🚨@JudiciaryGOP subpoenaed Europe’s secret 183-page censorship order to X 🚨 The @EU_Commission’s first ever fine…

🚨@JudiciaryGOP subpoenaed Europe’s secret 183-page censorship order to X 🚨 The @EU_Commission’s first ever fine under the Digital Services Act (DSA) was against @X and @elonmusk for €120 million—nearly 6% of its GLOBAL revenue—for defending free speech. Now we know why: Leftist Euro bureaucrats fined X because it innovated its blue checkmark system and refused to give into demands from misinformation pseudoscientists. 🧵Read below to see what the Europeans didn’t want Americans, or anyone else, to see. ⬇️

In 2022, Europe passed an Orwellian online censorship law—the Digital Services Act. Since @elonmusk bought Twitter, the European Commission has targeted the company for defending free speech and refusing to bow to its censorship demands. 🔗 to 🧵on EU Censorship:

Rep. Jim Jordan@Jim_Jordan · Jul 25, 2025

THE EU CENSORSHIP FILES “We need to take back our country” = ILLEGAL “hate” speech in Europe. New secret docs show how EU regulators are pushing Big Tech behind closed doors to censor conservatives. Thread:

Last month, the Commission issued a secret order fining X nearly $150 million—the first fine ever issued under the DSA. The Commission’s arguments are weak and a pretext for censorship. The truth? Europe is punishing X for allowing free and open debate in the modern town square.

First, the Commission fined X €45,000,000 for “misappropriating” the blue checkmark by awarding it to users who pay for a premium experience on X. Turns out the European leftists were VERY upset about losing their blue checkmarks.

The Commission’s argument boils down to this: it fined X for operating differently than the other Big Tech social media platforms. As usual, the European Commission penalizes innovation.

The Commission even gave an example of what it found so objectionable: a blue checkmark on a Donald Duck parody account. It called the practice “deceptive.” That’s right—the Commission fined X €45 million because its practices might lead users to believe that 1) this fictional duck had come to life, and 2) was a real X user.

But the Commission didn’t stop there. It also fined X €40,000,000 for not giving enough data to pro-censorship pseudoscientists. Once again, the Commission’s claims were ridiculous.

Even more, in its order to X, the Commission applied the DSA’s data access requirements extraterritorially. It fined X for giving data access only to EU researchers and refusing to hand over data about American content.

Under the Commission’s theory, it could require an American company to give American data to a foreign researcher—all because of an EU law. That’s a clear violation of American sovereignty.

The Commission also mandated that researchers around the world be allowed to automatically scrape data from X. Once again, the Commission’s theory of the DSA would allow it to regulate beyond the EU’s borders.

And there’s good reason to be skeptical of these so-called “researchers.” Last Congress, @JudiciaryGOP uncovered how U.S. “misinformation” researchers teamed up with Big Tech and U.S. agencies ahead of the 2020 election to censor true Republican posts while leaving up Democrat lies! 🔗 to 🧵on Stanford Internet Observatory's Election Integrity Partnership:

Rep. Jim Jordan@Jim_Jordan · Nov 6, 2023

BOMBSHELL REPORT ON THE CENSORSHIP-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX HUNDREDS of secret reports show how @DHSgov’s @CISAgov, The GEC (@StateDept), @Stanford and others worked together to censor AMERICANS before the 2020 election, including true information, jokes, and opinions. 🧵 THREAD:

The Commission didn’t stop there, either. It also fined X €35,000,000 for having an inadequate catalogue of ads previously shown on the platform—known as an “ad repository.”

What were the X ad repository’s alleged problems? It produced data about ads previously shown on X in a spreadsheet, rather than on the X website itself. And even though the repository allowed certain custom searches for past ads, it didn’t allow enough of them. The European Commission expects us to believe that its €35,000,000 fine over this minor technicality is just an impartial regulatory action, not a clear pretext to punish X for allowing free debate on Europe’s disastrous mass migration policies.

The fines—totaling nearly $150 million—are bad enough. But it gets worse. The Commission threatened X with a TOTAL EU ban if it didn’t comply with the Commission’s local and global list of demands.

For more than a year, @JudiciaryGOP has warned that the DSA constitutes a dire threat to American speech. The Commission has proven us right once again. Read the Committee's report on the DSA here: tinyurl.com/56ek5yzc

The European Commission invented ridiculous DSA violations as a pretext to fine X nearly $150 million. And now it’s holding a gun to X’s head, threatening to BAN the platform in the EU unless it complies with the Commission’s heavy-handed and extraterritorial demands.

Just this week, the Commission announced yet another investigation into X, this time blaming Grok. Make no mistake—the Commission’s actions are a pretext and its punitive fines against X are disproportionate because X permits free debate.

European Commission@EU_Commission · Jan 26, 2026

We have launched a new formal investigation against X under the Digital Services Act (DSA). It will assess whether the company properly assessed and mitigated risks associated with the deployment of Grok's functionalities into X in the EU. Read more: link.europa.eu/Fh8h84

The Committee will continue investigating to protect American innovation and American speech from foreign censors. Read the EU’s full secret censorship decision here: judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subs…