House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) has intensified demands for testimony from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant.

The committee’s focus spans content takedown mandates that reach beyond Australia’s borders, demands for online age verification and digital ID, and efforts to suppress VPN use to bypass government controls.

Jordan initially invited Grant to testify in a November 18, 2025, letter, centered on eSafety’s global takedown orders and her role in an international roundtable at Stanford University, where foreign officials coordinated strategies for policing online speech. Grant declined to appear by the December 2 deadline.

Jordan followed up with a second letter on December 30, urging her again to cooperate voluntarily and warning that “the Committee may have to consider, if necessary, additional steps to obtain compliance with our request.”

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

While the letter stops short of explicitly announcing a subpoena, the implications are clear.

If Grant remains uncooperative, Congress may compel her testimony through legal process. Failure to comply with a subpoena could trigger contempt proceedings.

The expanded December letter broadens the scope of Jordan’s inquiry. It accuses eSafety of pressuring US companies to implement compliance systems aligned with Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which prohibits users under 16 from maintaining social media accounts.

Grant is also alleged to have urged these companies to take action against VPNs that could allow people to evade digital ID restrictions.

Jordan’s committee has also obtained newly redacted documents that he says reveal eSafety “harassed American companies ahead of the implementation” of the age verification mandate.

The letter points to legal precedent in US law supporting congressional power to compel testimony from American citizens living abroad.

In footnote 17, Jordan cites the 1932 Supreme Court decision Blackmer v. United States, where a US citizen residing in France was found guilty of contempt after refusing to respond to a subpoena.

The Court affirmed that US citizens overseas remain bound by federal obligations, including lawful orders to testify.

Though Grant is an Australian official, she is also a US citizen. The letter suggests that the committee may invoke Blackmer to enforce compliance, despite her current position abroad.

The reference to contempt was not made directly, but the legal framework was laid out with clear intent.

Australia’s Online Safety Amendment Act is part of a wider regulatory push by the eSafety Commissioner’s office, which has been given authority to issue global takedown orders to digital platforms.

These orders can compel companies to remove content deemed harmful, even if hosted or viewed outside Australia.

Jordan and other members of Congress are raising concerns that such policies risk exporting foreign censorship standards to American companies and users, particularly when regulators in other democracies coordinate their enforcement efforts.

The issue is not merely about age restrictions or illegal content, but about the jurisdictional reach of foreign law over digital platforms that operate globally.

Grant has pushed back on claims that her agency is censoring American users, asserting that her focus is limited to protecting children and ensuring online safety in Australia.

She has indicated she may respond in writing rather than testifying in person.

The Judiciary Committee’s investigation is part of a larger oversight effort into how foreign governments pressure or influence US-based platforms to censor speech or alter service design.

Jordan has emphasized that Congress has a duty to examine whether international regulatory actions are infringing on constitutionally protected rights or compelling American firms to adopt foreign speech standards.