Two British social media campaigners are among five individuals recently denied entry to the United States, after the State Department accused them of trying to “coerce” American technology platforms into restricting free speech, officials said Monday.
Imran Ahmed, former Labour adviser and head of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, and Clare Melford, CEO of the Global Disinformation Index, were labeled “radical activists” and barred from US travel under the Trump administration’s policies, the State Department said.
Alongside the British nationals, a French former European Union commissioner and two senior executives at Germany based anti-online hate group HateAid were also refused visas, according to Washington.
The US government framed the move as a response to individuals campaigning for stricter content moderation on American platforms.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the measures targeted a “global censorship industrial complex” and aligned with the administration’s America First policy, which he described as rejecting “violations of American sovereignty.”
French President Emmanuel Macron described the move as “intimidation,” while the UK government emphasized support for free speech, stating, “While every country has the right to set its own visa rules, we support the laws and institutions which are working to keep the internet free from the most harmful content.”
Spain’s foreign ministry called the bans “unacceptable measures between partners and allies,” reflecting broader European discontent with the US action.
Legal and technology experts said the visa denial raises questions about international jurisdiction over online content.
Dr. Helena Schmidt, a digital law specialist at the University of Berlin, said, “This is a complex intersection of national sovereignty and global digital governance. The US is signaling that it will not tolerate foreign influence over its platforms, even indirectly.”
Similarly, Julian Peters, a policy analyst with the European Digital Rights Foundation, noted that these actions could exacerbate tensions between the US and European regulators, particularly over the enforcement of content moderation laws such as the EU Digital Services Act.
The US State Department’s designation singled out Ahmed’s CCDH for past collaborations with the Biden administration and labeled Melford’s GDI as using American taxpayer funds to promote censorship and blacklisting.
The European Commission has previously fined tech company X, formerly known as Twitter, €120 million under the Digital Services Act, citing misleading verification practices, highlighting ongoing friction between US tech firms and European regulators.
Breton, the French ex-EU commissioner and former top tech regulator, was described by Washington as a “mastermind” of the DSA, which imposes content moderation requirements on social media platforms.
Ahmed, speaking to a UK media outlet, condemned the visa denial as “an attempt to silence legitimate research and advocacy against online hate and disinformation.”
Melford called the US measures “an authoritarian attack on free speech,” adding that the sanctions are “an egregious act of government censorship.”
Anna Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon, CEOs of HateAid, described the visa ban as “repression by a government increasingly disregarding the rule of law” and vowed to continue their work on digital safety and human rights.
Observers said the dispute could complicate transatlantic cooperation on online regulation. Peters said, “We may see increased legal scrutiny, diplomatic negotiations, and a broader discussion on the extraterritorial reach of national policies over global internet governance.”
Schmidt added that tech firms operating across borders could face mounting challenges balancing US free speech protections with EU and UK regulations aimed at curbing harmful online content.
The US visa denials of Ahmed, Melford, and other European figures underscore tensions between national sovereignty and global digital policy.
While Washington asserts the measures protect American speech, European leaders and civil society groups view them as intimidation.
The dispute highlights the growing friction between US tech policy and international efforts to regulate online content, with future negotiations and legal debates expected to shape the evolving landscape of global internet governance.
