Congressional Testimony
Congressional Testimony
Here's a look at documents involving congressional testimony and member statements
Featured Stories
Ex-Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior Feldgus Testifies Before House Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources released the following testimony by Steven Feldgus, former principal deputy assistant secretary of the Interior for land and minerals management, from a Sept. 3, 2025, legislative hearing.The legislation are Combating Obstruction Against Leasing Act (H.R. 280), Mineral Extraction for Renewable Industry and Critical Applications Act (H.R. 3872), Streamlining NEPA for Coal Act (H.R. 4068), to codify provisions of certain executive orders relating to domestic mining and hardrock mineral resources (H.R. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources released the following testimony by Steven Feldgus, former principal deputy assistant secretary of the Interior for land and minerals management, from a Sept. 3, 2025, legislative hearing. The legislation are Combating Obstruction Against Leasing Act (H.R. 280), Mineral Extraction for Renewable Industry and Critical Applications Act (H.R. 3872), Streamlining NEPA for Coal Act (H.R. 4068), to codify provisions of certain executive orders relating to domestic mining and hardrock mineral resources (H.R.4090), to unleash America's offshore critical minerals and resources (H.R. 4018), and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (H.R. 1366).
* * *
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify.
My name is Steve Feldgus, and I recently served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management at the Department of the Interior during the Biden administration. In that role, I oversaw the Bureau of Land Management and three other bureaus, and was the lead staffer for the Interagency Working Group on Mining Laws, Regulations, and Permitting.
Several of the bills under consideration today attempt to accelerate development timelines by streamlining approval processes or cutting out steps. But my experience overseeing energy and mining project permitting shows that this approach doesn't necessarily accelerate development; in fact, it often backfires. It creates the conditions for longer delays, costlier litigation, and ultimately fewer successful projects.
Projects don't succeed because we add more shortcuts to the process. They succeed because the agencies doing the permitting have the resources they need to do the job properly. And they succeed because they earn community trust and support.
* * *
Community Engagement: The Foundation of Successful Development
Some of the most successful energy and mineral development projects in America and around the world are built on a foundation of genuine community engagement, transparent communication, and shared benefits. These projects move from conception to production faster and face fewer legal challenges because they listened to the communities that would be impacted and sought to accommodate their concerns rather than ignore them.
For example, the Interagency Working Group heard from multiple sources that Montana is one of the more difficult states for starting or expanding mining projects. In the mid-1990s, when Stillwater Mine sought to build a new tailings facility and East Boulder Mine was preparing to start operations, the company faced angry residents threatening lawsuits. Rather than fighting through opposition, the company chose to engage with the local community to develop common solutions. This collaborative approach culminated in a Good Neighbor Agreement signed in 2000. According to the company, the agreement "reduces permitting delays and largely eliminates residents' concerns around transparency. Over the 24 years since the agreement's implementation, there has been no arbitration or environmental litigation--a significant achievement for any mining company."
Consider what happens when communities feel excluded from decisions that will fundamentally affect their lives, health, and economic future. Excluded communities don't simply disappear-- they turn to the courts as their only remaining avenue for influence. What could have been resolved through early dialogue transforms into years of litigation and regulatory battles. Projects may eventually receive regulatory approval, but they lose the community support necessary for long-term operational success. Local residents become skeptical of promised economic benefits because they don't trust a process that shut them out from the beginning.
Conversely, genuine community partnership creates a different dynamic entirely. Partnership means bringing communities into conversations before major decisions are made, not after permits are filed. It requires providing accessible, honest information about potential impacts, benefits, and mitigation measures. Most importantly, it means demonstrating a willingness to modify project plans based on legitimate community concerns and local knowledge that outside developers may have missed.
Environmental reviews don't slow projects down--community opposition does. When we eliminate the opportunity to address potential opposition constructively, we don't eliminate the opposition itself. We simply force it into more adversarial channels that take longer to resolve and create lasting mistrust.
While streamlining environmental review, mandating lease approvals, and limiting community input may appear to accelerate development in the short term, this is simply the false economy of shortcuts, and fundamentally misunderstands what actually slows projects down. When we rush through or minimize the very processes that give communities a voice, we don't eliminate opposition, we concentrate it. We turn potential collaboration into confrontation. Instead of partners, we create plaintiffs.
As Secretary Haaland and I recently wrote, "communities are not obstacles to be overcome, but partners to be engaged." This isn't just policy rhetoric--it reflects the practical reality of how successful projects actually get built.
Leaders in the mining industry understand this.
The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) represents 24 of the world's largest mining companies, collectively accounting for one-third of the global mining and metals industry. ICMM's President and CEO, Rohitesh Dhawan, has called trust between mining companies and local communities the industry's "most valuable commodity." He warns that the industry's credibility challenges "threaten our access to permits, talent, the support of local communities, and capital."
When leaders in the mining industry themselves acknowledge that trust is their most valuable commodity and that their industry's credibility is at an all-time low, it's clear that the solution cannot be found in shortcutting the very processes that provide opportunities to rebuild that trust.
* * *
Proven Solutions for Effective Permitting
Our interagency working group found that while our permitting processes can be improved, we already know what effective, efficient permitting looks like in practice. The solutions don't involve eliminating community input or environmental review--they involve better coordination and earlier engagement.
Effective permitting requires early coordination among different levels of government--federal, state, tribal, and local authorities--as well as coordination among different agencies within each level of government. It also requires early, substantive engagement with mining companies so they understand exactly what they need to do to obtain permits and can plan accordingly.
The Bureau of Land Management developed exactly this kind of coordinated approach in Nevada during the first Trump administration. This process helped streamline approvals for a substantial number of the nearly four dozen mines we approved under the Biden administration.
Using this approach, BLM-Nevada approved a vanadium mine in just over three years and a major lithium mine in under two.
In total, the BLM under the Biden administration approved at least 49 mines, of which 36 were new mines, and the other 13 were expansions or modifications of previously approved mines. In Nevada, the average time to get to a record of decision (ROD) from the start of the environmental impact statement (EIS) process was under two years. Using a larger data set of 147 mines approved between October 2012 and April 2023, the average time to go from a notice of intent to a ROD was 3 years, 11 days.
To put this data in perspective, according to the International Energy Agency, the global average to go from mineral discovery to production is 17 years. The oft-repeated talking point that it takes 29 years to do the same in the United States is not supported by actual mines. In fact, three months earlier, the same organization that issued that number reported that it only took 13 years in the U.S., which would be the third fastest in the world. And then in April of this year, they reported that it took 19 years, roughly 10 months faster than Canada.
These numbers tell us several things:
* First, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is not the rate-limiting step in developing a mine, which academic research has also shown.
* Second, even if the NEPA review was eliminated altogether, it would still take well over a decade on average to develop a mine, due to all the other work that companies must do to design and finance a new project.
* Third, the process used by BLM Nevada shaved more than a year from the time needed to complete an EIS.
Because of the proven success of this process in shortening permitting times, we expanded it to all BLM offices nationwide. Unfortunately, the new administration rescinded that shortly after it took office.
Fundamentally, the choice before us is not between speed and community engagement--it's between short-term expediency and long-term success. Legislation that opts for short-term expediency risks exacerbating a development environment characterized by conflict rather than collaboration.
By silencing communities, shortcutting essential processes, or steamrolling over local concerns, they may produce permits faster, but they're likely to produce projects that face greater opposition, more legal challenges, and ultimately longer delays.
* * *
The Choice Before Us
The fundamental choice before this committee, Congress, and the U.S. government is not between speed and thoroughness in permitting--it's between approaches that create lasting success versus those that prioritize short-term metrics while creating longer-term problems.
The bills under consideration today represent short-term thinking that will likely worsen the very problems they aim to solve. By reducing community input, shortcutting environmental review, and steamrolling over local concerns, bills like these may generate faster initial permit approvals, but they also lead to greater community opposition, more sustained legal challenges, and ultimately longer delays than projects that invest in community partnership from the beginning.
Moreover, cutting funding for permitting agencies undermines the very goal these bills claim to serve. Underfunded agencies produce slower reviews, weaker analyses, and more vulnerable decisions--creating exactly the delays and litigation risks we're trying to avoid.
True mineral security demands policy coherence that supports every stage of the supply chain, from extraction through processing to final manufacturing. It requires genuine community partnership that builds the social license necessary for long-term project success. And it requires the patience to prioritize sustainable, resilient development over short-term extraction targets that may not contribute to actual security.
Most fundamentally, successful mineral development depends on community trust and engagement. The bills before us today ignore this reality and instead double down on an approach that prioritizes speed over sustainability and confrontation over collaboration.
The evidence from successful mining operations, the warnings from industry leaders, and the practical experience of federal land management all point toward the same conclusion: we need a fundamentally different approach.
I urge the committee to pursue policies that address the full scope of America's mineral security challenges while building genuine partnerships with the communities that will host these critical projects. The path to mineral security runs through community trust, policy coherence, and longterm thinking--not through shortcuts that create more problems than they solve.
* * *
H.R. 1366, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
While serving at the Department of the Interior, I testified on previous versions of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, which, similarly to H.R. 1366, was designed to address the ruling in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022), commonly known as the Rosemont decision. I would like to thank the sponsor of this legislation for making significant improvements from the previous version, removing some of the most concerning provisions and including a new provision that would take additional claim maintenance fees from mill sites and use them to provide a committed source of funding for the federal government, states, and tribes to clean up abandoned hardrock mines.
The abandoned hardrock mine cleanup funding mechanism would be a significant step forward.
The scale of the abandoned hardrock mine problem is tremendous: EPA estimated it could be as high as $54 billion in 2004 dollars, which is equivalent to over $90 billion today. This is money desperately needed to close dangerous mine shafts and clean up waterways poisoned by centuries of abandoned mine runoff. Unlike abandoned coal mines, where the coal industry has paid abandoned mine land fees on each ton of coal mined for nearly 50 years, there has been no dedicated funding source for hardrock mine cleanup. H.R. 1366 would begin to address this gap by using maintenance fees from mill sites, which come from the mining industry rather than taxpayers, and providing those funds directly to states and tribes for cleanup on state, private, and tribal land.
However, the bill raises legitimate concerns that deserve careful consideration, as certain provisions could inadvertently create broader changes to the mining law than intended. Potential ambiguities in the bill's text could lead to unintended consequences or costly litigation over the bill's scope and meaning.
I encourage the Committee to continue to work with Members and staff across the aisle and with outside experts in the 1872 mining law, in order to refine and clarify some of the language in the bill. The goal should be surgical precision: addressing the Rosemont decision's impact while avoiding broader disruptions to established mining law principles. With careful attention to these details, this legislation could provide both the regulatory clarity the industry is seeking and the environmental cleanup funding the public deserves.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250903/118550/HHRG-119-II06-Wstate-FeldgusS-20250903.pdf
Wyoming Mining Association Executive Director Deti Testifies Before House Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources released the following testimony by Travis Deti, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association, from a Sept. 3, 2025, hearing on the Combatting Obstruction Against Leasing Act (H.R. 280) and the Streamlining NEPA for Coal Act (H.R. 4068):* * *
Good morning, Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ansari. My name is Travis Deti, and I am the Executive Director of the Wyoming Mining Association (WMA). I want to thank the Committee for the kind invitation to address you here today regarding HR280 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources released the following testimony by Travis Deti, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association, from a Sept. 3, 2025, hearing on the Combatting Obstruction Against Leasing Act (H.R. 280) and the Streamlining NEPA for Coal Act (H.R. 4068): * * * Good morning, Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ansari. My name is Travis Deti, and I am the Executive Director of the Wyoming Mining Association (WMA). I want to thank the Committee for the kind invitation to address you here today regarding HR280and HR4068.
WMA is a is a statewide trade organization in Wyoming that represents and advocates for 34 mining company members producing bentonite, coal, trona (natural soda ash), uranium, and lignite, as well as companies developing gold, copper, lithium and rare earths deposits. WMA also represents over 100 associate member companies, one electricity co-op, and two advanced nuclear power companies. WMA promotes the mining industry by communicating with elected officials, regulators, educators, and the public in a credible way that encourages trust and confidence and earns respect as a reliable, and credible source of information on issues pertinent to the industry.
Wyoming has been the leading coal producing state since 1986. We produce more coal than the next 5 coal producing states combined. Most of the coal mined in Wyoming is federal coal. Recent estimates give Wyoming more than 165 billion tons of economically recoverable coal, with over 1.4 trillion tons of total coal reserves.
Electrical power generation is by far the largest consumer of coal in the United States. Wyoming coal is used as steam or thermal coal for the generation of electricity and is shipped all over the country. In 2024 Wyoming produced 191 million tons of coal and shipped 171 million tons to 26 states.
Wyoming produces about 40 percent of the nation's coal. With coal providing for between 18 and 23 percent of America's electricity generation at any given time, Wyoming coal provides for between 7.5 and 9.2 percent of the electricity produced in this country.
The coal industry is critical to Wyoming. The industry employs 4300 men and women with an average coal wage of over $102 thousand per year, well above the state average. And every coal mining job supports another 2-3 jobs in the service and supply industry.
Prior to the leasing moratoriums being put in place beginning in 2016, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Federal Coal Leasing Program, by which companies pay to lease and mine coal on federal land has been a remarkable success by any reasonable measure. The annual financial contribution of coal mining to state and local governments in in Wyoming in the form of taxes, royalties and fees is estimated at $600 million. Last year, Wyoming's share of federal mineral royalties - royalties paid to mine the leased coal - was over $170 million.
This revenue has been dedicated to building schools, supporting community colleges and highways across the state, and keeping the tax burden low on Wyoming citizens. All of Wyoming benefits from these revenues. For over three decades, bonus bids from the federal coal leasing program have totaled over $2.6 billion. These funds have built schools in every county on Wyoming.
The impact the industry and the coal leasing program has at the state level for Wyoming is simply huge.
Real jobs, real revenue, real people. The idea that the American taxpayer is getting "shortchanged" by the program - the main reason for the moratorium in the first place - is a demonstrably false narrative.
With Wyoming accounting for approximately 85 percent of all federal coal production, it is clear taxpayers are receiving an excellent value from the BLM Coal Leasing Program in terms of revenue and jobs. Again, the idea that the American public is not getting its money's worth from the program is simply untrue.
And the federal coal in Wyoming is produced in a very responsible manner. Our mines are some of the safest, most productive, and highest environmental performance surface mines globally and are world class. Mine reclamation is an ongoing process that takes place simultaneous with mining activities. It starts before the first shovel of earth is turned, with the development of a comprehensive plan which is reviewed, approved and bonded for by federal and state regulatory bodies.
Once mining begins, reclamation begins as well. It starts with the careful stockpiling of topsoil, a critical Wyoming resource. As the coal is removed, the resulting void is then backfilled with overburden and contoured in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. Topsoil is replaced and approved seed mixtures are then sowed. Unique and critical wildlife habitat, productive grazing and pastureland, and valuable stream and aquatic resources are created and restored in the process. Progress is monitored by specialists from the mining companies and the state agencies to ensure compliance with rules and, most importantly, to ensure reclamation is successful and sustainable. Only after a multitude of challenging regulatory standards are met and affirmatively demonstrated can the reclamation bond be released. The goal is to return the land to a state equal to or better than the pre-mining condition.
This is an overly simplified description of a time-consuming, costly, but robustly successful process. To put it more simply, our massive coal mines are being reclaimed every day. To date, an estimated 47 percent of all land disturbed by coal mining in Wyoming since the 1969 state law requiring reclamation in Wyoming has been reclaimed or is in the process of reclamation. The remaining land consists of active mining pits and facilities, including many acres of supporting activities designed to provide protection of resources and the environment during the mining process. In fact, reclamation in Wyoming has been recognized at both the federal and state levels as arguably the best and most successful efforts in the nation since the enactment of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. Mine reclamation in Wyoming is a priority with coal operators with a commitment to ensure their obligations are met.
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and Wyoming coal producers continue to work through bonding issues in a way that considers the current state of the industry and continues to protect the people of Wyoming. Operations are inspected monthly and audited on an annual basis to ensure full compliance with state regulations. Again, the federal coal program is working well in Wyoming.
BLM is charged with ensuring the resource is recovered for the public interest in a manner that does not put it off limits or make it non-economical to mine for political reasons. Attempts under the Obama and Biden Administrations to restrict access to the resource through the moratoriums and outright bans on leasing, oppressive royalty rate increases, and the use of a nebulous, anecdotal "social cost" standard when determining fair market value, were meant for one thing: to halt the use of coal as an energy resource for supplying affordable and dispatchable baseload power generation.
Which brings us to the legislation before us today. The BLM Federal Coal Lease Program creates great value not only for those who directly benefit from mining, royalties and bonus bids, like we do in Wyoming. It also provides value for those across America who rely on affordable, dispatchable electricity.
Wyoming and the nation need access to our vast federal coal resources for stability and energy security.
We believe that Congress should certainly have a say in the matter. For Wyoming, the state most directly and disproportionally affected by blocking access to federal coal, this is critical.
HR280 is about shielding America's most abundant, reliable, dispatchable and affordable energy resource from politically motivated administrations, providing a steady forecast environment for the coal industry and American utilities. This bill will certainly help to insulate against the partisan politics of the day, restore a degree of Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch, and give the states most affected a stronger voice.
America and the world need coal and coal fired electricity generation in a time of increasing demand.
With the removal of coal from the American energy mix combined with the large buildout of nonreliable wind and solar, electricity bills have gone up while grid reliability has gone down. This simply cannot continue. We need more coal generation.
On July 24, 2024, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mark Christie noted in testimony before the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce that, ""Dispatchable generating resources [] with many years of useful life remaining, are retiring far too quickly and in quantities that threaten our ability to keep the lights on. So, the lights are flashing red and there is no excuse to ignore them."
Between 2022 and 2024, grid planners almost tripled 5-year load forecasting, and power demand in the United States is expected to increase by nearly 21% by 2030. With the massive energy needs of data centers, powering electric vehicles, and emerging artificial intelligence (AI), the country needs all the reliable, dispatchable energy we can get. Coal fired power is absolutely essential. If we are to keep up and eventually win the AI race with our global adversaries, we must increase our coal generation to meet the expected demand.
Finally, the Powder River Basin (PRB) has been under a de facto leasing ban since the Obama administration moratorium of 2016. One must consider that when the leasing moratorium was put in place, the rationale was based on currently leased reserves "as a whole." Both the Obama and Biden administrations did not differentiate between coal that was leased, and coal that was leased and "recoverable." For example, a coal operator would have been required to lease coal that lies under the railroad, even though those tons are not recoverable. This was done by BLM to prevent mineral reserve sterilization and compliance with the Federal Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as amended. As a result, the Obama administration and BLM Resource Management Plan (RMP) analysis of leased coal reserves was inflated and flawed. With the Department of Interior (DOI) not allowing leasing in the nation's largest coal reserve for 10 years, operators have been forced to mine existing "recoverable" reserves. This has effectively eroded the leased "recoverable" coal supply. Therefore it is critical that DOI move quickly to permit new leasing in the PRB in an expeditious manner to ensure a long-term stable coal supply to meet the nation's projected energy demands as described above.
HR4068 is a welcome solution to an ever-growing problem: federal law and red tape run amok. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is intended to provide assurance that federal actions such as approval of federal mineral leases and permits are only issued after an appropriate evaluation of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. Unfortunately, the NEPA process has evolved into an extremely inefficient and untimely aspect of federal leasing and permitting decisions. The timeline for NEPA associated with mining projects is generally considered the longest part of the mining leasing and permitting process.
Protracted, costly, and uncertain mineral leasing and permitting processes thwart investment in the exploration and development of American mineral resources. "Of all the developed nations, unexpected and often unnecessary delays in obtaining [mineral leases and] mining permits afflict the U.S. most severely. Despite being blessed with a vast reserve of mineral resources, the U.S. only accounts for 7 percent of world-wide spending on mineral exploration and production and is currently reliant on a population of mature mining projects. The average remaining life of active mines in the U.S. and the share of projects in advance development have also fallen in recent years."/i
Meanwhile, society's demand for minerals to supply various industrial and infrastructure needs is rising.
By comparison, other countries such as Australia and Canada have efficient mine permitting processes in place which limit permitting processes to around two years. This is regardless of the fact that these countries have stringent environmental standards for their mining sectors that are similar to those in the United States.
The NEPA process for coal mines in Wyoming is most often encountered when applying for a new coal leases or lease modification and then pursuing the leasing process and subsequent federal and state permitting processes. The final step prior to mining federal coal is often considered the Federal Mine Plan approval by the Assistant Secretary for Minerals in the Department of Interior. But in fact, additional federal approvals may be required for Special Use Permits from federal land managing agencies such as U.S. Forest Service. The main federal actions (issue a lease, Mine Plan approval, Special Use permits) require some level of NEPA analysis prior to acting.
NEPA is little more than a process law with no impact on environmental protections, and it has resulted in a quagmire for federal agencies. It has become a tool for project opponents and activists to delay and kill projects through abuse of the courts. It has been altered such that the NEPA review has become the decision document, and the Record of Decision a mere formality. After fifty-six years of implementation, expansion of legal standing, and litigation have resulted in Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents ballooning from approximately five hundred pages to several thousand pages. These reviews now require expanded downstream regional, and national impacts well beyond the local project. For example, a recent coal lease in Wyoming was required to evaluate the environmental effects of the regional rail system on a drainage basin and potentially threatened fish species that were not associated with the proposed mining action. The only link to the proposed coal lease was the use of the regional rail to transport coal from the mine to a thermal coal plant in another state.
The NEPA process has been further expanded through individual federal agency policy. Using a federal coal lease again, a single ton of coal is currently required to have a BLM RMP EIS, an individual Mineral Leasing Action BLM EIS, and a Federal Mine Plan Right of Entry EIS conducted by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). The inefficiency and redundancy of triple jeopardy NEPA review for a single ton of federal coal exemplifies the need for further reforms. If the desire is to align the NEPA process with its original intent, meaningful reforms must limit the scope of NEPA to localized impacts, the number of NEPA reviews for a single project, and legal standing to challenge a project. Further, clear sideboards need to be placed on the baseline environmental and social information required, limit impact assessment reviews to affects that are within the local project scope and put in place automatic approvals if an agency fails to meet required deadlines.
The following example summarizes a typical process and timeline for a new coal project. The time required to complete the NEPA analysis is 45% (4.5 years) of the total time required to lease reserves and permit a new coal project.
There is currently an estimated 3.2 billion tons of coal currently under lease in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, with little to no new leasing activity given the environment and restrictions placed on leasing in the past 2 decades. Again, with the expected increase in electricity demand to power this country, it is critical that Congress eliminate all restrictions on the leasing of federal coal and streamline the process of "concept to shovel."
The Wyoming Mining Association strongly supports HB208 and HR4068 to keep our vast coal resource accessible to meet our future energy goals for the nation and continue to provide the good paying jobs and revenue the people of Wyoming depend on.
I wish to thank the Committee for your kind attention, and I would stand for any questions you may have.
* * *
Footnotes:
i Fellows, Mark. Permitting, Economic Value and Mining in the United States. Executive Summary, 2015.
* * *
URL: Wyoming Mining Association
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250903/118550/HHRG-119-II06-Wstate-DetiT-20250903.pdf
University of California-Irvine Clinical Law Professor Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 -- The House Judiciary Committee released the following written testimony by David Kaye, a clinical law professor at the University of California-Irvine, from a Sept. 3, 2025, hearing entitled "Europe's Threat to American Speech and Innovation":* * *
Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, Members of the Committee:
Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before you today. My name is David Kaye. I am a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, where I conduct research and teach courses and a clinic in public international law, international ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 -- The House Judiciary Committee released the following written testimony by David Kaye, a clinical law professor at the University of California-Irvine, from a Sept. 3, 2025, hearing entitled "Europe's Threat to American Speech and Innovation": * * * Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, Members of the Committee: Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before you today. My name is David Kaye. I am a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, where I conduct research and teach courses and a clinic in public international law, internationalhuman rights and humanitarian law, freedom of expression, and human rights and technology.
I want to start by emphasizing censorship as a serious violation of human rights. From 2014 to 2020, I served as the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression. In that role, I monitored the growing global assault on free speech. In hundreds of communications each year, a dozen reports to the UN, and numerous country visits, I documented the practice, law and increasingly sophisticated mechanisms of state censorship.
I led a landmark UN effort to call out China's broad attack on civil society through censorship, propaganda, and surveillance. I detailed repression of media and criticism in Putin's Russia. I condemned Iran's pervasive suppression of dissent and transnational repression and called out the government of Saudi Arabia when they jailed poets and murdered writers like Jamal Khashoggi. I documented the rise of internet shutdowns, the use of spyware against reporters and civil society, and the jailing of advocates for tweets and posts. I spotlighted the rise of incitement and harassment on social media, the failure of companies to address them, and the overreaching steps often taken by governments in response to such harmful but often lawful speech. I also issued firm critiques when democratic governments, like Germany, sought to force tech companies to take down legitimate speech, or when others, like Singapore, enacted laws to criminalize disinformation.
All countries, including the United States and its democratic allies, are bound by strong standards of human rights law that guarantee everyone's freedom "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers." This language comes from Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty the United States helped draft and ratified, in 1992, upon the recommendation of President George H.W. Bush. It guarantees a speaker's rights, to be sure, but it also guarantees the right of everyone to access information, to become educated voters, citizens, parents, kids, consumers. Censorship condemns us not only to be less free but also to be less informed and less safe.
So it saddens me that the United States, the country that had my back in fighting attacks on freedom of expression, is now the tip of the spear leading the charge to undermine it. If I were Special Rapporteur today, the situation in the United States would raise the most serious alarms. The threat here is real and live. This is a shocking state of affairs given our free speech tradition, a national belief in and legal protection, if not celebration, of dissent, protest, and difference of opinion.
This administration is turning its back on that tradition. We now face unprecedented hostility toward freedom of expression. To name just a handful of examples:
* Silencing science and public health: The administration is silencing scientists and public health officials. Just last week, the head of the Centers for Disease Control was fired because she would not agree to change her scientifically acquired conclusions about appropriate vaccine policies. The administration has scrubbed websites of information, from health to environmental safety to climate change. The result: less information available to all who require it for their health and the health of their loved ones.
* Intimidating media: The White House has not only banned media outlets from the press pool. The President has brought non-meritorious lawsuits against outlets, pressuring the outlets to settle. In the case of CBS and Paramount, the White House implicitly conditioned their merger on settling the suit in the President's favor.
* Weaponizing the FCC: The Federal Communications Commission has been weaponized, pressuring YouTube to carry specific religious programing in its streaming service, investigating NBC over Kamala Harris' appearance on Saturday Night Live, accusing several platforms of "censorship" for partnering with NewsGuard, a recognized expert on disinformation. It has launched investigations of most major networks, with the curious exclusion of Fox News. The President has urged the FCC to revoke media licenses, calling ABC and NBC "biased".
* Weaponizing the FTC: The Federal Trade Commission, in a clear breach of free speech standards, held up a merger of major advertising firms, Omnicom and Interpublic, until they committed to run ads on X, a gift to Elon Musk.
* Censoring and punishing speech of visitors: The administration has made clear that it will investigate the content of one's opinions when seeking a visa to enter the United States. In visa interviews and at the border, there are increasing reports of officers screening visitors according to their social media activity. We have already witnessed the arrest and jailing of at least one student solely on the basis of an opinion essay she co-wrote for a campus newspaper.
* Flag burning ban: The President issued an Executive Order purporting to ban the burning of the American flag, an issue the Supreme Court found to be a violation of the First Amendment in 1989.
* Limiting economic and security analysis: The President has fired officials when they exercise their responsibility to provide the public - and lawmakers - with honest information. The President fired the principal official at the Bureau of Labor Statistics when he did not like the jobs statistics. The administration fired the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency following an intelligence assessment of the U.S. attacks on Iran that was not on the same political page as the White House.
* Censoring history and art: In a move that rejects artistic freedom and fidelity to American history, the administration has demanded the removal of Smithsonian exhibits that fail to meet political criteria.
* Seeking to destroy public media: The administration, with the support of Congress, is seeking to destroy the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio, major sources of information nationwide, all because of hollow claims of bias.
* An unprecedented attack on higher education: The administration has launched an all-out attack on academic freedom, unlawfully stripping universities of research funding in an effort to force them to adhere to political criteria for admissions, campus protest, curricular design and much else.
This is the tip of an iceberg of censorship that should concern this Committee and every American. All of which makes it simply astonishing that U.S. officials not only claim to be free speech warriors, but they are spending their time looking abroad, criticizing European online speech policies, thinking they can be seen as doing so in good faith.
'Clean up your own house,' Europeans might retort, 'even if we might agree that our own house needs a little dusting.'
To be clear, European and British laws on speech are not perfect. I've criticized them in the past, in direct communications and before the United Nations.
Still, the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) and the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act (OSA) respond to public policy problems most of you, on both sides of the aisle, find serious but have yet to address: the enormous power of a small number of huge technology companies over our information environments. Why should a handful of billionaires from the Bay Area have so much control over speech? And why is this Committee, which claims to be concerned about the rights of Americans to speak freely, not addressing that foundational issue?
The EU answered the question of massive platform power over speech not by claiming new powers to take down content or accounts. Indeed, it is entirely incorrect to say that the EU's signature digital regulations constitute censorship. Instead, the DSA preserves long-established legal regimes governing online content. It did not establish new rules for speech; it adopted new rules to empower users, including by requiring notice and an opportunity to appeal content moderation decisions. It answered the challenge of unaccountable platform power - one that the U.S. Congress has done virtually nothing to address - by demanding that platforms be transparent about their systems, that they assess the risks they pose to democratic societies, and then mitigate them. Such risks include illegal terrorist content and child abuse material, and difficult-to-define challenges such as interference with elections and public debate, and harassment that can lead to gender-based violence. The DSA is aimed at giving the public the tools to know, and to do something about, what are widely seen as online harms. Again, it provides no new rules permitting demands to censor content.
Across the English Channel, the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act was formulated through a years-long democratic process, adopted and championed by members of the Labour and Conservatives parties, and is widely popular as a response to the perception of unaccountable power of Big Tech. It has elements that concern me and many free speech and privacy experts in the UK, particularly those dealing with age verification and young people's access to information online, which impact all people in the UK. Yet whatever faults it might have, it, like any other British law, is subject to legal challenge and review by courts for any alleged violation of fundamental rights, just as we would expect of any democracy. The Online Safety Act has safety valves for democratic accountability and control to protect users' rights, which can hardly be characterized as censorship.
I find it troubling that in both of these cases, we are only discussing these issues now, in the wake of significant fines to major technology companies coming from the European Union for failure to meet the expectations of lawmakers and the public. This hearing addresses mainly harms to companies, not to users in Europe and certainly not to the American people. The fact is that both the DSA and the OSA have been discussed for years. The DSA alone had thousands of public comments, more than 2300 amendments submitted by members of every political party. But now, after fines, after tech leaders befriend the White House and donate to inauguration ceremonies and balls, this is when these issues get the attention of this body. It is disingenuous at best. The fact is that US companies do not have the right to operate beyond the law in other countries, something they themselves often acknowledge.
As I conclude, I would encourage Members of this Committee to think about two things. First, instead of merely criticizing the sovereign right of allied democracies to figure out how to address what they see as serious harms caused by Big Tech and the broader digital age, I would ask that you consider the kind of content online that you and your constituents find problematic or concerning. Maybe it's antisemitic content. Maybe it is misogynistic content. Maybe it is content glorifying terrorism or inciting violence against communities, or against journalists. Or content encouraging children to harm themselves or, God forbid, commit suicide. Or content of the ugliest, most heinous kind, involving abuse of children or violence of other sorts. There is a troublingly long list that we could brainstorm. How do you propose to address those harms? How do you propose to do that in a way that is consistent with our free speech values and obligations? I strongly doubt that your response would be that each and every one of these harms is the price of free speech, so what would you have the platforms do? Assess the risk of amplification and encourage mitigation, as the DSA requires? Or just do nothing, because free speech?
These are not simple questions with easy answers. Through impressively democratic processes, the EU and the UK have made their initial choices. Do I agree with them all? Maybe not. Were they done in good faith? I believe so. Do they undermine the foundations of democratic life? Not at all. Do they constitute a new form of censoring Americans? It's not even a serious proposition.
Second, I urge this Committee to consider the real threat to Americans' freedom of expression, the one here at home. I have noted a handful of areas where this administration is putting freedom of expression under direct attack. Where is the opposition, let alone outrage, given the attack not only on speakers - journalists, public media, professors, students, whistleblowers, civil servants - but on every American's right of access to information about the issues important to our democracy and to our public's health? That, I would respectfully submit, is the real threat to American speech and innovation, and I look forward to helping this Committee, in any way you see fit, work to address it.
Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/kaye-testimony-1.pdf
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior Suess Testifies Before House Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources released the following testimony by Adam Suess, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Interior for land and minerals management, from a Sept. 3, 2025, legislative hearing.The legislation are Combating Obstruction Against Leasing Act (H.R. 280), Mineral Extraction for Renewable Industry and Critical Applications Act (H.R. 3872), Streamlining NEPA for Coal Act (H.R. 4068), to codify provisions of certain executive orders relating to domestic mining and hardrock mineral resources (H.R. 4090), to ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources released the following testimony by Adam Suess, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Interior for land and minerals management, from a Sept. 3, 2025, legislative hearing. The legislation are Combating Obstruction Against Leasing Act (H.R. 280), Mineral Extraction for Renewable Industry and Critical Applications Act (H.R. 3872), Streamlining NEPA for Coal Act (H.R. 4068), to codify provisions of certain executive orders relating to domestic mining and hardrock mineral resources (H.R. 4090), tounleash America's offshore critical minerals and resources (H.R. 4018), and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (H.R. 1366).
* * *
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Department of the Interior (Department).
The public lands and minerals stewarded by the Department include more than 480 million acres of surface land, 750 million acres of subsurface and mineral estate, and more than 3.2 billion acres offshore. The mineral resources contained in these lands are critical to achieving American energy dominance, and their development will power our economy, bolster national defense, and support emerging technologies. Non-energy minerals produced from public lands generate billions of dollars to the economy and support tens of thousands of jobs. The Department is working every day to responsibly develop our national assets to grow our economy, help balance the budget, and generate revenue for American taxpayers, while at the same time protecting our beautiful lands, abundant wildlife, and clean air and water.
The Department is proud to be working to fulfill President Trump's vision for national and economic security, as described in Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, Executive Order 14261, Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry, Executive Order 14241, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, and Executive Order 14285 Unleashing Americas Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources In light of these and other Presidential Actions, the Department immediately took steps to support these priorities. This included ending the Obama-era coal leasing moratorium, as well as approving the expansion of the Spring Creek Coal Mine in Montana, which has 40 million tons of recoverable resource and will directly support hundreds of American jobs. The unleashing of domestic coal resources will allow the United States to end its reliance on foreign sources, where development often occurs with little or no concern for the environmental impacts. Additionally, the Department recently issued its first-ever Request for Information and Interest (RFI) for offshore critical mineral exploration in the waters surrounding American Samoa. This RFI marks a foundational step in assessing commercial interest and guiding environmental and geological evaluations in underexplored regions of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.
Recognizing that mineral development is a national security priority, the Department is committed to ensuring the United States is the leading producer and processor of critical minerals, including rare earth elements, in order to create jobs and prosperity at home, strengthen domestic supply chains, and reduce the global influence of adversarial states.
Currently, the Department is working to reverse and remove bureaucratic hurdles intended to suppress domestic mineral production. Supported by its bureaus, the Department is actively increasing production of affordable, reliable energy and minerals on federal lands, and further contributing to America's critical mineral dominance by updating the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) list of critical minerals. These efforts include continuing the ongoing geological mapping of the country and publishing a factsheet on deep sea mineral opportunities. The Department also recently announced policy steps to speed up the search and development of critical offshore minerals, combining streamlined policy, cutting-edge science, and greater certainty for industry.
The Department supports each of the bills on the hearing agenda, as they further the Administration's priorities to expand access to mineral resources, strengthen domestic energy security, and bolster American energy independence.
* * *
H.R. 280, Combating Obstruction Against Leasing (COAL) Act
H.R. 280 requires the Secretary of the Interior, as soon as practicable after enactment, to take all actions to grant qualified coal lease applications. For those applications that are already undergoing a review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the bill requires the BLM to publish a draft Environmental Assessment and any applicable implementing regulations. In addition, H.R. 280 nullifies the Department's Secretarial Order 3338, issued on January 15, 2016, which placed a moratorium on most new federal coal leases.
* * *
Analysis
American coal has survived decades of regulatory assault and will play a pivotal role in continuing to power America going forward. In April, the Department ended the Obama-era Federal Coal Moratorium and removed layers of red tape that undermined clean American coal production on federal lands. The Department supports this bill and looks forward to working with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee to implement further policy and regulatory reforms to position coal as a cornerstone of the nation's energy strategy and ensuring federally-managed lands remain open and accessible for responsible energy development.
* * *
H.R. 3872, Mineral Extraction for Renewable Industry & Critical Applications (MERICA) Act
H.R. 3872 amends the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (MLAAL) to establish that all lands acquired by the federal government are eligible to be considered for hardrock mineral leasing, including those where leasing authority did not previously exist.
* * *
Analysis
The Department's authority to issue prospecting permits and leases for hardrock minerals on lands acquired by the United States is currently limited to certain lands acquired under the authority of just a handful of statutes, all of which are listed in 43 C.F.R. 3503.13. The authority to issue hardrock leases does not extend to other acquired lands beyond those listed. Under the MLAAL, the Department has the authority to issue leases for oil, gas, coal, phosphate, sodium and potassium on all lands acquired by the United States. However, the MLAAL does not include the authority to lease hardrock minerals on lands acquired by the United States. This creates barriers for the recovery of minerals needed for economic and national security. For example, lithium - currently in high demand for a variety of industrial, medical, and everyday uses - has been identified in the Smackover Formation in the southeastern United States, including parcels acquired by the United States on which the Secretary is not currently authorized to issue hardrock leases or prospecting permits on acquired lands because there is no statutory authority to do so.
As stated by President Trump in EO 14241, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, it is imperative for our national security that the United States take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent. The Department supports H.R. 3872, which would expand the federal lands available for hardrock mineral development, further supporting the President's direction. The Department recommends that the Sponsor consider adjusting the definition of hardrock minerals so that it specifically excludes deposits of phosphate and gilsonite to align the bill with established statutory and regulatory definitions. The Department also recommends replacing the reference to "industrial metals" with "industrial minerals" to ensure that certain minerals are not unintentionally excluded from the scope of the definition of "hardrock mineral." We look forward to working with the sponsor and the subcommittee to address these and other technical issues with the bill.
* * *
H.R. 4068, Streamlining NEPA for Coal Act
H.R. 4068 requires the Secretary to identify, within 30 days of enactment, any existing and potential categorical exclusions pursuant to NEPA that could further the production and export of coal. The bill further directs the Secretary to provide the identified categorical exclusions to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
* * *
Analysis
Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, the Department has reaffirmed its commitment to supporting American Energy Dominance with a renewed focus on coal. The Department agrees that categorical exclusions (CXs) provide an efficient mechanism, where appropriate under existing law, to meet legal requirements while expediting work on the ground. In response to Executive Orders, including 14154, 14156, and 14261, the Department has evaluated CXs from numerous federal agencies for their applicability in expediting energy projects. As a result, the BLM recently adopted 102 CXs that were already approved and in use by other agencies.
In addition to the actions already taken by the BLM, the Department will continue to implement policy and regulatory reforms to position coal as a cornerstone of the nation's energy strategy and looks forward to working with the Subcommittee on these efforts. The Department supports H.R. 4068, as it aligns with the actions the BLM is taking to expand access and remove long-standing regulatory barriers that have undermined American coal production.
* * *
H.R. 4090, Codifying provisions of certain Executive Orders relating to domestic mining & hardrock mineral resources
H.R. 4090 would require the Secretary to submit to Congress the dollar value and the overall economic impact of the United States' reliance on imported mineral commodities, and to include this information in the 2026 United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Mineral Commodity Summaries.
The bill would mirror provisions of Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, by requiring the Secretary to submit to Congress a list of each mining project on federal land for which a plan of operations, permit application, or other application for approval has been submitted to the Department, identify each priority mining project that can be immediately approved, and take all necessary steps to expedite and approve each such project.
The bill also codifies portions of Executive Order 14154 by requiring review of all existing agency actions that impose an undue burden on the exploration, identification, development, or operation of domestic mining projects, and to begin implementing an action plan to suspend, revise, or rescind each agency action identified as unduly burdensome. It also directs the Secretary to solicit industry feedback on regulatory bottlenecks and recommended strategies to expedite approval of mining projects on federal lands, and to begin implementing an action plan to implement industry feedback received. Further, H.R. 4090 requires the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to submit a report to Congress that includes recommendations for changes in law necessary to review and rescind or revise unduly burdensome agency actions, and a nationwide review of state and local statutes, regulations, and ordinances the Secretary determines impede the development of domestic mining and mineral exploration projects.
The bill would additionally support Executive Order 14241, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, by requiring the Secretary to submit to Congress a list of each mining project on federal land that has the potential to increase production of hardrock minerals or byproducts, expand operations to include hardrock mineral byproducts, or produce hardrock minerals from mine tailings. In addition, the Secretary would be directed to identify all land managed by the Department, or by the Department of Agriculture, which may be leased for the exploration, development, or production of hardrock minerals, or is open to location under the Mining Law of 1872, and where: 1) exploration is being conducted, 2) the Secretary determines hardrock minerals may be present, or 3) known economically recoverable hardrock minerals are present.
Finally, the bill directs the Secretary to prioritize efforts to accelerate the ongoing, detailed geologic mapping of the United States, with a focus on mapping previously unknown deposits of hardrock minerals. Within a year of enactment, the Secretary is required to submit a Report to Congress regarding the progress and estimated completion date of the comprehensive mapping and data integration effort directed by section 40201 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (43 U.S.C. 311).
* * *
Analysis
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, to establish our position as the leading producer and processor of non-fuel minerals, including rare earth minerals, with the goal to create jobs and prosperity at home, strengthen supply chains for the United States and its allies, and reduce the global influence of malign and adversarial states. The Executive Order directed an immediate review of all agency actions that potentially burden the development of domestic energy resources and critical minerals, and to undertake efforts to expedite and simplify the permitting process.
On March 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14241, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, directing relevant agency heads to identify priority projects to Secretary Burgum, Chair of the National Energy Dominance Council, for expedited approval and, with feedback from industry, to identify regulatory bottlenecks and other recommended strategies for expediting domestic mineral production. The Executive Order also directed the Secretary to prioritize mineral production and mining related purposes as the primary land uses on Federal lands known to hold mineral deposits and reserves.
The efforts codified by H.R. 4090 support the responsible development of our natural resources, the creation of high paying jobs that support rural economies, and the strengthening American energy independence by reducing reliance on foreign energy sources and minerals. The Department appreciates the bill's recognition of the role the USGS has in supporting domestic minerals initiatives. The USGS is making progress on these activities through development of the annual Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS), the current effort to produce an updated whole-of-government List of Critical Minerals, and the acceleration of mapping through the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative. The USGS is currently compiling and analyzing the data that will be used in the 2026 MCS. Depending on timing of this bill's passage, some components of this legislation may not be fully implemented until the 2027 MCS.
The Department supports H.R. 4090 and looks forward to working with the Subcommittee on further implementation of these Executive Orders to ensure the United States' position as a global leader in energy development, while ushering in an era of prosperity and security. As the Subcommittee considers the bill, the Department recommends that the Sponsor consider including a definition for "mining project" to clarify their intent to focus on hardrock mines, as the term is also used to refer to mineral materials projects.
* * *
H.R. 4018, Unleash America's Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources Act
H.R. 4018, the Unleash America's Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources Act, reinforces the President's energy priorities by providing a clear framework to support the offshore exploration and responsible development of critical minerals on the U.S. OCS. It recognizes that offshore mineral resources are essential to the nation's economic security, energy independence and supply chain resilience.
To support responsible development, H.R. 4018 directs agencies like BOEM, NOAA, and USGS to conduct seabed mapping and geological assessments to accelerate data collection and American dominance. Further the bill requires the Department to establish an expedited process for reviewing and approving permits for prospecting and granting leases under OCSLA.
* * *
Analysis
In April 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14285, Unleashing America's Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources, marking a decisive step in the administration's broader push to secure the nation's mineral supply chains and assert U.S. leadership in seabed resource development. H.R. 4018 empowers the Department of the Interior, through BOEM, to issue expedited leases, licenses, and permits for the exploration and commercial recovery of critical minerals on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
The Department supports H.R. 4018 and recognizes the value of enhanced coordination for mapping priority areas and streamlined permitting. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee on these important issues.
* * *
H.R. 1366, Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
H.R. 1366 would reaffirm the longstanding practice of allowing mining operators to store byproducts of mining operations on "mill sites" on federal lands and addresses the ruling in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022), commonly known as the Rosemont decision. The bill clarifies that a mining operator may locate as many mill sites as are reasonably necessary for its operations and that such mill sites may be used for operations incidental to mineral development including disposal of mining byproducts such as waste rock or tailings. The bill also establishes a new Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund for mine reclamation.
* * *
Analysis
The Department appreciates the Sponsor's recognition that domestic mining operations have been burdened by excessive red tape for too long and believes H.R. 1366 aligns with the direction provided in Executive Order 14241, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production that the United States take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent.
The Department would like to work with the Sponsor to adjust the language of the bill to align with the Department's existing regulations, which currently allow an operator to locate as much mill site acreage as is reasonably necessary for its operations. The Department also recommends minor technical edits to aid in the bill's implementation, including clarification as to whether only mill sites, as defined in the bill are ineligible for patenting, or whether the intent is that mill sites associated with lode and placer claims as described in 30 USC 42(a) and (b) would also be ineligible for patenting. The Department would like to work with the Sponsor on the language regarding the proposed Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund to ensure the proposal is consistent with Administration policies, and the Department maintains the flexibility needed to manage programs funded through the use of claim maintenance fees.
* * *
Conclusion
As the Department carries out its mission, we remain committed to meeting the high standards of this Administration and Congress. Expanding critical mineral exploration is foundational to building resilient domestic supply chains, creating skilled American jobs and strengthening the nation's energy and industrial security.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee might have.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250903/118550/HHRG-119-II06-Wstate-SuessA-20250903.pdf
Ocean Minerals President Smit Testifies Before House Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources released the following testimony by Hans Smit, president and CEO of Ocean Minerals LLC, from a Sept. 3, 2025, hearing on legislation to unleash America's offshore critical minerals and resources (H.R. 4018): * * *
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Hans Smit, and I serve as CEO of Ocean Minerals LLC (OML) and our wholly owned Cook Islands Subsidiary, Moana Minerals. I commend the Committee for ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources released the following testimony by Hans Smit, president and CEO of Ocean Minerals LLC, from a Sept. 3, 2025, hearing on legislation to unleash America's offshore critical minerals and resources (H.R. 4018): * * * Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Hans Smit, and I serve as CEO of Ocean Minerals LLC (OML) and our wholly owned Cook Islands Subsidiary, Moana Minerals. I commend the Committee foradvancing H.R. 4018 and for recognizing the urgent need to reassert American leadership in the global race for critical mineral independence.
Last month, during the Cook Islands' 60th anniversary of self-governance, U.S. officials -- including White House National Security Council Senior Director David Copley and Department of Commerce Deputy Assistant Secretary Jushua Kroon -- joined the celebrations and announced a Joint Statement on U.S.-Cook Islands Cooperation on Seabed Mineral Resources. This underscores America's commitment to responsible development in the Pacific. In addition, NOAA is preparing to send a research team to the region to expand baseline data collection, further advancing our scientific understanding of the seabed environment.
I am here not only as an executive of a deep-sea mineral development company but also as a representative of an enterprise rooted in American scientific innovation and national security strategy. Ocean Minerals traces its origins to a post-2011 U.S. Army Research Laboratory initiative, launched in response to China's aggressive restrictions on rare earth element exports. That research effort identified deep-sea polymetallic nodules in the Cook Islands' Exclusive Economic Zone as among the world's most geopolitically favorable and resource-rich critical mineral deposits.
The deep seabed in the Cook Islands contains an unmatched concentration of critical minerals vital for national defense, energy storage, electrification, and next-generation technologies. Within our 23,630 km(2) license area, we have identified resources containing over 80 million tons of manganese, 2.5 million tons of cobalt, 1.4 million tons of nickel, 750,000 tons of copper, and significant rare earth elements. These nodules lie unattached on the seafloor, accessible without excavation, offering a far simpler process for mineral extraction than many other mining operations.
Today, 87% of rare earth refining capacity, 60% of nickel processing, and a dominant share of global cobalt production are controlled by China. This monopoly is not merely economic--it is strategic. The United States must secure alternative, allied-sourced supplies to ensure the continuity of our industrial base, energy grid, and military readiness.
President Trump's April 2025 Executive Order, "Unleashing America's Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources," recognized seabed minerals as essential to U.S. resource strategy and called for expanded federal support for allied projects. H.R. 4018 codifies this direction by authorizing strategic U.S. engagement in deep-sea exploration and development, with priority for U.S.-aligned jurisdictions and companies.
Our project directly supports this policy framework. Ocean Minerals is a U.S.-controlled company operating through Moana Minerals in the Cook Islands, a Pacific ally with whom we enjoy diplomatic and regulatory alignment. The Cook Islands enacted comprehensive seabed mining regulations in 2024, enabling a stable investment environment for responsible offshore operations.
A single Ocean Minerals production vessel is projected to generate $1.4 billion in annual revenue, with a 36% pre-tax IRR and an NPV exceeding $4.7 billion. This scalability and profitability are bolstered by our proprietary metallurgical processing technology, which has already been validated at laboratory scale and is advancing to pilot-scale deployment.
Our initiative also advances U.S. innovation leadership. We are developing an end-to-end processing ecosystem and exploring partnerships to locate the first U.S.-based critical minerals refinery using marine resources. This is a viable industrial strategy to counter China's dominance of both the upstream and downstream supply chain. We are also looking at building the first commercial-grade deep sea mining vessel to further our leadership in this industry.
Deep sea development can be done responsibly while minimizing impacts on the environment. Seabed nodules lie on the surface of the deep-sea floor, requiring no excavation, road construction, forest destruction, relocation of indigenous populations or blasting. Our operations are designed for minimal sediment disruption and are undergoing a full Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) under Cook Islands regulations, which are among the most stringent globally.
We are committed to full transparency, compliance, and community engagement. In partnership with the Cook Islands government and civil society, we are establishing long-term job training, marine research, and benefit-sharing frameworks.
H.R. 4018 comes at a pivotal moment. The United States has not advanced significantly in mineral processing and, apart from President Trump's Executive Order, has not established a formal stance on seabed mining. This legislation would:
1. Provide strategic clarity and support for offshore resource projects.
2. Encourage allied nation cooperation, including Pacific Island partnerships.
3. Leverage American technological advantage and resource ownership.
As a company rooted in U.S. defense research and committed to the highest environmental and operational standards, Ocean Minerals is proud to serve as a model for how American innovation can responsibly lead the global race for critical minerals.
Chairman and Members, I urge your support for H.R. 4018 and the broader effort to establish a secure, sustainable, and sovereign U.S. critical minerals supply chain. Let us not wait until the next crisis to recognize what is already clear: the resources of the future are on the seabed, and American leadership must accelerate now.
Thank you for your time and I welcome your questions.
* * *
URL: Ocean Minerals
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250903/118550/HHRG-119-II06-Wstate-SmitH-20250903.pdf
Alliance Defending Freedom International Legal Counsel Price Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 -- The House Judiciary Committee released the following written testimony by Lorcan Price, legal counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom International, from a Sept. 3, 2025, hearing entitled "Europe's Threat to American Speech and Innovation":* * *
Europe's Digital Services Act ("DSA") and its proponents seek worldwide narrative control in the digital age. Its goal is censorship; its means draconian centralization; its reach global. The DSA is the head of a growing censorship industrial complex. It must be stopped.
Europe wants to be the global leader in censorship. Its ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 -- The House Judiciary Committee released the following written testimony by Lorcan Price, legal counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom International, from a Sept. 3, 2025, hearing entitled "Europe's Threat to American Speech and Innovation": * * * Europe's Digital Services Act ("DSA") and its proponents seek worldwide narrative control in the digital age. Its goal is censorship; its means draconian centralization; its reach global. The DSA is the head of a growing censorship industrial complex. It must be stopped. Europe wants to be the global leader in censorship. Itsobsession with harmonization and regulation is at odds with the values of free speech and a free press. Those are universal human freedoms as well as traditional European values, but increasingly they are treated by some as a social ill that should be purged from enlightened society. Europe's online speech codes not only violate these human rights but are deliberately designed to position European authorities as the arbiter of truth in virtually every online controversy.
Rather than a suffocating list of regulations dictating what can and cannot be said, the DSA operates to create a tangled web where it is never clear whether something is illegal or simply unwise, where there are punishments for leaving content up but not for taking too much content down, and where even appealability is obscured by a morass of "optional" procedures spanning platforms, member states, and EU courts. The DSA enables threats and intimidation rather than setting forth a clear and unbiased rule of law. Former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened Elon Musk last summer over Musk's plans to interview then-candidate Donald Trump in a livestream on X. If you can't host an interview with a U.S. presidential candidate on your own major speech platform without upsetting the EU, what can you do?
Former Commissioner Breton admits that the DSA is already being used against American tech companies, which function as the digital public square. And Europe isn't slowing down. In fact, it continues to add new Codes of Conduct to the DSA, new Guidelines, and has planned a "European Democracy Shield" that will strengthen the DSA in the realm of so-called election integrity and political processes. Additionally, the EU is using the DSA as an element of its negotiations in wider trade agreements with Canada, and at least one member of European Parliament has called on Europe to partner with other nations on regulating technology companies. Because the Internet is global, the DSA's proposed reach is global, too.
The DSA operates through an unwieldy and bureaucratic web where all roads eventually lead back to the European Commission and censorship. The Commission oversees a purposefully confusing morass of often Orwellian-sounding censors, including Digital Services Coordinators, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Trusted Flaggers, Monitoring Reporters, boards, adjudicators, and courts.
Specifically, the two VLOSEs are the two largest search engines operated by American companies: Google and Bing. Of the 19 VLOPs, 10 are large online platforms operated by American companies--including Amazon, the Apple App store, Pinterest, LinkedIn, the Meta family of sites (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp), X (formerly Twitter), and Wikipedia. And as discussed more fully below, these American enterprises are increasingly the tools of censorship by the EU for speech in Europe, the U.S., and around the world.
Because the Commission has broad investigatory powers against Internet companies, including dawn raids with law enforcement to conduct a surprise investigation, companies are incentivized to avoid any questions from the Commission. If after the investigation, the Commission finds that a service provider has made insufficient commitments to enforcing the DSA, it may impose fines up to 6% of the total worldwide annual revenue. If this persists, the Commission can restrict EU access to the platform or suspend operations.
With penalties this severe, you would think the crime would be egregious. But instead, the crime is vague: posting or permitting "anything that is not in compliance with Union law or the law of any Member State."1 The examples would be cartoonish if they weren't so horrifying: people being arrested for yodeling in their own backyards, posting Bible verses, and retweeting memes are all enough to get individuals in trouble with the law in various European jurisdictions, to say nothing of requiring the Internet service providers to cease being digital public squares and start being the first line of censorship.
When 6% of your global revenue is at stake, complying with speech codes is never voluntary. And now that the DSA is mandatory and additional add-ons are coming, American companies will be, at best, forced to stop innovating and start policing speech.
If you don't like nationwide injunctions, get ready for global injunctions based on an Internet user's complaint or an ideologically biased NGO's disgruntled scrolling. This is an affront to the First Amendment2--your right to speak will be curtailed if an unelected European bureaucrat believes it is "misinformation," "disinformation,"3 "information manipulation" or a threat to "information integrity."4 This is not just a European problem. It is the frontline of a global struggle over whether people can speak the truth--and live by it--without fear, and whether American companies including Google, Bing, and Meta are free to continue to drive Internet innovation or instead be forced to help Europe silence speech worldwide.
* * *
1 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council, art. 3(h), 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 (Oct. 19, 2022), https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act_Article_3.html
2 John Rosenthal, Make Speech Free Again: How the U.S. Can Defeat E.U. Censorship, CLAREMONT REV. BOOKS, Spring 2025, at 22-26.
* * *
Yesterday it was European speech, but today and tomorrow it will be American speech that will be removed from American platforms at the threat of European bureaucrats. This is a global, coercive effort against not just American companies, but global platforms for the free exchange of ideas.
I. The DSA has created a "Censorship Industrial Complex" for the EU and the World
The unelected and largely unaccountable European Commission has positioned itself under the DSA to enable sweeping censorship in the name of "public safety" and "democracy." It does this through an elaborate cast of characters, but ultimately the Commission always pulls the strings of censorship, making private enterprises its puppets lest they face draconian fines.5
A. The DSA Enforcement Apparatus
The DSA is enforced via a web of censors, with the European Commission in the center of the web. Through its Commissioner for Internal Markets, the European Commission sets and coordinates policy and initiates enforcement actions. The Commission also has exclusive authority over certain provisions of the DSA, including the supervision of VLOPs and VLOSEs.
But the DSA does not rely exclusively on the Commission for its enforcement. Each EU member state must designate at least one "competent authority" to serve as the "Digital Services Coordinator," which is responsible for administering and enforcing the DSA within that member state, except for the provisions of the DSA that are the sole province of the Commission. The Commission can also supersede the Digital Services Coordinators' decisions.
* * *
3 European Partnership for Democracy, Civic Discourse and Electoral Processes in the Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures Reports under the Digital Services Act: An Analysis (Mar. 2025), https://epd.eu/news-publications/civic-discourse-and-electoral-processes-in-the-risk-assessment-and-mitigation-measures-reports-under-the-digital-services-act-an-analysis/.
4 Naja Bentzen, Information Integrity Online and the European Democracy Shield, EUR. PARL. THINK TANK (Dec. 2024); www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI%282024%29767153; Copenhagen Conference on Information Integrity, Danish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Nov. 11-12, 2025, https://danish-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/en/events/copenhagen-conference-on-information-integrity/.
5 ADF International, Unpacking the EU Digital Services Act, ADF INT'L (Apr. 17, 2025), https://adfinternational.org/article/digital-services-act-unpacked.
* * *
Moving towards the edges of the web, we find the "Trusted Flaggers," a network of "civil society organisations," industry organizations, law enforcement, and other private or semi-public bodies that member states may deputize to monitor and flag potentially illegal content.6 The Commission may also designate non-profit or public entities with "expertise on illegal hate speech" as "Monitoring Reporters," whose job it is to surveil the internet to identify "illegal hate speech."7 When a Trusted Flagger speaks, the service provider must listen and prioritize the review of the flagged content before that of its regular users. The service provider must review the flagged content to determine whether it violates the law of an EU member state or the EU itself. If so, the service provider must remove or disable access to the content. If the service provider determines the content is not illegal, it may permit the content to remain but must document its reasoning and share its decision with the Trusted Flagger and record the decision in a database that will be made available to regulators and researchers.8 Finally, at the edges of the web are the service providers themselves. Under the DSA, service providers are obligated to proactively search for and remove so-called "illegal content." Failure to do so--or do so adequately in the eyes of the Commission--will expose the platform to punishment, as described in the next section.
In practice, this amounts to a regime of pre-publication review--content must be filtered, flagged, or throttled before it ever reaches the public.
More troubling still, the DSA requires companies to engage in opaque forms of "risk assessment and mitigation," effectively pushing them to re-engineer their algorithms and train their artificial intelligence systems to suppress categories of lawful but disfavored speech. Because these decisions happen inside corporate systems, they are nearly impossible for the public to see, debate, or challenge. The result is a hidden form of mass, pre-publication censorship at a scale never before witnessed--a model that threatens not only European discourse but speech, debate, and dialogue around the globe. The DSA creates a strong incentive for service providers to remove flagged content regardless of its legality. A service provider paying an employee to conduct a legal review is expensive, especially given the scope and complexity of European speech law. Given that the financial value of most individual pieces of content to a service provider is minimal, the procedural requirements of the DSA alone create a bias towards censorship.
* * *
6 Digital Services Coordinators, European Commission Digital Strategy, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/dsa-dscs.
7 European Commission, Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online+ at 5.
8 If the flagged content is deemed to pose "a threat to the life or safety of a person or persons" the service provider is also obligated to notify the police of the relevant member state. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council, art. 18(1), 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 (Oct. 19, 2022) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng.
* * *
The individuals whose content is targeted by a Trusted Flagger are at a distinct disadvantage. Appeals may be handled by the service provider (who is subject to the DSA), by a non-judicial "out-of-court dispute settlement body" that is dependent on the member state's Digital Services Coordinator (who enforces the DSA) for its continued certification, or in some cases by a court--a costly and lengthy process that most individuals will lack the means and sophistication to pursue.
If the Commission or a member state's Digital Services Coordinator believes there has been a violation of the DSA, the Commission or a Digital Services Coordinator may initiate an investigation. However, if the Commission initiates an investigation, the Digital Services Coordinator loses its jurisdiction over the alleged violation, exemplifying how the DSA centralizes power within the Commission.
B. The DSA Enforcement Process and Punishment
While the procedural requirements of the DSA create powerful incentives for service providers to censor their users at the drop of a hat, that is nothing compared to the incentives created by the DSA's enforcement regime. When an investigatory proceeding is initiated, the DSA provides the European Commission and its member states with broad and invasive investigatory powers. If a DSA violation is found, or the service provider fails to be sufficiently responsive, the DSA provides the Commission and its member states with the ability to discipline the service provider with massive fines, exclusion from the EU market, and even criminal sanctions.
Commission Investigations of VLOPs and VLOSEs. The DSA permits the Commission to send VLOPs (e.g., Amazon, Meta, X/Twitter, and other American companies) and VLOSEs (Google and Microsoft's Bing) the equivalent of a subpoena, conduct interviews, and send investigators to "inspect" the service provider's premises. It also permits the Commission to require the service provider to document and explain their internal systems, including sensitive commercial information like algorithms, and seal the premises of the European operations of these companies--again, many of which are U.S.-based companies. To compel compliance with these investigatory demands, the Commission may fine X/Twitter, Meta, Google, Amazon, or any other non-compliant VLOP or VLOSE up to 5% of its global daily revenue for each day the company fails to comply.6
If the Commission finds prima facie evidence of a DSA violation, it may impose interim measures on the service provider for a "specified period of time."9 However, the Commission may also determine what that specified period of time is and renew the order so long as the renewal is considered, in the sole discretion of the Commission, to be "necessary and appropriate."10 If, as part of the investigation, the service provider offers sufficient commitments that it will comply with the DSA, the Commission may reach a binding agreement with the provider and close the proceedings.11 However, if the Commission does not believe the commitments are sufficient, it may, in effect, convict the service provider via a "non-compliance decision."12 In certain instances, a non-compliance decision, as well as instances where a VLOP or VLOSE fails to comply with an "interim measure" imposed by the Commission or conditions imposed by a Commission decision, allows the Commission to impose a fine on the VLOP or VLOSE of up to 6% of its global annual revenue. Other infractions can result in fines of up to 1% of global annual revenue. For U.S. companies like X/Twitter, Google, and Meta, this represents an existential threat to their operations and coerces them to become co-censors with the EU.
Proceedings by Digital Services Coordinators. An EU member state's Digital Services Coordinator may enforce the DSA against service providers in that state. While the Digital Services Coordinator's powers are similar to those of the Commission, each EU state may implement its own rules and procedures for investigations of and penalties for infringements.
Exclusion from the EU Marketplace. If all else fails, a Digital Services Coordinator, at the request of the Commission in the case of VLOPs and VLOSEs or on its own initiative for other service providers, may request that a competent judicial authority in the EU member state where the service provider resides temporarily restrict access to the service provider or seek assistance from other intermediaries, such as ISPs, to prevent the service provider from being accessed.
Emergency Powers. Under mundane circumstances, the DSA provides the EU and its member states with a huge tool to force service providers into compliance, but that is nothing compared to the powers provided in a crisis. When the Commission determines that "extraordinary circumstances lead to a serious threat to public security or public health in the Union or in significant parts of it"13 the DSA permits the Commission to impose additional censorial requirements.
* * *
9 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council, art. 70, 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 (Oct. 19, 2022), https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act_Article_70.html.
10 Id.
11 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council, art. 71, 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 (Oct. 19, 2022), https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act_Article_71.html.
12 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council, art. 73, 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 (Oct. 19, 2022), https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act_Article_73.html.
* * *
These include requiring VLOPs and VLOSEs to determine how their services are contributing to the crisis, take steps to prevent or curtail the threat, and report to the Commission on what measures are being taken.14 The DSA also permits the Commission to, inter alia, demand that VLOPs and VLOSEs increase their content moderation efforts, devote more resources to those efforts, increase their cooperation with trusted flaggers, and change their terms of service. In short, if the Commission declares a crisis, then it can micromanage VLOPs and VLOSEs.
The Lack of Meaningful Judicial Review. While the DSA technically allows service providers and individual users to challenge censorship decisions in court, the DSA also prohibits the courts of EU member states from contradicting the Commission.15 Instead, appeals must go to the Court of Justice for the European Union, a complex and expensive proposition that generally takes at least 1-2 years to reach a decision.
In short, the DSA enables extensive EU regulation of the largely American digital public square against individual users across the world. The key goal of the DSA, according to the EU, is that the "roles of users, platforms, and public authorities are rebalanced according to European values"16-- not American ones.
II. Extraterritoriality: The Global Reach of the DSA Is a Feature, Not a Bug
By its very nature, the DSA is extraterritorial. Like an invisible digital force field, it seeks to bounce any so-called illegal speech away before it can land on the heads of its citizens. Although the DSA pays lip service to being "limited to what is strictly necessary" to achieve its objectives, its objectives are so sweeping that this is a toothless limitation.17 The DSA covers platforms used by Europeans, regardless of where the companies are based.18
* * *
13 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council, art. 36(2), 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 (Oct. 19, 2022), https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act_Article_36.html.
14 See Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council, art. 91, 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 (Oct. 19, 2022), https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act_Article_91.html.
15 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council, art. 82, 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 (Oct. 19, 2022), https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act_Article_82.html.
16 The Digital Services Act, European Commission (last updated 2024), https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en.
* * *
Even more, the DSA leverages the mixed jurisdictions of the European Union to cast the broadest possible net to deem speech illegal. Thus, if speech in one member state violates the law of a different member state,19 that may trigger a cross-border enforcement.20 If fellow member states and their citizens enjoy no cross-border courtesies, it is readily foreseeable that Americans' constitutionally protected rights won't either.
As a result of the DSA's weedy procedures and severe penalties for under- and non-compliance, as well as European courts' comfort with extraterritorial application regarding Internet regulation,21 any VLOP or VLOSE (including X/Twitter, Meta, Google, and Amazon) is incentivized to adapt its international content moderation policies to EU censorship. If platforms deem something "illegal" under EU rules, that content may be banned everywhere, even in countries with strong free speech protections.22 If Americans' speech is taken down because it allegedly violates the DSA, that infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of U.S. citizens. The guarantees of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution cannot co-exist with the censorship powers of the DSA.23
* * *
17 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council, art. 9(2)(b), 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 (Oct. 19, 2022), https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act_Article_9.html.
18 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council, art. 2(1), 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 (Oct. 19, 2022), https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act_Article_2.html.
19 See, e.g., DSA, art. 9(2)(b) nd DSA, art. 36.
20 Although the DSA in principle sets out that take-down orders should be limited to the territory of the issuing member state, exceptions are allowed. Those exceptions are likely to become the norm: if the illegality comes from EU law or if the authority determines that the rights at stake justify a wider territorial scope. Accordingly, in cases judged sensitive, a national authority in an EU member state could issue global takedown orders.
21 Adina Portaru, The EU Digital Services Act and Freedom of Expression: Friends or Foes?, CONST. DISCOURSE (Oct. 17, 2022), https://constitutionaldiscourse.com/the-eu-digital-services-act-and-freedom-of-expression-friends-or-foes/. See, e.g., Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertes (CNIL) (2019) EUR-Lex - 62017CJ0507 - EN - EUR-Lex. In this ruling on the "right to be forgotten on the Internet," the Court of Justice of the EU ordered Google to erase results from all EU member state domain names (i.e., google.fr, google.it, google.de, etc.) and is keeping open a back door for worldwide enforcement. Additionally, see Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook EUR-Lex - 62018CJ0018 - EN - EUR-Lex. In response to defamatory content posted on Facebook, the Court of Justice of the EU decided that a member state may make global takedown orders and, more importantly, that such orders are not prohibited under Art. 15 of the E-Commerce directive. The Court held that it is up to the member state to determine the geographic scope of the restriction, as long as it is within the "framework of the relevant international law." Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook, para. 49-52.
22 The Irish Institute of International and European Affairs highlights that the DSA incentivizes platforms to over remove content--including legal and truthful posts--and may encourage authoritarian regimes. The Digital Services Act: Censorship Risks for Europe, IIEA (Dec. 18, 2024), https://www.iiea.com/publications/the-digital-services-act-censorship-risks-for-europe?utm_source=chatgpt.com; See also ADF Int'l, Unpacking the EU Digital Services Act, ADF INT'L (Apr. 17, 2025), https://adfinternational.org/article/digital-services-act-unpacked.
* * *
In fact, European politicians have made it clear that they view their ability to regulate American Internet companies as an issue of "European sovereignty." After President Trump threatened tariffs on Ireland and other nations inflicting penalties on American companies, Member of the European Parliament Barry Andrews called on Europe to "stand up to Trump" by using the Anti-Coercion Instrument.24 Called the "big bazooka," the ACI has never before been used, but could offer Europe a variety of options to retaliate against America.25 Member of European Parliament Alexandra Geese, who negotiated the DSA, has called on Europe to "enforce DSA and DMA [the Digital Markets Act] in a meaningful and effective manner," claiming that "virtually all platforms utilize algorithms to amplify outrage, anger, and fear, overriding users' explicit content choices. Those emotions serve to perpetuate the dissemination of disinformation and undermine trust in science, media, and governments." 26 She believes that "[a]lgorithmic control over speech by platform owners is currently the biggest risk to freedom of speech," not because of platforms shadow-banning speech, but because they might leave speech in place and thus people might view speech she dislikes.
Geese believes Europe needs to "build a European sovereign digital infrastructure" from "data centers and undersea cables to software, AI, and social media" so that Europe is no longer "dependent" on U.S. technology. And she is reaching outside of Europe: Geese has called on Europe to partner with other nations, including Brazil, Canada, Taiwan, South Korea, India, Mexico, "and numerous other nations to promote democratic principles in the digital age." Why? To "cooperate and exchange on enforcing democratic legislation on technology companies."27
* * *
23 Staff of the House Judiciary Committee, The Foreign Censorship Threat: How the European Union's Digital Services Act Compels Global Censorship and Infringes on American Free Speech (Report & Appendix) (July 25, 2025), U.S. House Judiciary Comm., https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2025-07/DSA_Report%26Appendix%2807.25.25%29.pdf "Though nominally applicable to only EU speech, the DSA, as written, may limit or restrict Americans' constitutionally protected speech in the United States. Companies that censor an insufficient amount of 'misleading or deceptive' speech--as defined by EU bureaucrats--face fines up to six percent of global revenue, which would amount to billions of dollars for many American companies. Furthermore, because many social media platforms generally maintain one set of content moderation policies that they apply globally, restrictive censorship laws like the DSA may set de facto global censorship standards."
24 Barry Andrews MEP, Appeasement Won't Work: Why Europe Must Stand Up to Trump, BRUSSELS TIMES (Aug. 27, 2025) https://www.brusselstimes.com/1719562/appeasement-wont-work-why-europe-must-stand-up-to-trump.
25 Vassilis Akritidis & Jean-Baptiste Blancardi, The Anti-Coercion Instrument: What Is It and How Europe Might Use It Over the Next Four Years, CROWELL & MORING (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/the-anti-coercion-instrument-what-is-it-and-how-europe-might-use-it-over-the-next-four-years.
26 Alexandra Geese, Europe Cannot Wait to Fight Trump's Assault on Democracy, TECHPOLICY.PRESS (Aug. 27, 2025), https://www.techpolicy.press/europe-cannot-wait-to-fight-trumps-assault-on-democracy/.
* * *
Indeed, expanding the formal scope of the DSA is part of the official European Union agenda. In June, an EU-Canada Summit took place in Brussels to try to export and universalize the principles of the DSA against U.S. demands. Canada and the EU agreed to advance the Digital Trade Agreement "to align standards and infrastructure," which would allow European and Canadian regulators to issue parallel alerts or requests for takedowns during times of geopolitical tension.28 As the United States approaches 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, it is notable that Americans are still fighting against European efforts to control Americans' speech, censor unpopular views, and exert their will over the lives of Americans through draconian laws that lack any meaningful due process protections.
The comments of EU Parliamentarians and officials belie the argument that the DSA does not reach beyond the EU: this is no simple content moderation law and no simple request to respect the online cultural mores of the Continent. Instead, this is a quest for narrative control over the entire globe: mandating that American companies remove American content and threatening economic sanctions through a never-before-used tool.
III. The DSA Imposes Speech Restrictions Globally That Dramatically Contradict the American Tradition
A. The Sweeping Restrictions on Speech imposed by the DSA
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution safeguards the freedom to speak and engage in expressive conduct. It also prohibits restricting speech using a standard that is so vague that a person cannot understand beforehand what is prohibited or that is so broad that it allows the state to sweep protected speech up with the unprotected.29 Unfortunately, the DSA embodies the polar opposite of this tradition.
The DSA prohibits any speech that violates the laws of the EU or any EU member state.30 It is respectfully submitted that many of these national laws in Europe rely on the very sort of vague and arbitrary language that is repugnant to the American Constitution and tradition.
* * *
27 Id.
28 EU and Canada Sign Security and Defense Partnership at 20th Summit, Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission (June 24, 2025), https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-and-canada-sign-security-and-defence-partnership-20th-summit-2025-06-24_en.
29 See, e.g., Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974); City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987).
30 DSA art. 3(h).
* * *
Even when the laws the DSA will impose online are clear in their prohibitions, they still have a chilling effect on free speech. For example, in Germany, it can be illegal to mock or insult a government official, regardless of whether or not the insult is true.31 In America, speech criticizing the government or government officials is protected because it is such an important tool to defend against tyranny.32 However, in Germany, and therefore under the DSA, German government officials are actually shielded from criticism to a higher level than regular German citizens, and this protection is backed by the threat of prosecution.33 This threat is not idle either. For example, on June 25th, 2025, in what it called a "day of action against hate-posts" the German Federal Criminal Police Office raided homes for cases of "hate speech" or criminal insults to politicians.34 Among the examples of criminal speech cited by the police was that of a journalist who had posted a clearly satirical, photoshopped image of the German interior minister holding a sign that said "I hate free speech"35--much like the humor of the Babylon Bee or similar satirical websites in the U.S.
Unfortunately, Germany does not have a monopoly on criminalizing speech that would clearly be protected under the United States Constitution.
* In Austria, a man was fined for yodeling in his backyard because his Muslim neighbor believed it was a mockery of the Muslim call to prayer.36
* * *
31 Dr. Anthea Pitschel, Allegation of Insult Under Sec. 185 StGB, MPP Rechtsanwalte (Nov. 17, 2024, updated Jan. 7, 2025), https://muegge-pitschel.de/en/criminal-law/allegation-of-insult-under-%C2%A7-185-stgb/.
32 See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
33 Criminal Liability in Germany for "Insulting a Politician?," BRG Rechtsanwalte (Apr. 15, 2025), https://brg-recht.de/en/news/criminal-liability-in-germany-for-insulting-a-politician.html.
34 Police in Germany Launch Nationwide Operation Against Online Hate Speech, YAHOO NEWS (June 24, 2025), https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-police-launch-nationwide-operation-061636979.html.
35 Raid on Germany's "Digital Arsonists" Feeds Row Over Free Speech, Times (London), June 25, 2025, https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/raid-on-germanys-digital-arsonists-feeds-row-over-free-speech-pq6dxlkxq.
36 Austrian, 63, Fined pound sterling700 After Muslim Neighbours Claim Yodelling Mocks Prayer, Daily Mail (Dec. 17, 2010), www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339150/Helmut-Griese-fined-700-Muslim-neighbours-claim-yodelling-mocks-prayer.html.
* * *
* In Ireland, a Catholic Bishop was investigated by the police in response to a complaint from an atheist activist who objected to a homily the Bishop preached criticizing secularism.37
* And in Finland, a member of the Finnish parliament, Paivi Rasanen, has faced trial three times for comments she made in a pamphlet and on social media, peacefully arguing that marriage should be between one man and one woman.38
Proponents of the DSA justify it with the saying: "What is illegal offline should be illegal online."39 Given what is illegal offline in Europe, this is terrifying. But in fact, the DSA is far worse.
While offline speech is subject to the laws of a particular jurisdiction, under the DSA, online speech is subject to all EU jurisdictions' laws.
This means that online speech is limited by the most restrictive law of an EU member state, or the EU itself, because under the DSA that is what dictates how online platforms must moderate their content. This creates a race to the bottom where a person's ability to speak and hear is controlled by the most restrictive bureaucrat's most restrictive interpretation of the most restrictive law in Europe.
This is bad enough, but in addition to formal laws and regulations, the DSA permits the use of "voluntary" guidelines that suppress speech. Under Article 45 of the DSA, several "voluntary" codes of conduct have been promulgated, including codes related to "hate speech", "disinformation" and "misinformation."40 Not only do these codes increase the already burdensome reporting requirements imposed by the DSA proper, but they also increase the power of non-governmental organizations, many of which are directly funded by European governments, which, as discussed above, are empowered by the DSA to control the content available online.41 Similar codes were previously used by the EU during COVID where the EU established a program to fight so-called "disinformation" about the disease. This program resulted in widespread removal or shadow-banning of communications questioning the official position on COVID's origin, the efficacy of treatment, and the government's response, as well as resulting in the suspensions of thousands of social media accounts whose users refused to hold to the party line, including accounts outside of the EU.42 Put differently, criticism of the ruling elite's views was suppressed at the exact moment when open debate is most critical in a self-governing democracy.
* * *
37 Bishop Accused of Incitement to Hatred in Homily, Irish Independent (Jan. 29, 2012), www.independent.ie/irish-news/bishop-accused-of-incitement-to-hatred-in-homily/26815932.html.
38 Alliance Defending Freedom International Homepage, ADF INTERNATIONAL, https://adfinternational.org/ (last accessed Sept. 1, 2025).
39 What Is Illegal Offline Should Be Illegal Online: Council Agrees Position on the Digital Services Act, Press Release 887/21, Council of the EU (Nov. 25, 2021), www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/11/25/what-is-illegal-offline-should-be-illegal-online-council-agrees-on-position-on-the-digital-services-act/.
40 Codes of Conduct Under the Digital Services Act, European Commission Digital Strategy (last updated Feb. 2025), https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/dsa-codes-conduct.
41 Dr. Norman Lewis, Manufacturing Misinformation: The EU-Funded Propaganda War Against Free Speech, MCC Brussels (May 15, 2025), https://brussels.mcc.hu/publication/manufacturing-misinformation-the-eu-funded-propaganda-war-against-free-speech.
* * *
While these codes are technically voluntary, there is reason to believe that this voluntariness is more ephemeral than real. For example, X's (formerly Twitter) recent decision to stop complying with the Code of Practice against disinformation prompted overt threats against X from EU officials.43 European Commission Vice President Vera Jourova stated: Twitter has chosen the hard way. They chose confrontation. This was noticed very much in the commission. I know the code is voluntary but make no mistake, by leaving the code, Twitter has attracted a lot of attention, and its actions and compliance with EU law will be scrutinised (sic) vigorously and urgently[.]44 The threat of enhanced regulatory scrutiny for leaving a nominally voluntary agreement raises the question of whether such codes are de facto mandatory.
B. The DSA versus Americans
Extraterritorial enforcement is already happening, both against American companies and American users.
Consider former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton's letter to Elon Musk last year, in which he threatened to "make full use of our toolbox, including by adopting interim measures" (code for "shutting down your website") over Musk's "planned broadcast on your platform X of a live conversation between a US presidential candidate and yourself" because it would "also be accessible to users in the EU."45 Although his letter contained lip service to "ensuring, on one hand, that freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism, are effectively protected," he demanded Musk inform EU "judicial and administrative authorities" on the measures taken to address "orders against content considered illegal," taking action on such content, and informing users and the public of those measures. Continuing the threatening language, he reminded Musk/X "[a]s you know, formal proceedings are already ongoing against X under the DSA."46
* * *
42 BRG Rechtsanwalte, Criminal Liability in Germany for "Insulting a Politician?"
43 Carl Vander Maelen & Rachel Griffin, Twitter's Retreat from the Code of Practice on Disinformation Raises a Crucial Question: Are DSA Codes of Conduct Really Voluntary?, DSA OBSERVATORY (June 12, 2023), https://dsa-observatory.eu/2023/06/12/twitters-retreat-from-the-code-of-practice-on-disinformation-raises-a-crucial-question-are-dsa-codes-of-conduct-really-voluntary/.
44 Lisa O'Carroll, Google and Facebook Urged by EU to Label AI-Generated Content, Guardian (London), June 5, 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/05/google-and-facebook-urged-by-eu-to-label-ai-generated-content.
45 Letter from Thierry Breton, Eur. Comm'n, to Elon Musk, CEO of X (Aug. 12, 2024), https://x.com/ThierryBreton/status/1823033048109367549.
* * *
And this is not unique to presidential election years--European-compliant censorship was used against Americans during COVID.
WhatsApp introduced a limit on forwarding "highly forwarded" messages to a single chat at a time in April 202047--an anti-virality measure later tracked in EU monitoring reports--and this restriction was enforced globally, directly shaping how U.S. users could share COVID-related information.
In February 2021, Meta expanded its list of removable COVID/vaccine claims globally.48
The same week, Instagram banned RFK Jr.'s account.49
Twitter, while filing monthly reports to the European Commission in March 2021, detailed that over 22,000 tweets had been removed globally under its COVID misinformation rules; these rules were applied in the U.S. as well, where American accounts received labels, strikes, and suspensions under the same standards.50 YouTube reported to the EU and adopted a WHO-aligned global medical misinformation policy.51 This was enforced against Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis, whose roundtable video was removed in April 2023./52 As a frightening reminder, 2021 was when the DSA was still voluntary. Imagine the response now that it is binding law.
* * *
46 See also Thierry Breton (@ThierryBreton), Twitter Leaves EU Voluntary Code of Practice Against Disinformation, X (May 26, 2023, 5:02 PM), https://x.com/ThierryBreton/status/1662194595755704321 (calling into question whether the DSA Codes of Conduct were ever voluntary).
47 Jon Porter, WhatsApp Says Its Forwarding Limits Have Cut the Spread of Viral Messages by 70 Percent, Verge (Apr. 27, 2020), https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/27/21238082/whatsapp-forward-message-limits-viral-misinformation-decline.
48 Elizabeth Culliford, Sheila Dang, Facebook to Remove More False Coronavirus Claims From Platform, Reuters (Feb. 8, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/facebook-remove-more-false-coronavirus-claims-platform-2021-02-08/.
49 Rishi Iyengar, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Banned From Instagram, CNN (Feb. 10, 2021, updated Feb. 11, 2021), https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/10/tech/robert-kennedy-jr-instagram-ban.
50 X (formerly Twitter), Updates to Our Work on COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation (Mar. 1, 2021), https://blog.x.com/en_us/topics/company/2021/updates-to-our-work-on-covid-19-vaccine-misinformation.
51 YouTube Announces New Policies to Target Medical Misinformation, Global Center for Health Security (Aug. 15, 2023), https://www.unmc.edu/healthsecurity/transmission/2023/08/15/youtube-announces-new-policies-to-target-medical-misinformation/.
52 YouTube Pulls Florida Gov.'s Video, Says His Panel Spread COVID-19 Misinformation, NBC News (Apr. 9, 2021), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/youtube-pulls-florida-governor-s-video-says-his-panel-spread-n1263635.
* * *
C. The DSA versus the United States Constitution
As discussed above, the DSA requires suppressing speech that violates the law of any EU member state as well as the EU itself. These laws are often broad and vague, providing those responsible for enforcing them significant discretion as to how they are actually enforced. Even when the laws are clear, they often prohibit the sort of core political and religious speech the First Amendment was enshrined to protect.
European law not only provides weaker protection for speech than the U.S. Constitution, it also empowers bureaucrats with tools that U.S. law expressly forbids. The DSA threatens to expand those tools into instruments of global censorship.
The way the DSA is enforced is anathema to the American Constitutional order. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently rejected approaches similar to the EU's threats against platforms that don't censor speech the EU dislikes. This began at least as far back as 1963 in the case of Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan.53 In Bantam, the Court clarified that even if the government coerces a private actor to censor speech protected by the First Amendment, the government is still responsible for the censorship.54 That precedent continues today, such as in the recent decision of National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo.55 There, the Court reaffirmed that a government official violates the First Amendment when he attempts to silence a speaker by threatening an intermediary on whom the speaker relies. The Court recognized that the distinction between such an effort and direct censorship is equivalent to the difference between killing someone by "cutting off his oxygen supply rather than by shooting him."56 The DSA allows the EU to grab the throat of global speech and squeeze. Instead of directly attacking the speaker, the EU places the online platforms in the precarious position of having to choose between crippling fines and a loss of access to valuable market or the speech of a subset of its customers. As the Court recognized in Vullo, the insidiousness of this strategy is that the intermediary is unlikely to care as much about the speech being targeted as the speaker, and therefore less willing to risk a fight with a regulator.57 Given the extraterritorial pretensions of the EU, if America does not do something to safeguard the speech of its citizens, Americans will find themselves de facto controlled by a foreign power.
* * *
53 Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963)
54 See, e.g., Brief of Amicus Curiae Alliance Defending Freedom in Support of Respondents, Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411, at 2 (U.S. filed Feb. 9, 2024)..
55 Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024).
56 Vullo at 197 (quoting Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229, 231 (7th Cir. 2015)).
57 Vullo at 198.
* * *
The DSA exploits the nature of online speech, which relies on a handful of centralized, and almost exclusively American, platforms on which most online expression and activity occur. In other words, America built the online free marketplace of ideas--and now Europe wants to regulate what can and cannot be said there.
These platforms are where people go to speak and to be heard. Sure, an American could still host a blog. But without the large reach of social media platforms, it's the difference between a hermit in the wilderness and a man speaking on the public square.
The DSA exploits the reality that these large platforms' economic interests will push them to acquiesce to European demands for censorship, permitting the EU to extend its grip globally. Something the EU has already shown itself willing to attempt. Geo-blocking will soon become global blocking.
IV. The Time to Act is Now: Review is Coming
This month is a critical time for America and the DSA, as the DSA comes under mandatory review this November. It is not yet too late for America and free-speech-minded Europeans to fight back against the DSA's oppressive reach. But Europe is preparing to double down.
In advance of the November review, the Council of the EU is convening a conference in Copenhagen under the auspices of the Danish Council Presidency. The Orwellian description speaks for itself: "Conference on promoting information integrity online, with the aim of scaling regional and local experiences and solutions from different contexts into a global dialogue and effort to strengthen information integrity in the digital age, combat mis- and disinformation, and promote reliable information, thereby contributing to strengthening democracy digitally."58 To translate: how to expand and enforce the DSA to restrict the greatest amount of speech such that no one is permitted to speak or think for themselves.
* * *
58 Copenhagen Conference on Information Integrity, Conference / Colloquium / Seminar, 11-12 Nov. 2025, FN-byen, Copenhagen, Denmark, organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark & International Media Support, Danish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, https://danish-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/en/events/copenhagen-conference-on-information-integrity/.
* * *
This review is a critical time to repeal the DSA, as it violates not only the constitutional rights of Americans, but also European and international law.59
V. The United Kingdom's Online Safety Act Poses a Significant Threat to Online Speech Too
The DSA is not the only threat to digital freedom of speech emerging from Europe. The United Kingdom has enacted its own sweeping legislation--the Online Safety Act of 2023--that poses many of the same threats to free speech as the DSA. While framed as a safeguard against harmful online content, this law, when combined with existing UK communications and public order statutes, poses serious risks to open debate, particularly around controversial political and religious issues.
A. Pre-Online Safety Act Laws
Several laws already regulate online speech in the UK. The Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1 prohibits sending a "grossly offensive" message to a person, originally aimed at criminalizing hate mail or poison pen letters. Similarly, section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a "grossly offensive message" over a public communications network, even if no one actually receives it or feels offended. Additionally, the Public Order Act 1986, specifically sections 4A and 5, prohibits "insulting, abusive or threatening words" if they result in harassment, alarm, or distress. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 further extends these provisions by including offences that are racially or religiously aggravated. For instance, ADF client Pastor Dia Moodley was arrested under this law after publicly debating Islam.60 Furthermore, the Public Order Act sections 19 and 29AB criminalize "stirring up" racial or religious hatred. In 2025, John Wik was convicted for inciting religious hatred for displaying the peaceful message, "We love you Europe. The Islamisation of Europe is already happening and it is getting worse each day."61
* * *
59 Adina Portaru, Is the EU's Digital Services Act Compliant with the Right to Freedom of Expression? (Feb. 14, 2025), https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/is-the-eus-digital-services-act-compliant-with-the-right-to-freedom-of-expression/; See also Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art. 11, O.J. C 326/391 (Oct. 26, 2012), reproduced on European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights website, https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/11-freedom-expression-and-information. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers;" European Convention on Human Rights art. 10, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression; "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 19, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights; "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print..."
60 Dia Moodley: Censored and arrested for preaching in public, UK, ADF International, https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/cases/dia-moodley-uk.
* * *
B. The Online Safety Act
The Online Safety Act introduced further obligations on internet service providers. Section 10 of the Act requires them to take "proportionate measures" to prevent adults from encountering illegal content, with "priority illegal content" defined in Schedule 7. This includes offences from the Public Order Act 1986, many of which are ambiguously worded. Because of the vague definitions, companies are likely to err on the side of over-censorship, blocking content even when its legality is unclear. This could mean that UK residents may be restricted from viewing political content created abroad, including from the United States.
Under Chapter 6 of the Act, the Office of Communications ("Ofcom") is empowered to issue sanctions against service providers if they are deemed to be in breach of these duties. Penalties can reach up to 10% of a company's global turnover or pound sterling18 million, whichever is higher.62 Section 62 of the Act introduces duties to protect children from "priority content" that is abusive and targets characteristics such as race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or gender reassignment.63 The provision further defines priority content as material inciting hatred against these groups.64 The terms "abusive" and "targeting" are highly subjective and could be applied broadly, potentially censoring even legitimate discussions on controversial topics such as gender identity or religion if they are perceived as offensive. Since there is no existing case law clarifying these definitions, Ofcom is effectively granted the authority to determine what qualifies as abusive or targeting content. This provision has already been used to remove content of political significance. For example, a video depicting UK police assaulting a protestor during anti-migration demonstrations in Epping was censored under this section.
* * *
61 Tristan Kirk, IT Worker Spared Prison for Anti-Islam Cyber Attack on Wi-Fi at UK Train Stations, Yahoo News UK (July 11, 2025), https://uk.news.yahoo.com/worker-spared-prison-anti-islam-071354977.html.
62 Online Safety Act: Explainer, GOV.UK (updated Apr. 24, 2025), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer.
63 Online Safety Act 2023, c. 50, Sec. 62 (UK), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/62.
64 Id.
* * *
Section 152 of the Act mandates the creation of an advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation.65 This body is tasked with advising Ofcom on how regulated services should deal with such content, as well as on Ofcom's powers under section 77 to require annual transparency reports from providers. This committee will almost certainly function as an unofficial body for developing censorship guidance, determining how platforms should address "misinformation and disinformation," which will inevitably lead to the suppression of legitimate debate.
Section 179 of the Online Safety Act criminalizes sending a message that conveys information the sender knows to be false, with the intent of causing "non-trivial psychological harm" to an audience, and without a "reasonable excuse."66 This provision effectively criminalizes "disinformation," a concept that is open to broad interpretation. Notably, Section 180 exempts "recognised news publishers"67 from liability, raising questions as to why large media outlets with greater reach are immune, while ordinary citizens face criminal penalties. Concerns about overreach are not merely theoretical. In 2024, Dmitrie Stoica was sentenced to three months in prison after creating a satirical video claiming he was being chased by rioters during the August 2024 riots.68 His case shows how the law is being abused to suppress satire and political speech, rather than narrowly targeting genuinely harmful falsehoods.
C. The Online Safety Act, like the DSA, Is a Global Threat to Speech Online
The UK's Online Safety Act poses a major threat to free speech online. Together with earlier legislation like the Malicious Communications Act and Public Order Act, the new Act expands censorship powers through vague and broad definitions of illegal or harmful content. By empowering Ofcom to issue sweeping sanctions and by institutionalizing a committee to advise on "misinformation," the law risks chilling debate and limiting public access to legitimate political and religious discourse.
Moreover, just like the DSA, the Online Safety Act has extraterritorial effects: it threatens American companies operating in the UK with harsh penalties and compels them to censor speech that would otherwise be protected under the U.S. Constitution. As with the DSA, the Act's censorious demands will spill over and harm American speech.
* * *
65 Online Safety Act 2023, c. 50, Sec. 152 (UK), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/152.
66 Online Safety Act 2023, c. 50, Sec. 179 (UK), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/179.
67 Online Safety Act 2023, c. 50, Sec. 180 (UK), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/180.
68 Greig Watson, TikToker Jailed Over Hoax Riot Claim, BBC (U.K.) (Aug. 12, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrg70xgm5zo.
* * *
VI.How America can preserve free speech for itself, and the world.
European censorship laws cannot coexist with America's robust protections forfree speech. Offline, national borders separate these rival systems, but online, the DSA threatens to impose its restrictive framework globally. Unlike in the U.S., where the First Amendment protects speech, the EU is not bound by those limits. That means America's courts cannot intervene when Americans face censorship by European regulators. The duty is on Congress and the executive branch to defend Americans' rights from being subordinated to foreign regulation.
There are two avenues within Europe that could help rein in or reform the DSA: its mandated review process and the possibility of annulment before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Both paths give member states and advocates an opportunity to raise concerns about transparency, impartiality, and fundamental rights. But the United States cannot rely solely on Europe to fix its own overreach.
Respectfully, Congress must investigate, legislate, and ensure U.S. law equips diplomats, trade officials, and platforms to resist foreign censorship. Whether through trade tools, expanded legal protections, or stronger support for American companies, the United States has both the responsibility and the strategic interest to safeguard free expression at home and abroad.
* * *
Conclusion
America has long been a "shining city on a hill"--a land where every person is free to speak and live according to the dictates of their conscience. Its history is one of throwing off oppressive laws of European powers and crafting a New World of possibility, freedom, and ingenuity. Despite America's leadership in creating the Internet and its digital public square where ideas from across the globe can be shared, debated, and refined, Europe is once again trying to put America's light under a bushel,--this time under the pretext of online safety and international compliance.
Americans must remain vigilant. Congress must not back down in defending freedom of speech and expression--not just for Americans but for the entire world. And American companies must not bend the knee to the Orwellian DSA. Help us stop the DSA before it reveals its true nature: Delete, Silence, Abolish.
* * *
URL: Alliance Defending Freedom International
* * *
Original text here: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/price-testimony.pdf