President Trump and the European president are clashing the very purpose of tariffs, war in Ukraine, and the existence of the European Union. However, they are also divided into free speech. It has a potentially far-reaching impact on how the digital world is regulated.
The EU is investigating US companies under the Digital Services Act. This is a new law to prevent illegal content and misinformation from spreading online. In the first major case close to conclusions, regulators are expected to expect this summer as soon as they are expected to impose a major penalty on Elon Musk's social media platform X, which includes fines and requests for product changes, saying that the law has been violated.
But Trump's administration sees the law as a strike against his version of freedom of speech. It considers his allies to release his allies to say what they want online, but limits the types of expressions he disagrees in the real world, like protests at university.
The president argues that Europe “is at risk of losing its excellent right to freedom of speech.” Vice President JD Vance has accused European countries of “digital censorship” because of his laws, and has argued that it is restricting far-right voices on the internet.
And both government officials of major technology companies and their allies suggest that European rules to curb disinformation on the Internet are attacks on American companies.
Since Trump took office, Europe and the United States have repeatedly clashed. In Ukraine, Trump dialed his support and threatened not to defend European countries that were not investing adequately in his security. Trump announced a wide range of tariffs in Europe this week. And as European regulators begin to implement new social media rules, freedom of speech is becoming another flashpoint.
“We are at this deadlock right now. The freedom of speech debate has impacted all aspects of transatlantic relations,” says David Salbo, a researcher at the German Marshall Fund, an expert on democratic buildings. “That's a mess.”
Even before the 2024 election, Vance argued in a podcast that America could consider linking its support to “respect” American values ​​and freedom of speech. Speaking at a security conference in Munich in February, Vance warned that “free speech is retreating.”
Such comments have arrested Palestinian activists, banished journalists from the White House press pool, cancelled identity-related holidays in the federal system, and canceled enacted policies that led to books banned at certain schools, despite the American administration's arguing with universities over speeches on campus.
And in Europe, authorities are firmly opposed to criticism of their laws, claiming that it helps protect free speech, for example.
“We are not a ministry of truth,” says Thomas Leisure, a spokesman for the European Commission, referring to the dystopian army that caused George Orwell's “1984” national propaganda.
Still, some frets that say the latest European policies surrounding digital services could be attacked. In February, the White House warned a memo that EU technology laws were under scrutiny for unfairly targeting American businesses.
“Of course, our feelings urge us to use tariffs to return to technical regulations,” said Anna Kabazzini, Germany's representative at Green Party, who was part of a trip to Washington to meet with American counterparts on issues of digital policy and speech.
Tensions go back decades. Europe has long preferred more guardrails to speeches, but America prioritizes personal rights over almost everything except immediate public safety. Germany bans certain speeches related to Nazism, while other countries limit certain forms of hate speech to religious groups. In Denmark, burning the Quran is illegal.
But while these nuances have been around for a long time, the internet and social media are now making this issue a geopolitical pressure point. And that has been exacerbated clearly by the new administration.
Although the Digital Services Act does not prohibit certain content, as companies are in place to remove illegal content under national or international law, companies must remove organized content and focus on whether content moderation decisions are made in a transparent way.
Margrethe Vestage, former executive vice president of Denmark's European Commission from 2014 to 2024, said:
Christel Schuldemose, who shepherd the law through negotiations in the European Parliament, said the law protects freedom of speech. She added, “You have no right to be amplified.”
The lawsuit against X will be the first major test of the law. In the first part of the investigation, which is currently finalized by the regulator, the authorities concluded that X violated the law due to lack of monitoring the verified account system, weak advertising transparency, and the failure to provide data to external researchers.
In another part of the incident, EU authorities are investigating whether X's handoff approach to user-generated content police has become a hub for illegal hate speech, misinformation and other material that could undermine democracy.
This week, X said the EU's actions amounted to “an unprecedented act of political censorship and an attack on freedom of speech.”
EU officials had to weigh the geopolitical impact of targeting a company owned by one of Trump's closest advisors.
“Are they going to fine a man like the president and his partner?” said William Ekixon, a senior non-resident fellow of the Technology Policy Program at the European Centre for Policy Analysis.
X is not the only major tech company in the conversation.
Meta, which is also being investigated by the EU, would abolish the use of fact checkers in US Facebook, Instagram and threads shortly after the election, and could ultimately pull them back around the world. The company's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, called EU regulations “censorship,” and argued that the US should protect tech companies from the onslaught.
This is not the first time that America and Europe have different standards for speech on the Internet. European courts support the idea that data about individuals can be erased from the Internet, the so-called “right to be forgotten.” American legal experts and policymakers see it as a violation of free speech.
But while Trump's alliance with major tech companies has been encouraged by his election, the gap is growing.
European officials have vowed that the Trump administration will not prevent them from enforcing new laws based on their values. The next few months will be a vital test of how well they can stick to their plans.
When she visited Washington earlier this year to talk to lawmakers, she said she found little desire to understand the regulations that helped her exist.
“It doesn't fit the administration's agenda, it doesn't help them understand,” she said. “We're not targeting them, but that's how they are perceived.”
