![\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/5f0eef8510a5d0f28f5a65269724610823d13770-1200x675.png\"\/)
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Elon Musk with US Congressman and chair of the House Judiciary Committee Jim Jordan (R-OH) at the NCAA Division 1 wrestling national championship finals on March 22nd, 2025 at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, PA. (Photo by Terence Lewis\/Icon Sportswire via AP Images)<\/p>\n
As part of its long-running campaign against the European Union\u2019s Digital Services Act (DSA), the United States House Judiciary Committee\u2019s Republican majority has published the full decision behind the European Commission\u2019s \u20ac120 million fine<\/a> against Elon Musk\u2019s X \u2014 before the EU itself made the document public.<\/p>\n Under chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who Politico once described<\/a> as a \u201ccritical ally\u201d of Musk, on Monday, the committee said in a series of posts<\/a> on X that it had obtained the 183-page enforcement decision<\/a> after issuing a subpoena and that it will \u201ccontinue investigating to protect American innovation and American speech\u201d from what it calls \u201cforeign censors.\u201d<\/p>\n The fine was the first to be imposed<\/a> under the landmark EU law, and was the result of a decision related to three alleged violations: deceptive changes to X\u2019s blue checkmark system, insufficient data access for researchers, and an inadequate ad repository. The Commission\u2019s decision came more than a year after it opened formal proceedings<\/a> and issued preliminary findings<\/a> from its investigation into X. After the fine was issued in December, X was given 60 working days to detail how the company would address what the Commission calls the deceptive use of blue checkmarks and 90 working days to submit a full action plan to fix its ad repository and enable requests for researcher data access.<\/p>\n The committee Republicans framed the fine as punishment for \u201cdefending free speech,\u201d accusing the EU of targeting X for resisting what it described as \u201cmisinformation pseudoscientists\u201d and politically motivated regulation. These criticisms are not new; EU officials, researchers<\/a>, free-expression advocates<\/a> and civil society groups have repeatedly addressed<\/a> such claims, defending the DSA as a legally grounded, content-neutral framework focused on systemic risk and transparency.<\/p>\n EU decision first published in Washington<\/p>\n While the contents of the decision have drawn political attention, this marks the first time a DSA enforcement decision of this magnitude has been disclosed \u2014 and it wasn\u2019t Brussels that did it.<\/p>\n EU DisinfoLab executive director Alexandre Alaphilippe noted that his organization had requested the document three weeks earlier and questioned why it appeared first via US lawmakers. \u201cThe Commission advertised the DSA as the alpha and omega of platform regulation, built on transparency and the involvement of civil society,\u201d he told Tech Policy Press. Alaphilippe noted that last year the European Ombudsman explicitly criticized<\/a> the Commission\u2019s overly restrictive approach to transparency.<\/p>\n He added, \u201cIn the context of an organized disinformation campaign aimed at undermining the European acquis, this situation is no longer tenable \u2014 the Commission has to fundamentally change its approach before losing all its credibility.\u201d<\/p>\n Our Content delivered to your inbox.<\/p>\n Join our newsletter on issues and ideas at the intersection of tech & democracy<\/p>\n Thank you!<\/p>\n You have successfully joined our subscriber list.<\/p>\n Asked why the decision had not yet been published by the EU, European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told Tech Policy Press that decisions can only be released after due diligence.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Commission publishes all decisions that it adopts. We, however, always follow due process and ensure that all decisions protect the rights and interests of the companies, as well as sensitive or confidential information of third parties. Only after this thorough check, the decisions can be published,\u201d the spokesperson said. \u201cWe have no comment to make on a company\u2019s decision to publish our decision that concerns them.\u201d<\/p>\n A running campaign<\/p>\n Monday\u2019s release marks the latest step in House Republicans\u2019 broader campaign against the DSA. In July 2025, the committee published an interim staff report<\/a>, \u201cThe Foreign Censorship Threat,\u201d arguing that the EU law compels global platforms to restrict political speech that would be protected under the US First Amendment. The report drew on subpoenaed documents from US tech firms.<\/p>\n In September, the committee held a hearing<\/a> titled \u201cEurope\u2019s Threat to American Speech and Innovation,\u201d featuring witnesses including UK politician Nigel Farage. The hearing focused on claims that the DSA enables foreign governments to pressure platforms into content moderation practices that would not withstand US legal scrutiny.<\/p>\n Ahead of the hearing, a group of scholars from the US and Europe wrote<\/a> to Jordan and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the committee\u2019s ranking member, to clarify what they see as persistent misconceptions about the DSA. In their letter, the experts argued that the law was adopted to advance the expression rights of users by giving them procedural rights and more control regarding the moderation of their content by online platforms. EU officials, including Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, have insisted that the DSA is \u201ccontent-agnostic\u201d and does not grant Brussels the authority to regulate lawful speech, the letter noted.<\/p>\n After the fine against X was issued, Musk threatened<\/a> a \u201cresponse\u201d not just against the EU but also \u201cagainst the individuals who took this action against me.\u201d Trump administration officials immediately came to Musk\u2019s defense<\/a>. Two weeks later, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced visa restrictions on \u201cagents of the global censorship-industrial complex,\u201d including former European Commissioner Thierry Breton and four disinformation researchers<\/a>.<\/p>\n With the full text of the X decision public, Judiciary Republicans are also taking aim at the European Commission\u2019s recently announced probe into its integration with Grok<\/a>, the AI chatbot that has produced and published nonconsensual sexualized images of millions<\/a> of women and children in response to user prompts, as further evidence of what they describe as a transatlantic threat to American innovation and speech.<\/p>\n Musk has disparaged<\/a> the outcry<\/a> over the images, some of which appear to depict<\/a> child abuse and to violate his platform’s stated policies<\/a>, as motivated by officials seeking an \u201cexcuse for censorship.\u201d While House Republicans contend<\/a> the Commission is \u201cblaming Grok,\u201d Henna Virkunnen, the Commission\u2019s Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, said in a statement<\/a> announcing the investigation that its purpose is to \u201cdetermine whether X has met its legal obligations under the DSA, or whether it treated rights of European citizens \u2014 including those of women and children \u2014 as collateral damage of its service.\u201d<\/p>\n