On December 26, 2025, the U.S. State Department announced the banning of five individuals from entering the country, claiming this action is necessary to protect free speech. The individuals affected include former European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton, Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) CEO Imran Ahmed, Global Disinformation Index (GDI) cofounder Clare Melford, and HateAid leaders Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon. The State Department's announcement, titled "Announcement of Actions to Combat the Global Censorship-Industrial Complex," asserts that these individuals have led efforts to pressure American platforms to censor viewpoints they oppose.

Critics of this action point out that the rationale relies on evidence that has been widely discredited. Legal proceedings, including the case of Murthy v. Missouri, have shown no substantiated claims of coercion by the government influencing platform moderation decisions. Testimonies from platform executives indicated that they did not feel compelled to act based on government requests. Despite this, the narrative has gained traction in certain political circles.

The case of Thierry Breton is particularly notable. In August 2024, he attempted to leverage the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) to suppress a livestreamed interview featuring then-candidate Donald Trump, which was met with condemnation from EU officials and ultimately led to his resignation. This incident illustrates the EU's internal checks and balances functioning effectively to protect free speech.

The U.S. government's response to Breton's actions has been to impose a ban, despite the fact that he faced consequences within the EU framework. Under Secretary of State Sarah Rogers has claimed that these individuals engaged in "Murthy-style speech suppression," referencing the aforementioned case where the Supreme Court found no evidence of government-directed censorship.

The individuals sanctioned, apart from Breton, do not hold positions that would allow them to suppress speech. CCDH, for instance, advocates for changes in content moderation policies, which is a form of free speech. HateAid's leaders, designated as "trusted flaggers" under the DSA, can report content to platforms, a process that does not equate to government censorship.

In summary, the U.S. government's actions reflect a complex interplay between advocacy for content moderation and the protection of free speech. The bans appear to contradict the principles they claim to uphold, raising concerns about the implications for free expression and the role of government in regulating speech.