Senate Resolution Signals Fight Against EU's Digital Services Act, Citing Free Speech Threats to U.S. Tech

This Senate resolution is essentially a formal declaration of war—or at least a very strongly worded protest—against the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). The resolution states clearly that any attempt by foreign entities to censor or penalize speech protected by the U.S. Constitution will be flat-out opposed. This isn’t a law that changes anything immediately, but it’s a powerful signal that the U.S. government is ready to push back hard against international regulations that affect American tech companies and U.S. citizens’ speech.

The EU’s Digital Services Act: A Foreign Threat to Free Speech?

The core of the resolution is the finding that the EU’s DSA requires large platforms to remove certain types of speech, which the Senate views as an incorrect attempt to “govern thoughts and beliefs.” The resolution highlights specific instances, including alleged threats of penalties against X (formerly Twitter) and a proposed $140 million fine, arguing that the EU is trying to force U.S. entities to use technology to censor content occurring within the United States. For the average person, this is about who gets to decide what you see and say online—is it the U.S. First Amendment, or a foreign regulatory body?

Who’s Really in Charge of Your Feed?

This resolution commits the Senate to protecting both the free speech rights and the commercial interests of U.S. persons. It specifically disapproves of foreign entities trying to “export censorship” or levy fines against U.S. persons for participating in constitutionally protected activities. The practical impact here centers on the big platforms—think Facebook, Google, and X. If you’re a content creator, a small business owner relying on social media marketing, or just someone who uses these platforms to talk politics, this resolution aims to ensure that European regulators can’t dictate what is permissible speech on your American platform, even if that company operates internationally.

The Real-World Friction Point

While this sounds like a high-minded debate about constitutional rights, the rubber meets the road when platforms decide how to handle content moderation globally. The DSA has strict rules about removing harmful or illegal content (by EU standards), and platforms face fines up to 6% of their global revenue for non-compliance. This resolution puts platforms in a tough spot: comply with the EU and risk the ire of the U.S. Senate (and potentially U.S. legal action), or comply with the U.S. stance and risk massive fines in Europe. This kind of legislative conflict doesn’t just affect billionaires; it affects the reliability and consistency of the platforms you use every day, potentially leading to different rules for different users depending on where the platform decides to prioritize compliance.

What Happens Next?

The resolution urges the executive branch—specifically mentioning the Trump administration—to ensure a “swift and firm response” to any implementation of these disapproved activities. This is where the vagueness comes in: the resolution commits to opposing these actions but doesn't specify how. This leaves the door open for potentially unpredictable executive actions, trade disputes, or diplomatic friction. While the goal is to protect free speech and U.S. business interests, this confrontational stance against a major trading partner like the EU could complicate international relations and potentially lead to retaliatory measures that affect U.S. exports or other areas of global trade.