By Republic Dispatch Staff
The House Judiciary GOP on Tuesday released a sweeping tranche of internal documents it says exposes a years-long campaign by the European Commission to pressure technology platforms into censoring lawful political speech—including speech by Americans—under the umbrella of Europe’s Digital Services Act (DSA).
Dubbed “The EU Censorship Files, Part II,” the release includes internal emails, meeting agendas, draft guidance, and moderation directives obtained through congressional subpoenas to Big Tech companies. The documents, according to committee investigators, paint a picture of foreign regulators exerting sustained influence over global content rules, election-period moderation, and the boundaries of acceptable political debate.
What the Files Allege
According to the Judiciary Committee, the documents show that European regulators:
- Pressured platforms to change global community guidelines, not merely EU-specific rules, affecting what users worldwide can post.
- Targeted election-period speech ahead of at least eight elections across six European countries since 2023, including the Netherlands (2023 and 2025), France (2024), Ireland (2024 and 2025), Slovakia (2023), Romania (2024), and Moldova (2024).
- Flagged broad categories of political content for suppression, including “populist rhetoric,” “anti-government/anti-EU content,” political satire, “anti-elite” messaging, and meme culture.
- Expanded “disinformation” definitions to include lawful, opinion-based speech on topics such as migration policy, gender ideology, and COVID-19 responses.
The files also suggest that what European officials publicly described as “voluntary” cooperation operated in practice under the implicit threat of massive fines and regulatory retaliation.
The DSA’s Global Reach
At the center of the controversy is the DSA, Europe’s flagship digital regulation. While formally an EU law, the Judiciary Committee argues the DSA has become a de facto global speech code.
Internal communications show EU officials urging platforms like TikTok and Meta to “adapt their terms and conditions” globally to comply with European expectations—particularly during election periods. One set of documents highlights more than 90 meetings between 2022 and 2024 where regulators pushed platforms to tighten moderation rules ahead of votes.
In 2024, TikTok explicitly updated its global Community Guidelines to state that it would comply with the DSA, a move the committee says resulted in the suppression of “true information” and constitutionally protected political opinions in the United States.
U.S. Speech, European Rules
Perhaps most alarming to U.S. lawmakers is evidence suggesting European officials were directly focused on American political speech.
The files include correspondence related to COVID-19 debates—specifically urging platforms to censor U.S. content questioning vaccine policies for children. Other documents reference meetings in California between EU officials and platform executives ahead of the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
The committee also highlights a 2024 incident in which EU Commissioner Thierry Breton warned X of regulatory consequences for hosting a live interview with then-candidate Donald Trump—an episode Republicans cite as clear election interference beyond Europe’s borders.
The One Platform That Resisted
According to the released material, most major platforms ultimately complied with EU pressure—except X. That resistance, the Judiciary Committee notes, coincided with aggressive enforcement actions against the company, including major fines and raids on offices in France.
To critics, the pattern suggests regulation used not just to enforce consumer safety or transparency, but to discipline platforms that refuse to conform to preferred political narratives.
Why It Matters
Supporters of the DSA argue it is necessary to combat disinformation and protect democratic institutions. But critics—now armed with thousands of internal documents—say the law has crossed a dangerous line.
“This isn’t about stopping illegal content,” one committee summary concludes. “It’s about controlling political narratives at scale.”
If the committee’s interpretation holds, the implications are profound:
- Foreign regulators influencing U.S. speech norms
- Election-season censorship coordinated behind closed doors
- Private companies acting as global enforcement arms for government speech rules
For a world that depends on open digital platforms as the modern public square, the files raise a stark question: Who decides what can be said—and who gets silenced—when regulation goes global?
Republic Dispatch will continue reviewing the released materials and tracking congressional responses as lawmakers consider legislative and legal countermeasures.
Republic Dispatch 
According to a leaked document the DOJ is creating a list of those who oppose the current administration, who are to be targeted as Domestic Terrorists.
The following paragraph is from a Google Search:
“Leaked details of this initiative showed it targeted individuals and groups based on views described as “anti-American,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” or holding “radical gender ideology”.”
Those who support these “ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES being deliberately committed by the current administration.
Have neither the right nor the moral credibility to criticize Europe or any other nation who engages in Censorship.
LikeLike
This is precisely why accuracy matters.
There is no verified DOJ document establishing a list of Americans to be targeted as “domestic terrorists” based solely on opposition to the administration, religion, or political ideology. What does exist are long-standing DHS and DOJ threat-assessment frameworks that distinguish constitutionally protected speech from criminal activity or material support for violence. Conflating the two weakens legitimate civil-liberties concerns.
Criticizing government overreach is not illegal. Opposing an administration is not terrorism. And no serious civil-liberties case is strengthened by repeating claims that rely on anonymous “leaks” filtered through Google summaries rather than primary sourcing.
That said, concerns about speech suppression, algorithmic enforcement, de-platforming, and soft censorship pressure—particularly when coordinated across governments and tech companies—are real and well-documented.
But pointing to alleged abuses at home does not make foreign censorship models legitimate, nor does it excuse them. Two wrongs don’t cancel each other out.
If the argument is that governments everywhere are pushing the boundaries of speech control, that’s a debate worth having. If the argument is that dissent itself is being criminalized in the U.S., that requires evidence—because once facts give way to assumption, the credibility of the warning collapses.
We’re interested in defending free speech by grounding the case in reality, not undermining it with claims that can’t hold up under scrutiny.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The point is that the United States government has no right to criticize other nations when its leaders themselves are engaged in the very same misconduct at home they’re criticizing.
The current administration has lied so often to justify policies coming from the Oval Office, that they no longer recognize what Objective Truth is even when it bites them on the nose.
Also creating a list of those who disagree with our current authoritarian government and listing them as domestic terrorists. Is well within the bounds of the current administrations character.
Which just goes to show how much moral credibility MAGA and its political leaders have lost with the public and especially with swing voters.
This is why the current administration is doing everything it can to interfere with the upcoming mid term elections.
And lastly it is Written in the Book of Revelation:
Revelation 22:14-15 KJVS:
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
It is crystal clear that the favorite pastime of our current political leaders and their sycophants is the making of lies they love to create.
LikeLiked by 1 person