Guess what the main topic of debate at the European Parliament in Strasbourg this week is. It is what the Euro-elites consider the most concerning issue of the moment: “State violence in Minneapolis and the rule of law in the United States.”
This is a typical example of seeing the speck in your brother’s eye while ignoring the beam in your own. The European Union is criticizing the rule of law in America, while there are indications that Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission has in the past two years actively tried to interfere in eight parliamentary and presidential elections on the European continent, including twice in my own country, The Netherlands.
That, however, is a topic not deemed worthy of discussion by the European political establishment.
Last week, the House Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Congress published a report about Europe’s decade-long campaign to censor speech. As part of its investigation, the House Committee issued subpoenas to ten American tech companies, requiring them to produce communications with foreign governments, including the EU.
The congressional report accuses the EU of aggressively using its so-called Digital Services Act (DSA) to pressure tech companies to remove social media content that the EU considers “disinformation,” which in practice has meant posts critical of the ruling European establishment.
Meanwhile, companies that do not comply with EU regulations are threatened with huge penalties. We have seen what the EU is capable of. Last December, X was slapped by Brussels with a staggering €120 million fine.
Guess what topic was off limits in the European Parliament this week? Indeed, Europarl was denied a vote on whether to debate the findings of the House Committee’s report or not.
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee thinks that in every European election since the DSA took effect in 2023, the EU has tried to censor speech. The House Committee fears this happened in The Netherlands (twice), Ireland (twice), France, Romania, Slovakia and Moldova.
The latter is not even an EU member, but as it is a neighbour of the bloc, Brussels seems to feel entitled to “address disinformation risks” there as well. Given that post-Brexit Britain is an even more important neighbour of the EU, there is no reason to suppose that Brussels is not capable of refraining from meddling in its elections, too.
The House Committee thinks that “the European Commission worked to censor true information and political speech about some of the most important policy debates in recent history – including the COVID-19 pandemic, mass migration, and transgender issues.” If this is true, the repercussions could be serious. We should at least be allowed to debate this. If the EU denies us this right, it begs the question: What are they trying to hide?
Since my party, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) is critical of the EU’s position on issues such as mass migration, gender ideology or the European Union itself, we cannot accept that the European Commission – an unelected body of bureaucrats – promote a narrative opposed to what our voters demand of us.
Given that the pro-EU left-liberal D66 party defeated the PVV in the October 2025 elections with a margin of only 0.2% of the vote, perhaps had there been no EU interference, the PVV could have won the elections and I could have become Prime Minister instead of the wokeist Europeanist the Netherlands will now have.
Possible interference of the unelected European Commission in democratic elections would be a far bigger threat to democracy, the rule of law, and freedom in the West than what is politically going on in the United States. As U.S. Vice-President JD Vance stated in Munich last year, Europe’s political elites “simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion or, God forbid, vote a different way, or even worse, win an election.”
It is our democratic duty to ensure that the EU authorities in Brussels, lacking legitimacy, are stopped censuring and regulating speech. The aim behind the EU’s Digital Services Act is to control the narratives in our societies. If the United States were able to stop the DSA from harassing American tech companies, it would do an enormous service to freedom of speech in Europe. Like it did 80 years ago, the U.S. would once again liberate us from tyranny.
Along with other European patriots, I am immensely grateful that America is defending our freedom of speech and guaranteeing our right to free elections without interference from despotic autocrats in Brussels.
Geert Wilders is leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV). With over 1.6 million preferential votes he was by far the most popular politician in the October 2025 general elections in The Netherlands.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.