Former EU commissioners defend digital rules against Trump censorship claims

Tensions between the United States and the European Union over digital governance have escalated sharply, prompting a high-level defense of European regulatory frameworks. Following the Trump administration’s decision to bar five European officials from entering the US—including former internal market commissioner Thierry Breton—three former European commissioners issued a joint commentary on January 2, 2026, refuting accusations that EU laws function as tools of censorship.

The commentary, authored by Bertrand Badré, Guillaume Klossa, and Margrethe Vestager, argues that the US administration’s narrative fundamentally misrepresents the purpose of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA). The authors contend that these regulations are designed to curb the market dominance of "gatekeeper" platforms and ensure algorithmic accountability, rather than to police speech.

"The accusation of censorship fundamentally misunderstands – or misrepresents – European law," the former commissioners stated in the document. "In fact, there is no content regulation at the EU level."

Defining the regulatory scope

The dispute centers on the divergent regulatory philosophies across the Atlantic. The US administration has characterized the EU's enforcement actions as targeted attacks on American free speech and enterprise. Conversely, European officials view the regulations as essential mechanisms for preserving competitive markets and democratic integrity in an era of concentrated digital power.

The Digital Markets Act, which entered into force in November 2022 and became fully applicable in May 2023, establishes ex-ante obligations for companies designated as gatekeepers. As detailed in previous coverage of The 6 Gatekeepers under Digital Markets Act (DMA), the European Commission designated Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft as managing core platform services that require strict oversight to prevent anti-competitive behavior.

According to the commentary, the DMA is strictly an economic instrument. "What we have are rules to ensure that digital markets remain open and competitive," the authors wrote. They argue that the legislation prevents large technology companies from abusing dominant market positions to stifle innovation, a practice that limits consumer choice rather than expression.

The Digital Services Act, which became fully operational on February 17, 2024, addresses content moderation but, according to the authors, does not impose new definitions of illegality. Instead, it creates a procedural framework for handling content that is already illegal under national laws of member states. "Content that is illegal within an EU member state – as determined by our own democratic legal systems – must be removed, and the sender notified," the commentary explained.

Algorithmic accountability and risk assessment

A core component of the DSA involves mandatory risk assessments for very large online platforms. The legislation requires these entities to evaluate how their algorithmic systems might amplify systemic risks, such as electoral manipulation or negative impacts on public health.

The former commissioners emphasized that this requirement addresses the structural design of digital platforms rather than individual pieces of content. "Private commercial choices have profound public consequences when algorithms are designed to maximize engagement through polarization," the authors noted. They argued that regulation is necessary when business models depend on "keeping users anxious or outraged."

This focus on algorithmic transparency has led to significant enforcement activity.⁴ The European Commission fined Meta €200 million in April 2025 for violations regarding consumer choice and data usage. Furthermore, the Commission issued a €120 million fine against X on December 5, 2025, marking the first non-compliance decision under the DSA specifically related to transparency violations.

Industry debate and legal interpretations

The publication of the commentary has sparked debate within the legal community regarding the practical application of these laws. Thomas Höppner, a competition lawyer and partner at Hausfeld specializing in digital litigation, shared the document on LinkedIn, describing it as essential reading in light of the US sanctions.

Höppner highlighted the authors' argument that freedom requires "positive conditions such as education, access to diverse sources of information, protection from manipulation and exploitation." He reinforced the view that the DMA and DSA were not "rushed through in a moment of panic" but were the result of a decade of failed self-regulation.

However, the interpretation of the DSA as purely procedural is contested. Florian Mueller, an intellectual property analyst, challenged the commissioners' stance in a response to Höppner. Mueller argued that the "risk mitigation" provisions of the DSA effectively pressure platforms to remove lawful but controversial content to avoid liability. "It's about removing lawful content on top of what was already unlawful before," Mueller wrote, articulating the concern that vague definitions of "risk" can lead to over-compliance and shadow banning—points that resonate with the US administration’s criticism.

Enforcement escalates across sectors

The conflict over digital sovereignty extends beyond social media to the underlying infrastructure of the internet. The European Commission has increasingly targeted the cloud computing sector, viewing it as a critical bottleneck for digital competition.⁵

On November 18, 2025, regulators opened cloud gatekeeper probes for Amazon and Microsoft, examining whether Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure should be designated as gatekeepers despite not meeting all quantitative thresholds. These investigations assess whether existing DMA rules can effectively address competitive concerns in cloud infrastructure, which serves as the backbone for AI development.⁶

Artificial intelligence has also become a focal point of regulatory scrutiny.⁷ On December 9, 2025, the Commission opened a formal investigation into Google’s AI content practices.⁸ As regulators identify gatekeepers' AI advantages in data and infrastructure access, concerns have mounted that major platforms could leverage their dominance in search and data collection to monopolize the emerging generative AI market.

Compliance challenges and market impact

For technology companies, compliance with the EU's evolving framework has proven costly and complex. Google challenges Digital Markets Act enforcement have been vocal, with the company submitting comprehensive responses to consultation periods in September 2025. Google claimed that compliance efforts have degraded services for European users and resulted in €114 billion in losses for European businesses, citing changes to how search results display hotels and flights.

Höppner disputed this characterization in his LinkedIn exchange, arguing that the removal of direct links was a strategic decision by Google rather than a regulatory mandate. "The DMA does not force a designated search engine 'to remove direct links to hotels, flights, and restaurants'. Nowhere, ever," he stated, suggesting that platforms may be implementing malicious compliance to turn public opinion against the regulations.

Despite these frictions, some platforms have adapted. In March 2024, TikTok announced new data portability measures to comply with the DMA, allowing developers to request user permission for data transfers. Similarly, WhatsApp enables third-party messaging in Europe as part of its interoperability obligations, a move intended to break down the "walled gardens" of dominant messaging apps.

The "Europa Power Initiative" and future relations

The commentary serves as a manifesto for the "Europa Power Initiative," a coalition co-presided by Vestager and Mariya Gabriel. The initiative’s Strasbourg Declaration calls for Europe to assert its "digital, intellectual, and political independence."

The authors conclude that the concentration of digital power in the hands of a few American and Chinese companies poses a strategic risk. "We have allowed ourselves to be captured by big-tech platforms," they wrote. "For many Europeans, there is little meaningful choice online."

This stance suggests that the EU will not retreat from its regulatory agenda, regardless of diplomatic pressure from Washington. The entry bans on officials like Breton—who was the architect of much of this legislation—signal a potential fragmentation of the global digital market, where multinational companies must navigate increasingly incompatible legal regimes.

Timeline

• November 2022: The Digital Markets Act (DMA) enters into force.
• May 2023: The Digital Markets Act becomes fully applicable; the European Commission designates six gatekeepers.
• February 17, 2024: The Digital Services Act (DSA) becomes fully operational for all platforms.
• March 2024: TikTok announces data portability measures to comply with DMA requirements.
• April 23, 2025: The European Commission fines Meta €200 million for DMA violations regarding consumer choice.
• September 2025: Google challenges DMA enforcement in consultation responses, claiming economic losses.
• November 18, 2025: Regulators open cloud gatekeeper probes for Amazon and Microsoft.
• December 5, 2025: The Commission issues a €120 million fine against X for DSA transparency violations.
• December 9, 2025: A formal investigation is opened into Google's AI content practices and AI advantages.
• January 2, 2026: Trump administration bars five European officials from entering the US; former commissioners publish a rebuttal commentary.

Summary

• Who: The Trump administration barred five European officials, including Thierry Breton. Former Commissioners Margrethe Vestager, Bertrand Badré, and Guillaume Klossa responded with a joint commentary.
• What: A diplomatic and regulatory conflict where the US accused EU officials of censorship. The EU officials defended the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act as necessary market regulations.
• When: The entry bans occurred shortly before the commentary was published on January 2, 2026. The regulatory context spans from the DMA's enactment in 2022 to recent fines in late 2025.
• Where: The dispute spans the Atlantic, affecting US-EU relations. The regulations apply within the European Union but impact global technology companies headquartered in the US and China.
• Why: The US views EU regulation as an attack on American free speech and business. European officials maintain that the rules are required to ensure market competition, protect democratic values, and reduce dependency on foreign digital infrastructure.