Sept. 9, 2025, 4:46 p.m.
Republicans in Washington appear fixated on relatively obscure European tech legislation.
In the months since he reentered the White House, President Trump has repeatedly claimed that the European Union’s latest tech laws are designed to extort and harm U.S. companies. That view has been adopted by Trump’s staunchest allies, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Rep. Jim Jordan, both of whom traveled to Europe in recent months to berate allies with claims that the EU’s Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act are stifling free speech and innovation.
And despite having recently reached a very favorable trade agreement with the EU, Trump has suggested he could impose steep tariffs on countries that continue implementing such laws. The president’s views are setting up Washington for a showdown with Brussels that many officials in Europe would desperately like to avoid.
The current debate over the DSA can be boiled down to a fundamental question of worldview: Should the government regulate private companies to protect consumers, including children, from harmful content and disinformation, or is that an impediment to free speech?
Many Republicans, including members of Congress and the Trump administration, believe it’s the latter. In a recent hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, Jordan argued that Europeans are trying to control how U.S. companies operate and to “censor Americans.”
“The fundamental difference in the understanding of free speech between Europe and the United States is now coming to a head, because the EU is trying to regulate the social media platforms in a way that the U.S. government never did,” said Dave Keating, an expert on EU affairs based in Brussels.
But genuine concern over free speech may not be what’s sparked the discussion. The Trump administration’s deep ties to tech CEOs appear to be one of the reasons for Washington’s newfound interest in EU regulations.
The DSA and the DMA, legislation aimed to prevent large tech companies from abusing their market power, impose burdens and requirements on tech companies operating in Europe, regardless of where the companies come from. Most major tech companies come from the United States, and many have lobbied against the passage of both the DSA and the DMA.
“Their chief lobbying arguments weren’t really about free speech. They were about the economic costs of having to do this, that a lot of this wasn’t practical, that the legislation was requiring things, particularly the speed of taking down violating content, that they said wasn’t practical,” Keating told National Journal. “The Trump administration, when they began objecting to the law, has been largely talking about free speech, and now American tech companies are echoing that. But in the lobbying process, that wasn’t the primary argument.”
Big American tech companies appear to have successfully convinced the White House to work on their behalf against legislation they believe hamstrings them. One European official, who asked to speak on background in order to talk candidly, said the tech industry “sees the possibility to exercise pressure or influence, to leverage the proximity they have to the administration to push against regulation.”
Some experts argue the DSA doesn’t even moderate speech, that instead it obligates tech platforms to remove illegal content. Christoph Schmon, the international policy director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an American nonprofit that focuses on digital rights, said it’s somewhat surprising that Washington’s response to this legislation has been so “overblown.”
“The DSA doesn’t specify what is illegal content and what is not illegal content. It’s not focusing on speech that much,” Schmon said. “It’s more focused on transparency and processes on platforms. So it doesn’t regulate speech.
“It basically says, if there’s illegal content, and you’re notified about that illegality, you must take it off if you want to preserve your limited liability for third-party content,” he added. “This portrayal of the DSA as a speech-censorship tool doesn’t fully correspond to the reality of how the law is drafted.”
Meanwhile, both sides of the Atlantic have differing views about the benefits of leveling the playing field so smaller tech companies can compete with larger ones.
Morgan Reed, president of a trade association representing small software companies, has lobbied against both the DSA and the DMA. He argues the DMA in particular adds compliance requirements that “have nothing to do with building a software product.” What’s more, he said the law’s provisions fragment the market and make it more difficult for smaller tech companies to take advantage of the services that large app stores and search engines provide.
“It’s yet another set of regulatory oversight that isn’t really built or fit for the realities of small software companies,” Reed said. “The DMA approaches the larger platforms as though they exist in a vacuum. But in reality, they provide a lot of key, critical functionality to a lot of small businesses. Without those platforms, our members have a much harder time reaching customers.
“It levels the playing field for the billionaires against the trillionaires. But it doesn’t level the playing field for small businesses, because it reduces our ability to stand on those shoulders, to be seen as legitimate products,” he added.
European officials, meanwhile, argue the legislation opens up the business ecosystem, fosters competition, and gives consumers more choice.
Tensions over the two bills reached a boiling point after Thierry Breton, a French business executive who at the time served as the EU’s Commissioner for Internal Markets, wrote a letter to Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of the social media company previously known as Twitter, warning about disinformation on his platform. Many Republicans interpreted that as Europe’s attempt to regulate U.S. businesses from afar.
However, the letter also caused conflict within the EU. Breton allegedly sent it without the green light from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and some EU officials argued that the letter was unnecessarily provocative and overstated the laws’ requirements. Breton later resigned from his role within the commission as a result. Still, that hasn’t stopped Republicans on Capitol Hill from attempting to drag Breton in for questioning. During last week’s House hearing, Republicans slammed Breton for refusing to appear before the committee to testify.
Despite what appears to be a tempest in a teapot, the legislation is likely here to stay. Henna Virkkunen, the EU’s vice president for tech sovereignty, security, and democracy, has said the EU will continue to enforce the laws. And even if officials in Brussels wanted to rescind them, they would need to pass new legislation through the EU’s parliament to do that. That seems like a long shot.
Anna Cavazzini, chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, which is in charge of digital legislation, argued the EU shouldn’t make concessions to Trump because if you give him an inch, “he’ll take a mile.”
“EU rules apply equally to all tech giants, regardless of where they come from. The Digital Services Act protects EU citizens from disinformation and hate online. And the Digital Markets Act gives small and medium-sized enterprises a fair chance to succeed in the digital single market,” Cavazzini said in an emailed statement. “The lesson here is clear: The EU should never give in to a blackmailer.”
