House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has sharpened his inquiry into the European Union's (EU) regulatory practices on online discourse, particularly focusing on their interactions with Elon Musk and his company, X Corp. In a recent letter addressed to EU Commissioner for Internal Markets Thierry Breton, Chairman Jordan reiterated concerns over potential EU attempts to censor American speech and requested additional information. As reported by the House Judiciary Committee's official website, the correspondence follows up on intensifying scrutiny regarding X Corp.'s role in political discussion and how EU policies might affect American firms and free speech.

According to a statement released by the House Judiciary Committee, Jordan's letter outlined three key demands: explanations on attempts to intimidate Elon Musk after his interview with President Donald Trump. Inquiries into the use of EU law to force American companies to censor content; and details on any EU communications with the Biden-Harris Administration potentially seeking to bypass the First Amendment.

The chairman's letter did not hold back criticism, especially over the EU Digital Services Act (DSA), stating, "The DSA defines 'disinformation' as a type of 'content,' and because the DSA regulates disinformation, the DSA—contrary to your claims otherwise—regulates content," as per the House Judiciary Committee. Jordan particularly called out the EU for its alleged threats towards Musk, accusing the body of selective censorship practices tied to political biases. He underscored the potential implications for American content viewing, citing risks that EU regulatory actions may transcend national borders, influencing what content is accessible within the United States. Incorrect interpretations by officials, according to Jordan, could lead to the suppression of dissent, ultimately guiding the narrative in favor of those in power.

Furthermore, Jordan rebuffed Commissioner Breton's claims of non-interference in American politics, suggesting that his unsolicited letter to Musk was in essence an intimidation tactic targeting political speech. Assertions by the EU official were met with skepticism, as the committee pointed out inconsistencies and potential inaccuracies in his statement. "The only logical inference from your actions is that your letter was intended as a threat to Musk that the EU would, as you warned, 'make full use of [its] toolbox' if he facilitated political speech with which you disagreed," read a segment from the judiciary's letter to Breton. The committee has accepted Breton’s offer for a briefing from the European Commission staff, maintaining their vigilant stance on the defense of free speech principles and anti-censorship.