The US State Department has imposed entry bans on five European figures it accuses of trying to pressure American tech firms to curb protected speech. Announced on 23 December 2025, the move is the first high‑profile use of a visa policy unveiled in May aimed at foreigners deemed responsible for censorship in the United States.
Those named are Imran Ahmed of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, Clare Melford of the Global Disinformation Index, Anna‑Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of Germany’s HateAid, and former EU commissioner Thierry Breton. Secretary of State Marco Rubio framed the step as a defence of US sovereignty against a “global censorship‑industrial complex”, calling the targets “radical” activists using “weaponised” NGOs.
Officials have not published a formal designation list, but the department signalled it would rely on immigration authorities to deny admission under existing law. The legal hook most clearly referenced by US officials and legal analysts is section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which renders inadmissible any alien whose entry the Secretary of State reasonably believes would have potentially serious adverse foreign‑policy consequences, subject to narrow exceptions. This follows a May 2025 policy statement that the United States would restrict visas for foreign nationals responsible for censorship of protected expression.
Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers identified the five in posts and described Mr Breton as the “mastermind” of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Mr Breton rejected the characterisation, writing that 90% of the European Parliament and all 27 member states backed the law, and adding: “To our American friends: Censorship isn’t where you think it is.” He also said a “witch hunt” was under way.
Imran Ahmed leads the CCDH and previously advised a Labour minister; Clare Melford runs the UK‑based GDI. GDI called the US step “an authoritarian attack on free speech and an egregious act of government censorship”, saying the administration was using state power to silence critics.
The State Department also targeted HateAid’s leaders in Germany. HateAid says it is designated by the German Digital Services Coordinator as a DSA “trusted flagger”, meaning its illegal‑content notices must be prioritised by platforms operating in the EU. In a joint statement, the two executives said they would not be intimidated by the measures.
European leaders condemned the move. President Emmanuel Macron said the restrictions “amount to intimidation and coercion aimed at undermining European digital sovereignty”. The European Commission said it had asked Washington for clarification and warned it could respond to defend the EU’s regulatory autonomy.
The UK government said it is fully committed to free speech, acknowledged that countries set their own visa rules, and reiterated support for institutions seeking to keep the internet free from the most harmful content. London stopped short of endorsing the US decision.
The dispute arrives weeks after the European Commission issued a €120m DSA fine against X for deceptive design of blue checkmarks, shortcomings in its ads repository and failure to provide researchers access to public data. X subsequently deactivated the Commission’s advertising account on the platform, intensifying a transatlantic row over platform governance.
For those affected, the practical effect is that travel under both visas and the Visa Waiver Program can be blocked: ESTA approvals may be refused or revoked and any existing visas can be cancelled. US officials also indicated that, in some cases, removal could be considered if a targeted individual is already in the country.
EU officials stress the DSA applies to services offered in the EU and is enforced within the bloc; it does not create global speech rules for Americans. US officials counter that European actions and NGO campaigns have sought to set de facto standards on US platforms and users. This clash leaves platforms facing conflicting political pressures on moderation policies across jurisdictions.
What to watch next: Brussels has requested explanations from Washington and signalled it may act to protect regulatory autonomy. The State Department has suggested the list could expand. In parallel, DSA enforcement-fines and compliance deadlines-continues on the EU side.