Regulate, Bankrupt, Expel: The EU’s Plan to Purge Political Dissent

The European Union, a political entity never elected in any meaningful sense by the people it governs, is preparing to fine Elon Musk's social media platform X over a billion euros. The charge? Failure to sufficiently censor content the EU deems "disinformation." This enforcement—ostensibly grounded in the Digital Services Act (DSA)—is being framed as a matter of legality, transparency, and public safety. But the reality, clear to anyone not hypnotized by bureaucratic euphemism, is more chilling: a supranational regime is punishing a private company for failing to enforce ideological conformity.

At stake is not merely a monetary penalty. It is a vision of the digital public square. The European Commission, under the guise of technocratic objectivity, is attempting to export a bureaucratic morality that demands silence on matters the European elite find uncomfortable: questions about war, immigration, or the erosion of national sovereignty. Musk's defiance, his refusal to muzzle dissent or shadow-ban critics of the EU's globalist agenda, has made him a heretic. And like all heretics in bureaucratic empires, he must be broken—financially, publicly, and legally.

To understand this moment, we must return to the DSA itself. Enacted in 2023, the law was marketed as a tool to protect European citizens from online harms. Its language is seductively vague: platforms must assess and mitigate "systemic risks," prevent the spread of "illegal content," and avoid so-called "dark patterns" that might mislead users. Who defines these terms? The European Commission. Who enforces them? The same unelected body—a body that keeps the names of its board members and participants secret. In theory, these are benign safety measures; in practice, they are ideological weapons.

Consider the EU’s grievance list. Musk’s platform stands accused of failing to police content after the Hamas attacks in Israel, of amplifying certain political voices (namely, conservatives), and of insufficiently moderating speech in languages the Commission deems at risk. Behind these accusations lies the real charge: X has not become a willing enforcement arm of the European political project. It has not silenced critics of France’s war policy, Germany’s immigration stance, or the Romanian judiciary’s exclusion of opposition figures. It has, instead, provided a stage for dissent. And for that, it must be punished.

The EU’s demand is clear, though it remains unsaid: conform or be crushed. Conform by labeling content that questions the war in Ukraine as dangerous disinformation. Conform by suppressing voices critical of globalism, borderlessness, and technocratic rule. Conform by undermining political movements skeptical of the EU’s legitimacy. If X refuses, it faces ruinous fines, exclusion from the European market, and perhaps worse.

Defenders of the DSA will protest. They will say this is not about censorship but safety, not about ideology but integrity. But these arguments collapse upon contact with the facts. The EU has not demanded algorithmic transparency from compliant platforms—only from X. It has not opened proceedings against outlets peddling state-approved narratives—only against one that refuses to privilege those narratives. It has not fined platforms aligned with Brussels’ worldview. This is not regulation; it is retribution.

It is no coincidence that the Commission’s hostility toward X intensified after Musk expressed support for conservative candidates in Germany and France. Nor is it surprising that, as X users highlight the erosion of democratic norms in places like Romania—where courts are banning opposition leaders from standing for office—the EU’s wrath grows. The DSA has become the velvet glove around an iron fist. It is not designed to protect speech but to prune it—to shape digital discourse into a bonsai version of democracy: tightly trimmed, ornamental, and utterly controlled.

One might reasonably ask: why should Americans care? Why should the Trump administration intervene? Because the fight against the DSA is not about one man or one company. It is about whether nations committed to liberty will permit transnational bodies to dictate the limits of expression. President Trump understands this. His declaration that "we have to protect our geniuses" is not merely a compliment to Musk’s entrepreneurial mind. It is a signal that American sovereignty must extend to defending American citizens from foreign censorship regimes, especially when those regimes target American platforms for ideological noncompliance.

Let us not be naïve. The DSA is not the endgame. It is a prototype. If it succeeds in coercing X, it will not be long before other platforms, American and otherwise, are told to choose: implement speech controls aligned with Brussels’ preferences or forfeit access to the European market. This is regulatory colonialism masquerading as consumer protection. The goal is to export a European ideological consensus—pro-EU, pro-war, pro-technocracy—into every digital space, regardless of national jurisdiction.

Indeed, the EU’s own conduct belies its democratic pretensions. As it lectures others on free expression, its courts disqualify candidates, its bureaucrats demand orthodoxy, and its mechanisms concentrate power in institutions no voter can remove. The Commission's move against X is merely the latest iteration of a broader project: to create a digital world where opposition is not debated, but deleted.

If the United States still believes in the primacy of liberty, now is the time to act. The Trump administration should issue a formal warning to the EU: attempts to levy extrajudicial fines on American companies for failing to implement foreign speech codes will be met with reciprocal action. Trade talks should not proceed while the EU wages war on the American First Amendment by proxy. And platforms like X, far from being punished, should be lauded for standing athwart the tide of censorship yelling "stop."

We live in an age where the battle lines are no longer just between left and right, but between those who believe in open discourse and those who seek to gatekeep it from Brussels boardrooms. The DSA is not a defense of democracy; it is a dagger aimed at its heart. Let us call it what it is: an undemocratic tool designed to bankrupt dissent and force obedience to a political orthodoxy that fears freedom more than it fears lies. Elon Musk, for all his flaws, understands this. The Trump administration must too.

What remains to be seen is whether America, in this pivotal moment, will choose submission or sovereignty. If we allow foreign bureaucrats to dictate our speech norms, we will have ceded not just the platform, but the principle. The principle that free people, speaking freely, are not a threat to democracy—but its last and best defense.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.