Republicans in Congress spent two years branding Europe’s digital rules as censorship. From January, their main platform passes to a Democrat who defends them. Yet the tools that can hurt Brussels, from tariffs to visa bans, stay with the president.

In September 2025, Nigel Farage sat before the US House Judiciary Committee as a witness against Europe’s online rules. Its Republican chairman, Jim Jordan, had called the hearing to scrutinise the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Jamie Raskin, the committee’s senior Democrat, did not hide his contempt for the guest. He called Mr Farage a “far-right, pro-Putin politician”.

In January, Mr Raskin is poised to take the gavel. Democrats won both chambers of Congress on 3 November. For Brussels, the change removes its loudest critic in Washington. It does not remove the threat.

Two years of a crusade

Under Mr Jordan, the committee made the DSA its cause. In July 2025, it issued an interim report calling the law a tool of global censorship. A second report followed in February. Brussels dismissed the charges. “Pure nonsense. Completely unfounded,” said Thomas Regnier, the European Commission’s spokesperson for digital affairs.

An attack on all American tech platforms and the American people.
— Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State

The EU administration went further than words. In December 2025, the Commission fined X €120m, its first penalty under the DSA. Elon Musk’s platform responded by briefly shutting down the Commission’s advertising account. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the fine “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people”.

Later that month, the State Department barred five Europeans from entering the US. Among them was Thierry Breton, the former internal market commissioner. US officials called him a “mastermind” of the DSA. Mr Breton compared the ban to McCarthy’s witch hunts.

Mr Raskin sees the law differently. In March, he told European lawmakers that American criticism of the DSA was politically driven, MLex reported. His staff had already published a point-by-point rebuttal of the Republican report. As chairman, he plans to investigate presidential pardons and foreign payments. Europe is not on his list.

Real weapon is trade law

Congress, however, never held the sharpest tool. Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) can investigate foreign practices it deems unfair. It can then impose tariffs without asking lawmakers. Since the Supreme Court struck down his emergency tariffs in February, US President Donald Trump has leaned on it heavily.

In July, the Commission fined Google €890m for breaching the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The next day, Mr Trump announced an immediate Section 301 investigation, putting fresh strain on the EU–US trade deal. America, he wrote on Truth Social, is not a “PIGGYBANK” for Europe.

A real dialogue can only take place during a ceasefire.
— Jamieson Greer, US Trade Representative

Jamieson Greer, the US trade representative, demanded a pause in enforcement. He argued that the fines on Google alone exceed two per cent of the EU budget. “A real dialogue can only take place during a ceasefire,” he said. Yet the probe still exists only in words. A case formally begins with a notice in the Federal Register. The latest overview by the Congressional Research Service, published on 2 November, lists six investigations opened under Mr Trump’s second term. None of them targets EU digital rules.

Too few lawyers

Part of the reason may be prosaic. USTR already runs cases against 16 economies over excess industrial capacity and against Germany over drug prices. Its forced-labour case against 60 trading partners brought tariffs of 10 or 12.5 per cent in July, the EU included. In April, Mr Greer complained that every new case means hiring more staff. “Every time I say 301, that’s more people,” he said.

Allies of the administration are losing patience. In September, a conservative radio host asked in print who was slowing the probe down. In October, a Washington group launched a television campaign called Bad Allies to demand a formal case. The midterms weaken such voices in Congress. They leave the president’s powers intact.

No automatic allies

Europeans should not read the vote as an endorsement of their rulebook. Some Democrats have long worried that the DMA singles out American firms. In 2022, 12 of them joined 10 Republicans in warning President Joe Biden about its cost to US companies.

The party’s progressive wing sees things differently. In April, Senator Elizabeth Warren accused the administration of using tariff leverage to “help Big Tech get away with hurting users”. In 2023, she urged Washington to back the EU’s efforts to rein in the tech giants. Within a day of the vote, leading Democrats called for curbs on the industry’s data-centre boom.

The right is split too. Some conservatives attack the DSA as a speech code but defend the DMA as an antitrust law. That matters for Brussels. The censorship argument loses its main stage in Congress. The commercial argument lives on at USTR.

Waiting for the next fine

The new Congress meets on 3 January. It can hold hearings and squeeze agency budgets. On its own, it cannot halt a Section 301 case or lift a visa ban. Washington’s quarrel with Brussels will simply move from committee rooms to the trade office.

To our American friends: Censorship isn’t where you think it is.
— Thierry Breton, former European Commissioner for the Internal Market

Mr Breton summed up the European view after his ban. “To our American friends: Censorship isn’t where you think it is,” he wrote on X. The real test will come with the Commission’s next big fine on an American platform.