WASHINGTON D.C. –  The United States has blocked five well-known Europeans from traveling to the country, saying they helped push American tech companies to take down or limit U.S. speech online. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the visa bans on Tuesday and said the move is meant to push back against what he called foreign attempts at “extraterritorial censorship.”

The action uses a policy rolled out earlier this year that allows the U.S. to deny entry to people accused of taking part in efforts to censor speech protected under U.S. law. European officials reacted fast, calling the bans a hit to sovereignty and warning that responses could follow.

The five people named include former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, tied closely to the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), plus leaders from nonprofits that track online hate and disinformation.

Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers listed the individuals as: Thierry Breton; Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH); Clare Melford, head of the Global Disinformation Index (GDI); and Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, who lead the German group HateAid.

Rubio called them “radical activists and weaponized NGOs,” accusing them of supporting censorship efforts abroad that, in his view, have hit American speakers and U.S. companies. He also said the alleged activity could create “serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the United States.

The bans also reflect the Trump administration’s long-running attacks on the EU’s DSA. Passed in 2022, the law requires big platforms to address illegal content, hate speech, and disinformation. U.S. officials say the way it gets enforced can pressure companies like X (formerly Twitter), Meta, and others to moderate content in ways that clash with First Amendment protections.

How the Digital Services Act Became the Flashpoint

The DSA has strained U.S. and EU ties since it was adopted. Supporters in Europe say it makes online spaces safer and forces platforms to act when content breaks the law. It also sets up reporting systems and allows regulators to fine companies that fail to comply.

Critics in Washington, including allies of President Trump and Elon Musk (who owns X), argue it can be used to silence conservative or dissenting views. Breton, while serving as the EU internal market commissioner, publicly warned X about possible enforcement actions tied to disinformation claims. Rogers called him the main driver of the DSA and accused him of using it to threaten major platforms.

The nonprofits named in the U.S. action, CCDH, GDI, and HateAid, have published reports grading platforms on hate speech and false or misleading content. Those reports have sometimes been linked to advertisers pulling spending or to public pressure for tougher moderation. U.S. officials say the groups help run coordinated efforts that cut off revenue and reduce the reach of American viewpoints.

Europe Pushes Back Hard on Rubio

Leaders across Europe condemned the move. French President Emmanuel Macron described the travel bans as intimidation meant to weaken Europe’s control over its own digital rules. He said France stands fully behind Breton and the others.

France’s foreign minister said the country “strongly condemns” the U.S. decision. Germany’s justice ministry voiced support for Ballon and von Hodenberg and called the bans “unacceptable.” The European Commission asked Washington for details and suggested it is ready to respond if the measures are not justified.

Breton replied on X with a short message aimed at Americans, saying censorship is not where they think it is. He also pointed out that the DSA passed with support from all 27 EU member states.

The organizations targeted also rejected the accusations. A GDI spokesperson called the U.S. action an authoritarian move that, in their view, amounts to government censorship. Ballon and von Hodenberg described the bans as repression designed to block European enforcement actions involving U.S. tech firms. They said they plan to keep working, even if the decision affects travel and family life.

What This Could Mean for U.S.-EU Relations

The visa bans add fuel to the Trump administration’s broader campaign against what it calls a “global censorship-industrial complex.” Rubio said more names could be added if foreign actors don’t change direction.

Analysts see the dispute as part of a larger split that also covers U.S. objections to European digital taxes and rules seen as aimed at American tech giants. The administration’s recent National Security Strategy criticized some European policies as limiting free expression.

Most European travelers can enter the U.S. through the Visa Waiver Program with online approval. Even so, these restrictions can flag the individuals in U.S. homeland security systems, which can stop travel.

EU officials have hinted at payback, including reciprocal restrictions or tougher DSA enforcement. Brussels argues the DSA applies inside Europe and does not regulate speech in the United States.

Reaction in the United States and Elsewhere

In the U.S., supporters of the administration praised the move as a defense of free speech. Elon Musk wrote on X that it was “so great.” Conservative voices also framed it as resistance to foreign interference in American debate.

Opponents said the policy is hypocritical and could chill speech in its own way. Some digital rights advocates argued the administration is trying to punish critics while claiming to protect open expression.

As the holiday week begins, the dispute highlights a widening gap between the U.S. approach to speech online and Europe’s focus on limiting harm. The State Department cited authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows visa denials tied to foreign policy concerns. Whether the bans slow European regulators or spark a tit-for-tat response remains unclear, but the strain on key alliances is now out in the open.

Related News:

Marco Rubio Announces Sweeping Changes to American Foreign Policy

PHOENIX –  Candace Owens is intensifying her claims that federal officials helped cover up details in the September killing of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. Her newest focus is the Utah hospital where Kirk was taken after he was shot, along with what she calls the suspicious handling of physical evidence.

Across recent podcast episodes and social media posts, Owens says federal agencies, including the FBI, stepped into the hospital response, took surveillance video, and moved quickly to remove or destroy key evidence. She has also alleged that the vehicle used to bring Kirk to the hospital disappeared soon after.

Charlie Kirk, 31, was shot in the neck on September 10, 2025, during an outdoor event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Investigators say one shot came from a rooftop about 175 yards away. Kirk was taken to a nearby hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Police arrested Tyler Robinson, a Utah resident, who now faces a murder charge. Prosecutors say they have evidence that includes text messages in which Robinson allegedly criticized Kirk and called his views hateful. Robinson has not entered a plea, and the case remains active.

Federal and local authorities have said Robinson acted alone. They describe the killing as a politically driven lone-wolf attack during a tense period in American politics.

Candace Owens shifts attention to the hospital

Owens previously worked as Turning Point USA’s communications director and has described Kirk as a “brother.” After his death, she spoke publicly about her grief. Over time, her message changed. She now promotes theories that reject the official account of the investigation.

In a recent podcast episode that drew millions of views, Owens described what she called strange actions at the hospital. She said unnamed sources told her federal agents arrived quickly, limited staff access, and took control of security footage.

“Federal authorities interfered with doctors and nurses who were trying to save Charlie’s life,” Owens said. “They controlled what footage was released, or not released, and made sure nothing that challenged their story got out.”

Owens also claimed the ambulance or other transport vehicle was cleaned or removed quickly, which she says could have wiped out possible forensic evidence. She tied the claim to what she called a “suspicious vehicle incident,” arguing the transport was mishandled in a way that ruined the trail.

“Key evidence like the vehicle used to get Charlie to the hospital was gone almost immediately,” she said. “Why the rush? What were they hiding?”

Owens has referenced eyewitness statements and what she describes as leaked documents, but she has not shared public proof that can be verified. Her comments match her wider criticism of the FBI under Director Kash Patel. She has argued that the investigation is being kept too closed off.

A wider set of theories

The hospital claims add to other theories Owens has promoted in recent months. At different times, she has suggested possible links to foreign actors, parts of the U.S. military, and even people connected to Turning Point USA. In one episode, she cited a witness who claimed to have seen Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, at a military base shortly before the shooting.

Owens has also challenged the idea that one shooter could pull off the attack alone. She has mocked the single shot as a “magic bullet,” arguing it would have taken help or planning beyond what investigators have described.

Those claims have sparked strong pushback. Erika Kirk, now CEO of Turning Point USA, met privately with Owens earlier this month to address the speculation. Erika Kirk later called the four-and-a-half-hour meeting “productive” and asked for an end to theories that target her family and the organization.

Owens did not change course. She continued her podcast series after the meeting and said she still believes the full story has not been told. “Nothing has convinced me that the full truth is out,” she said afterward.

Conservatives split over Candace Owens’ claims

Owens’ continued focus has stirred tension inside pro-Trump circles. At Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest in Phoenix, the group’s first conference since Kirk’s death, speakers, including Ben Shapiro, criticized conspiracy talk and warned against what he called “trafficking in dishonesty.”

Erika Kirk has urged supporters to honor her husband’s work instead of spreading rumors. During a Fox News appearance, she pushed back hard on claims aimed at her family. “When you go after the people I love, no,” she said.

Other conservative voices have taken a different approach. Tucker Carlson has raised doubts about official narratives in general and has encouraged closer scrutiny of government agencies. President Donald Trump, a close ally of Kirk, has mourned the loss but has not leaned into conspiracy claims.

Some critics, including former allies of Owens, argue she is using the tragedy to grow her audience and boost revenue. Her episodes about the Charlie Kirk assassination have drawn tens of millions of views and impressions, expanding her platform.

What officials say, and where the case stands

The FBI has said it is reviewing “all possible angles,” but it continues to point to evidence that Robinson was the only shooter. Director Patel has addressed public speculation and promised as much transparency as the law allows.

No official review has backed Owens’ claims about hospital interference or improper evidence handling. Law enforcement sources, speaking anonymously, have called the allegations unfounded. They say a rapid federal response was expected because of the high-profile nature of the assassination.

As the case moves toward trial, the killing remains part of a larger national debate over political violence. Kirk’s death came after other incidents across the country, prompting renewed calls for calm and unity, even as public distrust fuels more suspicion.

Legacy, grief, and the fight over the story

Turning Point USA continues to run its youth events under Erika Kirk’s leadership, and AmericaFest drew large crowds. Attendees remembered Kirk with tributes, including a replica of the tent where he was speaking when he was shot.

Still, the conspiracy chatter has not faded. Owens says she plans to keep digging and promises more claims and commentary. “The truth about what happened to Charlie will come out,” she said in her latest episode.

For a movement shaped by Kirk’s personality and influence, the months after his death have brought mourning, anger, and internal conflict. One AmericaFest attendee summed up the mood in simple terms: “We miss Charlie, but we’re fighting for what he stood for.”

Whether Owens’ allegations grow or lose steam is unclear. Three months after the shooting, the Charlie Kirk assassination remains a major flashpoint, both as a tragedy and as a test of trust in public institutions.

Trending News:

Candace Owens Champions Conservative Christian Values for Women

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a year-end briefing at the State Department, Secretary of State Marco Rubio set out his view of U.S. foreign policy for 2026. Speaking to reporters on December 19, 2025, Rubio described a National Interest approach, an America First style of diplomacy meant to support global stability while keeping a close watch on federal spending.

From the fighting in Ukraine to the crisis in Gaza and rising tension in the Indo-Pacific, the message sounded clear. Rubio presented a shift away from the post-Cold War idea of the United States as the lone “sole superpower,” and toward a role he framed as a strategic mediator.

Marco Rubio opened by reframing what the State Department should do. He argued that the department should move away from what he called the open-ended spread of universal values. In his view, every program and every message should meet a direct standard: Does it make the United States safer, stronger, or more secure?

An America First State Department, Rubio said, isn’t the same as an America Only department. He said resources are limited, so the government has to focus on issues that affect U.S. national security the most.

Ukraine: Pushing Talks, Not Setting Terms

A major part of the briefing focused on the war in Ukraine. Rubio, who has also taken on duties as National Security Adviser, described the work as difficult and slow. He rejected the idea that Washington can, or should, impose a peace deal on Kyiv or Moscow.

Instead, he described the U.S. role as helping both sides move closer to an agreement. He said the goal is to encourage each side toward a shared landing spot, not to dictate outcomes.

Key points Marc Rubio shared on Ukraine:

• Negotiated end state: Rubio said neither side appears close to a full military collapse, so talks remain the most realistic route.
• No forced land concessions: He dismissed claims that the U.S. is pushing President Zelenskyy to give up territory, saying any deal has to be accepted by both parties to last.
• Working with Europe: He said national security officials from Britain, France, and Germany are in Florida to review an updated peace proposal.

Gaza: A “Board of Peace” and a Plan for Stability

In the Middle East, Rubio discussed plans for Gaza after the war. He said the administration’s ceasefire push, announced in October, has moved more slowly than hoped. Still, he pointed to a new structure meant to answer the “day after” question.

At the center is a proposed Board of Peace, an international body meant to oversee Gaza. Rubio said the board would work with a Palestinian technocratic government to run civil services, while an international stabilization force would handle security.

Rubio said the administration still owes clarity on the rules of engagement and how the force would be funded. He added that once a technocratic group is in place to govern, the demilitarization process can be set more firmly.

He also pointed to regional diplomacy. Envoys are meeting with officials from Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar to finish key parts of the ceasefire plan, including humanitarian access and security steps.

Indo-Pacific: Alliances and Measured Deterrence

In the Indo-Pacific, Rubio’s focus shifted from mediation to deterrence. He restated the administration’s support for Taiwan and rejected the idea of swapping security commitments for trade benefits with Beijing.

He said no one is considering abandoning Taiwan to secure trade deals.

Marco Rubio also highlighted the recent AUSMIN (Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations) meetings, marking 40 years of the alliance. He described a push for “networked capabilities,” with partners such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea taking on a bigger share of regional defense work. He pointed to three priorities:

1. More burden-sharing: Allies would be urged to pay a larger share of non-personnel costs tied to U.S. bases.
2. Tech cooperation: Plans include joint work on hypersonic missile production and broader cyber coordination.
3. Economic security: Partnerships on critical minerals would aim to cut reliance on hostile supply chains.

Foreign Aid Changes: The DOGE Role

Rubio also defended a major overhaul of U.S. foreign assistance. He backed the move to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and fold its duties into the State Department.

Working with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the department has paused many programs while it checks whether they match the national interest.

Marco Rubio said the goal is to replace open-ended grants with “strategic compacts.” He pointed to America First global health agreements, including a recent deal with Kenya. He described these arrangements as focused on clear results that serve both the partner country and U.S. interests, such as pandemic prevention and safer trade routes.

Humanitarian Work and Conflict Mediation

Critics have said the administration is pulling back from global leadership. Rubio argued the opposite, pointing to active mediation in other conflict zones.

He cited:

• Sudan: Efforts to reach a humanitarian ceasefire by the New Year.
• DR Congo and Rwanda: A peace agreement brokered in June 2025 aimed at ending fighting in eastern DRC.
• Venezuela: Increased pressure on the Maduro government, which Rubio called illegitimate and tied to narco-terrorist groups.

Marco Rubio described 2025 as a year of realignment. He argued that a tighter focus has made U.S. mediation more effective because U.S. goals are easier for allies and rivals to read.

He closed by saying the world is messy and the United States can’t fix every crisis. His view is that when America steps in, it should do so with a clear purpose, strong partners, and attention to the safety of its own people.

By the end of the briefing, Rubio’s approach came across as selective engagement. The next year will show whether America First diplomacy can help deliver a workable Board of Peace in Gaza, or support a durable settlement in Ukraine. For now, the State Department is betting that a narrower agenda can still carry real influence.

Related News:

Trump’s Pressure on Venezuela Signals Broader Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy