President Trump and Europe clash over tariffs, war in Ukraine and the very purpose of the European Union. However, they are also divided into freedom of expression-with potentially far-reaching consequences for how the digital world is regulated.
The EU investigates American societies under Digital Services ActA new law to prevent illegal content and misinformation from spreading online. In the first main case, which is close to the conclusion, regulatory authorities are expected to save significant sanctions – including fine and requirements for product changes – Elon Muska X, on the platform of social media platform, with the law.
However, Mr. Trump’s administration considers the law to be a strike against his version of freedom of expression: the one who unfolds his allies to say what they want online, but limits the types of manifestations that they do not agree in the real world, such as protests at universities.
President he was asking that Europe is threatened by “losing his amazing right to freedom of speech”. Vice President JD accused European nations of “digital censorship” because of its laws claiming to limit far -right votes on the Internet.
And both administration officials and their allies in large technology companies have proposed that European rules for reducing misinformation and incendiary speech on the Internet are an attack on American societies – the one that the United States could defend.
Mr. Trump’s inauguration has repeatedly encountered Europe and the United States. In Ukraine, Mr. Trump turned his support and threatened not to defend European nations that do not invest sufficiently in their own security. This week, he announced extensive tariffs in Europe this week. And as European regulators begin to promote their new rules of social media, free speech becomes another point of flash.
“We are now in this dead end: the debate on free expression is influenced by every aspect of a transatlantic relationship,” said David Salvo, research worker of the German Marshall Fund, who is an expert in building democracy. “It’s a mess.”
Before the election of 2024, Mr. Vance in the podcast claimed that America could consider tying his support for NATO to “respect” US values and freedom of expression. In February, Mr. Vance spoke at a security conference in Munich and warned that “I am afraid that free speech is in retreat”.
Such comments come even though the US administration argued by universities over their speeches on their campuses, arrested by pro-Palestinian activists, excluded journalists from the White House press pool, abolished the holidays related to federal institutions and established policies that led to prohibited books in some schools in some schools Watchdog.
And in Europe, officials protested firmly against the criticism of their laws and claimed to help protect freedom of expression, for example by ensuring that some ideas are not secretly promoted by platforms, even if others are suppressed.
“We are not the Ministry of Truth,” said Thomas Regnier, a spokesman for the Executive Branch of the European Union, the European Commission concerning the dystopic power responsible for the state propaganda in “1984.” 1984. “
Yet, under the attack, it could become the latest European policy around digital services. In February the White House Published a note Warning that EU technical laws have been examined for unjustly focused on American societies.
“Of course, our feeling is that they will use tariffs to push us to retreat for technological regulation,” said Anna Cavazzini, German representative from the Green side, which was part of a trip to Washington for European legislators to meet their American counterparts on digital policy and speech issues.
The tension reaches back for decades. Europe has long preferred more railing for speech while America favors personal rights over almost all but immediate public safety. Germany has banned some of Nazism, while other countries limit certain forms of hateful expression towards religious groups. In Denmark, it is illegal to burn the Qur’an.
But while these fine differences have existed for a long time, the Internet and social media have now made a problem with a geopolitical pressure point. And it was sharply impaired by a new administration.
The Digital Services Act does not prohibit specific content, but requires companies to have established guarantees to eliminate content that is illegal under national or international laws and focuses on whether the decision to moderate content is adopted in a transparent manner.
“This is a question of how to ensure that your services are safe to use and respect the law of the country where you do business,” said Margrethe Vestager, former executive vice president of the European Commission from Denmark, who supervised antitrust and digital policy from 2014 to 2024.
Christel Schaldemos, which prevailed by law negotiations on the European Parliament, stated that the law protects freedom of expression. She added, “You don’t have the right to reinforce.”
The case against X will be the first main test of the law. In the first part of the investigation that regulators are now completing, the authorities have come to the conclusion that x has he had violated an act Due to the lack of supervision of its verified account system, its weak transparency of advertising and its failure to provide data to external scientists.
In another part of the EU offices, the Hands-off X-Consted Access to the Police Contents generated by the user has become a center of illegal hateful manifestations, misinformation and other materials that could undermine democracy.
This week, x said EU events were “unprecedented act of political censorship and attack on freedom of expression”.
EU officials had to consider the geopolitical consequences of a focus on the company owned by one of the closest advisors to Mr. Trump.
“Will the guy a guy who is a friend with the president?” said William Echikson, a non -resident manager with a technical policy program at the European Policy Analysis Center.
X is not the only main technology company in the conversation.
Meta, which is also based on the EU investigation, has eliminated its use of facts for Facebook, Instagram and threads in the United States shortly after the elections and can eventually download them all over the world. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of the company, called EU “censorship” and claimed that the United States should prevent their technology companies against the onslaught.
This is not the first time America and Europe had different standards for speech on the Internet. European courts they have confirmed The idea that the person’s data can be deleted from the Internet, the so -called “right to forget”. American legal experts and politicians considered this to be a violation of freedom of expression.
But the alliance between Mr. Trump and large technology companies – which were encouraged by its election – is expanding the gap.
European officials promised that Trump’s administration would not prevent them from standing according to their values and promoting their new legislation. In the next few months, the key test will be how much they can stick to these plans.
When she visited Washington at the beginning of this year to talk to the legislators, Mrs Schaldemose said, she found a small appetite to understand the regulation she helped to arise.
“It doesn’t fit the administration agenda: it won’t help them understand,” she said. “We don’t focus on them, but it’s perceived.”
