exist outside the USA, even when any opinions expressed are made in the USA. The developments following Vance’s speech therefore need to be examined to see if either or both entities are keeping to their stated positions, or whether one party or both are adapting their stance towards a more conciliatory position.
The analysis of, and reactions to, Vance’s speech
Vance’s speech was inspiring for those who support the notion that free expression is the most important pillar of democracy, and that democratic governments must listen to their electorates. The speech was written from the position of an American Christian conservative, as the deputy to President Trump, a populist leader who had attained a significant majority in recent elections. Reading the speech carefully, it fully reflects Vance’s political and religious position.
For example, when Vance gave examples of European censorship activities, he refers to censorship of activities that are in line with his own perspectives. This includes protests concerning migration, women’s rights, abortion, the criminalisation of prayer, the jailing of a Christian for burning the holy books of Muslims, the threat to close down Facebook during protests, and the sidelining of European populist parties and leaders. Whilst he did not give examples of censorship of more liberal and left issues, such as the censorship and distortion of the grave situation in Gaza, Trump’s strong alliance with Israel would make this type of criticism unlikely. Whilst Vance referred to Covid-19 as a lab leak, he did not refer to other issues that have been suppressed in both Europe and America, such as Covid-19 vaccine injuries. Vance’s bias in his examples of censorship has significance; this could mean that when the new US administration defends its own ideological position it may resort to censorship. This necessitates continued monitoring of the US administration to ensure that First Amendment rights are not violated.
The European reaction to Vance’s criticism was defensive and critical. For example, an article in the French LeMonde defended against all of the specific criticisms made by Vance, implying his examples were distortions and not fully investigated [17].
Vance’s remarks were not well received by German officials. For example, the German defence minister Boris Pistorius stated, “If I understood him correctly, he is comparing conditions in parts of Europe with those in authoritarian regimes. That is unacceptable.” Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz replied to Vance’s support for the German AfD party, which supports curbing migration. Scholtz said that the U.S. vice president’s remarks about the AfD were “not appropriate, especially not among friends and allies. We firmly reject that.” In his own address to the conference, Sholtz implied that the AfD was a fascist party that glorifies or justifies National Socialism. Significantly, the AfD were not invited to the security conference [18].
Since this speech, Europe has not changed its stance on censorship, nor its rejection of populist political parties that challenge the heritage parties. For example, in France in March 2025 the leader of the National Rally (NR), Marine Le Pen, was given a five-year ban from public office for misappropriating funds, which she and her party claim is politically motivated [19]. Parties such as the AfD and the NR are frequently called right wing extremists, racist, or anti-Semitic, and are often compared to the Nazi Party. In May 2025, the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution labelled the AfD an extremist right-wing party, requiring the party to submit to increased surveillance. The AfD is contesting this labelling and calling it a “blow against democracy” [20]. The European watchdog organisation Liberties points out that smearing is often done by the wealthy and powerful against those with less power [21]; the smearing of populist parities such as the AfD by the EU and more established parties and governments could be one example of this phenomena. Three months after the Vance speech, looking at the activities of the EU censorship enforcement activities, such as the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) and the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), there does not seem to be any reduction in censorship activities and censorship research projects still appear to continue to be funded to the same extent as before.
Additionally, since the USA has stated that Europe cannot depend on American military protection, Europe, including non-EU countries, has announced that it will increase its military spending in response to ‘threats’ [22]. Far from trying to compromise with the US, Europe is hardening its independence from US influence on free expression, and its actions indicate it intends to continue with its censorship policies.
The American administration and its free speech policy
On 20 January 2025, an executive order was signed by President Trump entitled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” [23]. This is a comprehensive document that outlaws federal government involvement in censorship activities including government funding, and it derides terms, such as misinformation, disinformation and malinformation, that have been regularly used by censorship organisations to explain their activities.
The First Amendment clearly relates to the government not restricting ‘the press’. However, since the executive order was signed sections of the media have been penalised for their independence; this involves restricting access to the pool of journalists who attend White House press briefings. For example, after Trump announced that the Gulf of Mexico would henceforth be called the Gulf of America, the American newswire Associated Press (AP) stated that because they report globally this new term may not be recognised in some countries. Hence, AP would continue to use the original name, which had been used for over 400 years; consequently, an AP journalist was barred from a press event. An AP executive responded by stating: “It is alarming that the Trump administration would punish AP for its independent journalism,” adding that this violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution [24]. Trump is involved in legal battles with a number of media outlets including public broadcasters after he announced funding cuts to the National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The reactions to these developments depends on the political position of those analysing these events, some stating they are attacks on media freedom [25], whilst Trump believes his actions are justified due to bias and programmes that put children at risk [26].
However, in other respects, the White House extended invitations to press events to journalists from a wider range of media outlets, reflecting the manner in which people now access news. This extended media list includes ‘new media’ as well as traditional and religious media, the largest proportion of which, but not all, have a conservative leaning [27]. As well as opening opportunities to news outlets that had been marginalised by previous administrations, Trump also bought a number of people who had previously been censored and smeared into government or high office. This includes Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Junior, and Jay Bhattacharya.
In response to the threat of Americans being censored by foreign entities, Trump’s administration has announced that it will not grant visas to anyone who has been involved in censorship of Americans on social media. The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio stated: “It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil…” [28]. Whilst no examples of this were found in Europe, in the UK the OSA, which is very similar to the DSA, has already been used to censor and criminalise legal American content posted on social media platforms [29] and has caused some American social media companies to stop operating [30] [31].
Funding mechanisms for fact checking activities have also been disrupted by the Trump administration. Described as part of an efficiency drive, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was closed down in March 2025 [32]. USAID is often described as a CIA cutout and most of its projects relate to increasing American ‘soft power’, including founding and funding of America-friendly NGOs and media organisations. This indirectly affected other organisations that were funded by USAID, such as the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) [33], and media projects such as Ukrainian media programmes [34]. Incidentally, the CIA, USAID and OCCRP were reported to be involved in an unsuccessful attempt to impeach President Trump in his first term [35], which could explain Trump’s antagonism to these particular entities. USAID and OCCRP have funded fact checking extensively, particularly in politically contested areas such as Eastern Europe. It is not known whether USAID funding obligations have been replaced by other American funders, but it is unlikely that the US would want to curtail its soft power capabilities.
However, other institutions, and especially universities, have been threatened with funding cuts relating to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programmes. Trump has rolled back many of the DEI initiatives of the Biden administration on ethnicity and sexuality. Some may view this as ‘Trump’ censorship, whereas others see this as liberating them from unfair and restrictive DEI practices [36]. The New York Times reported that the Trump administration was banning over 200 words and phrases from government documents; these are related to DEI, climate change, LGBTQ+ terms, and racism and social justice [37]. Of course, all new administrations change policy, but what will be interesting to analyse is how these changed concepts permeate through society. As long as the American public is aggressively divided there is no space for debate, and it may be that censorship swings from one perspective to another, thus continuing to restrict any genuine implementation of free speech.
The Trump administration is also pressuring universities to deal harshly with pro-Palestinian support [38], which the administration labels as antisemitism and support for terrorism. Some elite universities, such as Columbia and Harvard, have been threatened with severe financial and other penalties, because of their tolerance of campus protests [39]. Sixty American universities are being investigated by Trump’s new antisemitism task force [40]. Much media emphasis has been placed on the treatment of Palestinian campaigner Mahmoud Khalil, a post graduate student from Columbia University who is legally entitled to reside in the USA, married to an American citizen, and who has committed no crime [41]. Other foreign students and staff have had their visas revoked [42]. On current evidence, foreign nationals with a legal right to reside in the USA, and with no history of criminal activity, have been selected for arrest and/or deportation. Some argue that because they are not American citizens the First Amendment should not apply, whilst others say legally residing persons are protected [43]. However, at its roots this is action against legal protest, particularly designed to stop the spread of discourses surrounding Israeli political and military actions and a probable genocide of the Palestinians. The banning of protest on university campuses will affect American and non-American dissent. It is not in line with the First Amendment which prohibits government interference in “…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances…”. This cannot be described as anything other than a government-actioned extreme censorship.
Additionally, in June 2025, a bill is passing through the US Senate, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, that has been criticised because of its potential to restrict speech. This has been described by Republican senator Rand Paul as “a censorship act” [44]. Democrat senator Jerry Nadler, a Jewish lawyer and a “deeply committed Zionist” urged colleagues to vote against the bill because it “threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech…Speech that is critical of Israel – alone – does not constitute unlawful discrimination” [45].
Another issue in the freedom of American citizens is surveillance. There has been increased surveillance of American citizens since the new administration came to power, with more intrusive border checks, including checking biometrics and electronic devices [46]. There are also reports that the Trump administration sought a warrant to search the Instagram accounts of Columbia student protesters [47]. On his first day in office Trump announced US$500 billion investment into the Stargate project, which is expected to be the most intrusive system of data collection in the world [48], and, according to Trump, includes mRNA technology and vaccine development [49]. Worryingly, Trump and Vance have surrounded themselves with those who are at the forefront of the tech industry, including Peter Theil, a Bilderberger and CEO of Palantir, the world’s largest data mining company [50]. This is a concerning issue, as many of Trump’s supporters are motivated to defend their rights to privacy and bodily autonomy.
These developments do not meet with Trump and Vance’s aspirations to defend the First Amendment and listen to their electorate. As American journalist Matt Taibbi states, if Trump gives up on the First Amendment, the world is screwed [51]. There are reasons to think that this is a valid concern, as not only Europe but also the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antionio Guterres, has demanded censorship. In 2023 he declared that digital platforms are being used to subvert science and spread disinformation, describing this in terms such as ‘hate and lies’. He called for global coordination to deal with what he describes as a threat [52].
Social media and fact checkers – how have things progressed?
Social media companies usually follow the laws in the areas in which they operate, in order to avoid financial penalties and the forced closure of their platforms. For example, Musk who bought Twitter (now X) in 2022 considers himself a free speech absolutist. However, after a meeting with India’s President Modi, he was quoted as stating; “Twitter has no choice but to obey local laws in every country” [53]. In Brazil Musk was accused of reinstating accounts of supporters of the ex-President Bolsonaro and was subsequently banned from operating in Brazil by Judge Alexandre De Moraes. Eventually Musk was forced to comply with Moraes requirements and paid a $5.2 million fine[54]. In Europe, Musk’s business practices and statements have raised concerns about his influence on democratic processes and social media governance. Europe has been investigating X’s compliance with DSA requirements since 2023. In July 2024, the European Commission (EC) concluded that X had breached several provisions of the DSA, including data access and advertising transparency rules. By December 2024, there were further concerns about X’s livestream of an interview with the German AfD party leader. X is now being investigated by the EC for breaching the DSA rules which could lead to a fine of 6% of X’s global annual turnover [55]. To summarise Musk’s position, he appears to run as close as he can to the limit of censorship, and the DSA like most censorship legislation has vagueness and broadness in its key provisions [56]. This engineered ambiguity makes it difficult for the social media platform X and Musk to assess exactly where the legal limits lie.
The Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has been more amenable to censorship rules in countries where his company operates, seemingly putting his company’s commercial interests first. For example, Facebook operates in countries where governments have very tight control of circulating information, such as Cambodia, Saudi Arabia and Singapore, although Meta employs third-party fact checkers that presumably censor content according to local rules. There is also evidence that Facebook has complied with government wishes in the USA, despite the Constitutional protections there [57]. Facebook is also a founding member of the Trusted News Initiative, which is part of the BBC managed censorship system for worldwide media corporations [58]. Whilst Twitter was also a founding member under its previous ownership, it is unknown whether Musk has continued in this alliance.
Shortly after Trump came to office, Zuckerberg stated that he was closing down Meta’s third-party fact checking programme and moving to a system of community notes. This is similar to the content moderating system already operating on X [59]. Since January 2025, no Zuckerberg statements have been found on the progress of this change, although it is believed that this may have already occurred in the USA, but not elsewhere. A statement by the Irish NGO University Observer (UO) states that both Meta and X will have to comply with the DSA, and therefore any exit from current content moderation practices are unlikely to occur. So far, it is unclear how smaller platforms such as Bluesky and Substack that have a non-censorship policy will be able to continue to support free speech. The UO states that if these platforms leave the EU, this will form a digital ‘iron curtain’. Meanwhile, Meta is continuing to provide Europe with a fact checking team [60].
The Trump administration has announced visa refusals for those who are censoring American companies, but no other diplomatic pressure has been announced yet. The EU has yet to blink in pressure exerted from the US, from social media VLOP, and from its own citizens that would like their rights to free expression to be reviewed.
In June 2025, four large American fact check platforms were investigated in the USA, all of which were verified signatories of the IFCN. Websites of Factcheck.org, Lead Stories, Politifact, and Snopes were examined to identify any changes in their webpages’ content since the executive order. The terms misinformation, disinformation and malinformation that were outlawed in Trump’s order had only limited visibility and were not used in evaluations, instead terms like “Didn’t say it’ or ‘Not authentic’ were used. Factcheck.org produced political fact checks in detailed reports giving the accounts of both ‘sides’. Generally, fact checks on the other three sites were mostly of trivial items, for example, rather than fact checking the humanitarian, political or miliary situation in Gaza, one platform fact checked whether the carton of an ice-cream brand had a pro-Palestine message. There were no fact checks that were highly critical of Trump’s administration, as was alleged had occurred in earlier times. These platforms have therefore modified their business practices, but they are still operational.
Conclusion
Although, on the face of it, Europe and the USA appear to have different stances towards the issue of censorship, upon examination of the evidence it is very possible that these are purely political, i.e., between the so-called libertarian issues, known as ‘woke’, and between the so-called populist policies and parties that are currently on the rise. One of the beneficiaries of populism being the newly elected Trump administration; from his Munich speech, JD Vance appears to favour the rise of parties in Europe that may have similar policies to the US. However, this may not eliminate European censorship.
The observations of European policies demonstrate that their draconian censorship policies and their sidelining of populist parties continues; the observation of American policies is that the new administration is not going soft on censorship, but is adapting it, increasing surveillance, increasing surveillance opportunities, increasing ties with tech giants, and increasing pressure on those who dissent with respect to its policies.
People need to consider whether the current struggle is between on one hand autonomy and censorship, or on the other hand between opposing political ideologies neither of which are likely to unite a divided world. People need to be very aware that on both sides of the divide there are false prophets, and we need to continue to evaluate all statements carefully, even when they appear to be saying what we want to hear.
(Featured Image: “trump-musk spat” by exit78 is marked with CC0 1.0.)
