Activity around speech protection policy is picking up again at the state level.

In New Hampshire, the GRANITE Act has thankfully returned after a period of inactivity. The organizing team has reconvened and is coordinating with lawmakers in Wyoming on parallel legislation.

Rather than introducing a standalone proposal, supporters intend to amend a bill already moving through the New Hampshire legislature.

Representatives Keith Ammon, Calvin Beaulier, Travis Corcoran, and Joe Sweeney are directing the effort. If both states advance their measures on schedule, two technology shield laws could be active by July 1.

That legislative push is unfolding as federal lawmakers intensify scrutiny of speech regulation originating overseas.

On February 5, Congressman Jim Jordan, chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee, issued a detailed warning about the reach of European Union content controls and their downstream effects on Americans.

Jordan’s remarks followed the release of a Judiciary Committee report examining EU digital regulation.

Speaking during an online press conference with a limited group of media outlets, he presented Brussels’ approach as a structural issue with direct consequences for constitutional rights, democratic accountability, and US technology firms.

The policy framework drawing the most attention is the Digital Services Act, adopted by the European Union.

Although enacted as European law, its practical influence extends globally because the largest online platforms shaping public discourse are based in the United States. Jordan emphasized that this alignment allows European regulators to exert leverage over speech far beyond their own electorate.

“This is not just about Europe,” he stressed, as reported by European Conservative. “It is about how a global moderation policy ends up shaping what Americans can say, read, or publish online.”

The Judiciary Committee report states that regulators in Brussels and Ireland pressed platforms during Irish elections in 2024 and 2025 to restrict political content.

The committee describes these actions as indirect interference carried out through regulatory pressure rather than public debate or voter consent.

Jordan confirmed that members of Congress raised these issues directly with European governments.

Delegations traveled to Brussels, London, and Dublin in the summer of 2024, reinforcing concerns earlier expressed by the Trump administration regarding the Digital Services Act and its effects on speech and US businesses operating internationally.

Those efforts included letters to senior EU officials such as then Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, sent after his 2024 correspondence with Elon Musk.

Jordan characterized that intervention as “ridiculous” and beyond legitimate authority, adding that Breton’s later departure from office carried its own message.

Throughout the briefing, Jordan linked European regulatory tactics with patterns documented inside the United States. He referenced a 2024 message from Mark Zuckerberg confirming that the Biden administration urged platforms to suppress discussion related to COVID-19, immigration, and gender theory.

Jordan described these cases as examples of governments relying on informal pressure and regulatory leverage to steer speech outcomes.

He also recalled the abandoned “misinformation board” once proposed within the Department of Homeland Security. “It made no sense then, and it makes no sense now,” he said.

Questions arose regarding redactions in the committee’s published exhibits. Names of company employees and certain diplomats were removed, while EU Commission officials were identified.

Jordan said the approach reflected basic privacy obligations following cooperation from technology firms. “We worked with the tech companies to obtain this information, and the minimum obligation is to protect personal data,” he explained.

Looking ahead, Jordan said the committee will concentrate on the legal and economic consequences of EU actions.

That review will address how policies written in Brussels affect American companies and how regulatory authority is asserted over citizens who lack democratic representation within EU institutions. “They have no authority over Americans,” he said. “Yet their policies impact Americans globally. That cannot be allowed.”

When asked about initiatives branded as a “Democracy Shield,” Jordan dismissed the framing.

He argued that these programs reflect a recurring tendency among political institutions to position themselves as arbiters of acceptable speech. He cited pandemic policy debates as a case where heavily restricted claims later proved accurate.

Jordan also expressed concern about the role of Commission Vice President Věra Jourová, whose responsibilities included values and transparency. “Throughout history, it is always the bad actors who want to censor,” he said. “That lesson has not changed.”