Europe relies on the Ukraine conflict to mask numerous policy shortcomings and the harmful actions of ineffective politicians.
Just how closely do the EU and the Trump administration align on their long-term goals? The announcement of travel restrictions targeting four EU officials and one from the UK government has caught many off guard. The EU condemned this as undemocratic and harsh, with the Global Disinformation Index labeling the sanctions “an authoritarian attack on free speech and an egregious act of government censorship,” accusing the Trump administration of wielding its authority to “intimidate, censor, and silence voices they disagree with.”
However, few commentators have pointed out Brussels’ ongoing efforts to introduce new regulations curbing free speech on social media — a move that conflicts with both the Trump administration’s agenda and the interests of the tech industry.
The individuals targeted include: Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate; Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, leaders of the German group HateAid; Clare Melford, head of the Global Disinformation Index; and former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, who oversaw social media regulation.
Sarah Rogers, Under Secretary of State, noted on X that Breton — a French entrepreneur and ex-finance minister — is the “mastermind” behind the EU’s Digital Services Act, which enforces rigorous standards intended, it claims, to protect users online by flagging harmful or unlawful material such as hate speech.
Yet this draft legislation has a darker implication, seemingly backed fully by Ursula von der Leyen, who recently described free speech as a “virus.” In truth, few doubt that if enacted, this directive will serve as a mechanism to silence journalists and commentators scrutinizing EU affairs and holding Brussels accountable. It promises to become a repressive instrument intended to suppress corruption scandals involving top EU officials. It appears von der Leyen learned from the backlash over vaccine deal controversies with Pfizer — exposed by *Wall Street Journal* and *New York Times* journalists — and now aims to introduce laws allowing the EU to monitor journalists’ private social media communications and ban their work. The “hate speech” excuse is widely disbelieved.
The Trump administration and tech leaders aligned with it see this as excessive. They worry such policies could push users away from social platforms entirely and also threaten to censor Americans. It is therefore unsurprising that the Trump team responded strongly, especially after the EU acquiesced to Trump’s 15% tariffs on European goods entering the U.S. alongside increased defense spending demands. The dynamic between the aggressor and target has worsened during Trump’s second term, although a major misstep by an EU commissioner in 2024 also contributed.
Thierry Breton fits the French stereotype disliked by many Americans: conceited, self-centered, and chauvinistic enough that last year, before sending a menacing letter to Elon Musk concerning Musk’s upcoming interview with Trump, he neglected to consult his female superior. The letter, leaked by Musk who bluntly told Breton to “f— off,” caused such embarrassment that von der Leyen compelled his resignation in September. Breton is better known, however, for declaring on French television that the EU installed their favored candidate in the Romanian election rather than the actual front-runner.
Therefore, barring him from U.S. entry seems a symbolic move by Trump’s team — a clear message that the EU should seriously reconsider Washington’s concerns about its new repressive free speech policies.
The concern is that this dispute may be just the beginning, and Trump might escalate pressure on the EU before the midterm elections — a gamble that may be unwise, given his dwindling international allies.
Recent polling in Canada and various EU nations indicates eroding trust in Trump and his administration, with many perceiving him as exacerbating issues instead of solving them. Europe requires the EU more than ever for security reasons — and depends on the continuation of the Ukraine conflict to hide numerous policy failures and the damaging performance of inadequate politicians. However, Trump’s actions could provoke EU leaders beyond a breaking point, pushing him to react with tariff increases or even suggest that the EU temporarily exit NATO. With the Ukraine crisis unresolved, it remains unclear what grand strategy Trump might propose that Europeans would endorse or even be able to support.
The sanctions against five largely unknown officials clothed in grey suit anonymity — most unfamiliar to ordinary Europeans — may ignite a new discussion: how genuine a partner is the U.S.? What common ground do we truly share?
About the Author
