US imposes visa sanctions on former EU official and disinformation group leaders over censorship claims

The United States has imposed visa sanctions on a former senior European Union official and leaders of several organisations that combat online disinformation, accusing them of pressuring American technology platforms to censor speech. The decision marks a significant escalation in tensions between Washington and European governments over digital regulation and freedom of expression.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the measures were aimed at individuals he accused of leading “organised efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetise, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.” The sanctions, announced on Tuesday, apply to five people and generally bar them from entering the United States.

The move has drawn sharp criticism from European officials and civil society groups, who argue it undermines transatlantic cooperation and misrepresents efforts to counter online hate and disinformation.

Sanctions target EU digital policy figures

Among those sanctioned is Thierry Breton, a former European commissioner who played a central role in shaping and enforcing the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). The law requires large technology platforms to take steps to limit illegal content and systemic risks, including disinformation, while safeguarding freedom of expression.

Breton has previously clashed publicly with Elon Musk, the owner of X, over the platform’s compliance with the DSA. In August 2024, he warned Musk that X remained subject to EU legal obligations and ongoing regulatory proceedings, according to Reuters.

Responding to the sanctions, Breton questioned whether the United States was reviving tactics associated with political persecution. “Is McCarthy’s witch hunt back?” he wrote in a post on X, adding: “To our American friends: ‘Censorship isn’t where you think it is.’”

US Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers cited Breton’s 2024 letter to Musk as evidence of what she described as intimidation of American companies, accusing him of “ominously” invoking EU enforcement powers.

Civil society groups also affected

The State Department also imposed sanctions on Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), and Clare Melford, chief executive of the Global Disinformation Index (GDI). Both organisations work with researchers, policymakers and industry to analyse and limit the spread of harmful online content.

In a statement, a GDI spokesperson described the sanctions as “an authoritarian attack on free speech and an egregious act of government censorship,” accusing the US administration of using state power to silence critics.

Leaders of the German organisation HateAid, Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, were also targeted. HateAid focuses on combating online abuse, threats and coordinated disinformation campaigns.

The two said they were “not surprised” by the decision, calling it “an act of repression by a government that is increasingly disregarding the rule of law.” They added that the sanctions represented “a new escalation” and a challenge to European sovereignty, but said they would continue their work despite the impact on them and their families.

Rubio cites foreign policy concerns

Rubio said he had determined that the individuals’ “entry, presence, or activities in the United States have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” He described them as part of what he called a “global censorship-industrial complex” that targets American speakers and companies through cooperation with foreign governments.

Under the measures, the Department of Homeland Security may also initiate removal proceedings against certain individuals if applicable, rendering them deportable. Rubio warned that the United States was prepared to expand the list if other foreign actors did not “reverse course.”

The State Department did not specify the legal process used to reach the determinations, but said the sanctions were imposed under existing visa restriction authorities.

Broader clash over free expression

The sanctions come amid a broader campaign by senior US officials to criticise European governments and institutions over what they describe as excessive restrictions on speech. A recent State Department human rights report cited “serious restrictions on freedom of expression” in countries including the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

Vice President JD Vance echoed those concerns in a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February, arguing that European leaders had “threatened and bullied social media companies to censor so-called misinformation.” He cited debates over the origins of Covid-19 as an example of views that were initially marginalised but later discussed more openly.

Sarah Rogers also accused Ahmed of collaborating with the previous US administration in efforts to “weaponise the government against US citizens,” pointing to the CCDH’s 2022 “Disinformation Dozen” report. That research identified a small group of individuals, including current Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as major sources of vaccine misinformation online.

Melford’s organisation was accused by Rogers of using US taxpayer funds to encourage censorship and blacklisting of American media, a claim GDI has rejected.

European reaction and diplomatic fallout

European officials responded with concern, warning that the sanctions risk deepening divisions at a time of already strained transatlantic relations. The French foreign minister was among those who criticised the move, though no coordinated EU response was immediately announced.

Analysts say the dispute reflects fundamentally different regulatory philosophies. While the United States has traditionally prioritised broad protections for speech under the First Amendment, the European Union has taken a more interventionist approach, balancing expression against concerns over public safety, election integrity and harm prevention.

For now, the sanctions underscore how debates over online speech, platform responsibility and state power have moved from regulatory forums into the realm of diplomacy, with consequences extending beyond technology policy into foreign relations.