[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EUROPE'S THREAT TO AMERICAN SPEECH AND INNOVATION: PART II
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-54
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via:http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-734 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia ERIC SWALWELL, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas TED LIEU, California
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas J. LUIS CORREA, California
BARRY MOORE, Alabama MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, February 4, 2026
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 1
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 3
WITNESSES
Lorcan Price, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
International
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Testimony............................................. 9
Graham Linehan, Comedian, Director, Journalist
Oral Testimony................................................. 29
Prepared Testimony............................................. 31
Paivi Rasanen, Member, Finnish Parliament
Oral Testimony................................................. 35
Prepared Testimony............................................. 37
Deepinder Mayell, Executive Director, The American Civil
Liberites Union, Minnesota
Oral Testimony................................................. 40
Prepared Testimony............................................. 42
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary, for
the record..................................................... 98
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
for the record
An article entitled, ``How the House Judiciary GOP Misread
Europe's ]120 million Euro X Decision,'' Feb 3, 2026,
Tech Policy
An article entitled, ``Trump Is Firing Federal Workers Over
Beliefs He Doesn't Like,'' Sept. 16, 2025, ACLU
The Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, Murthy
v. Missouri, Jun. 26, 2024
An article entitled, ``Trump asked Twitter to take down
`derogatory' tweet from Chrissy Teigen: whistleblower,''
Feb. 8, 2023, The Hill
An article entitled, ``Twitter Kept Entire `Database' of
Republican Requests to Censor Posts,'' Feb. 8, 2023,
Rolling Stone
An article entitled, ``Trump `censorship and control'
campaign threatens press freedom,' FCC commissioner
says,'' Jul. 29, 2025, PBS
An article entitled, ``FBI raids home of Washington Post
reporter in `highly unusual and aggressive' move,'' Jan.
14, 2026, The Guardian
An article entitled, ``Another wave of departures in
Minnesota's U.S. Attorney's Office,'' Feb. 3, 2026, Star
Tribune
An article entitled, ``Elon Musk, King of Censorship: 10
Times the `Free Speech Absolutist' Silenced Twitter
Users,'' Jun. 25, 2023, Gizmodo
An article entitled, ``Trump's war on comedy threatens free
speech for all,'' Nov. 6, 2025, Salon
An article entitled, ``Trump Is Firing Federal Workers Over
Beliefs He Doesn't Like,'' Sept. 26, 2025, ACLU
An article entitled, ``Trump calls for `termination' of 60
Minutes in fresh attack on US media,'' Feb. 6, 2025, The
Guardian
A letter to Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, Commissioner for
Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, European
Commission, from multiple professors, Sept. 3, 2025
An article entitled, ``EU Decision Behind ]120 million Euro
Fine on Musk's X Released by US Lawmakers,'' Jan. 30,
2026, Tech Policy
An article entitled, ``Inside the Elon Musk-Jim Jordan `mind
meld' shaking up Capitol Hill,'' Feb. 5, 2025, Politico
An article entitled, ``Fact Check: UK woman jailed for
inciting racial hatred, not posting hurtful words,'' Oct.
29, 2024, Reuters
An article entitled, ``Speech, Coercion, and the Myth of the
Censorship Regime,'' Oct. 2, 2025, Lawfare
A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, and the
Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, from the
President, TechFreedom, Sept. 3, 2025
A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, and the
Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, from
multiple professors, Sept. 3, 2025
An article entitled, ``What the Crackdown Has Done to
Minneapolis Children,'' Feb. 4, 2026, The New York Times
A letter to the Honorable Donald J. Trump, President of the
United States, The White House, from the Honorable J.
Luis Correa, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of California, and the Honorable Scott
Fitzgerald, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Wisconsin, Apr. 9, 2025
An article entitled, ``Meta to Pay $25 Million to Settle 2021
Trump Lawsuit,'' Jan. 29, 2025, The Wall Street Journal
An article entitled, ``Apple is top funder of lobby group
that says it represents small developers,'' Sept. 19,
2022, Ars Technica
An article entitled, ``The False Choice Between Digital
Regulation and Innovation,'' Oct. 2024, Columbia Law
School
A report entitled, ``The future of European competitiveness:
Part A |
A competitiveness strategy for Europe,'' Sept. 2024,
Publication Office of the European Union
A letter to the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona,
from the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Sept. 5, 2025
A live shot of Nigel Farage, entitled, ``Is Free Speech Under
Threat?'' Feb. 3, 2026, GB News
A press release entitled, ``Debunking Republicans' Misleading
Reports on the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA),'' Jul.
25, 2025, House Judiciary Democrats
An article entitled, ``Six Ways the DMA Is Backfiring on
Europe by Harming Users, Innovation, and Allies,'' Jun.
30, 2025, ITIF
A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, and the
Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, from The
Open Markets Institute, Sept. 3, 2025
An article entitled, ``Nigel Farage: Epstein files should be
released,'' Jul. 31, 2025, Politico
An article entitled, ``Europe's tech law has turned Europeans
into second-class digital citizens,'' Feb. 10, 2025,
Progress Chamber
An article entitled, ``Study says ChatGPT giving teens
dangerous advice on drugs, alcohol and suicide,'' Aug. 6,
2025, PBS
An article entitled, ``EU regulations impose heavy costs on
US companies, study finds,'' Jul. 28, 2025, Washington
Examiner
An article entitled, ``The Tech Industry Is Huge--and
Europe's Share of It Is Very Small,'' May 20, 2025, The
Wall Street Journal
A statement from Human Rights First, Feb. 4, 2026
Materials submitted by the Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State Texas, for the record
A letter to Paivi Rasanen, Member of Parliament, Parliament
of Finland, and Reverend Juhana Pohjola, Bishop,
Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland, from the
Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of Texas, May 21, 2024
An op-ed entitled, ``War on religious freedom: We must stand
up for Finnish Christians facing trial for their faith,''
Feb. 16, 2022, by Representative Roy and Tony Perkins,
Fox News
A letter to the Honorable Nadine Maenza, Chair, United States
Commission on International Religious Freedom, from the
Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State Texas, Nov. 10, 2021
A letter to Paivi Rasanen, Member of Parliament, Parliament
of Finland, and Reverend Juhana Pohjola, Bishop,
Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland, from the
Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State Texas, and multiple Members of
Congress, Feb. 11, 2022
A letter to the Honorable Rashad Hussain, Ambassador at
Large, Office of International Religious Freedom, and the
Honorable Douglas Hickey, Ambassador, U.S. Embassy
Helsinki, from the Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State Texas, Aug. 8,
2023
Materials submitted by the Honorable Pramila Jayapal, a Member of
the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Washington,
for the record
An article entitled, `` `They Couldn't Break Me': A
Protester, the White House and a Doctored Photo,'' Feb.
3, 2026, The New York Times
An article entitled, ``ICE agents wrongfully detained U.S.
citizen in Minneapolis for looking Somali, city leaders
say,'' Dec. 11, 2025, CBS News
An article entitled, ``Poll: 62 percent think ICE efforts go
`too far,' '' Feb. 3, 2026, The Hill
An article entitled, ``Newark mayor Ras Baraka arrested for
protesting at migrant centre,'' May 9, 2025, BBC
An article entitled, ``Eight people have died in dealings with
ICE so far in 2026. These are their stories,'' Jan. 28, 2026,
The Guardian, submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a
Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of
Pennsylvania, for the record
An article entitled, ``ICE Attorney: `This job sucks,' '' Feb. 3,
2026, Fox 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul, submitted by the Honorable
Lucy McBath, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from
the State of Georgia, for the record
A report entitled, ``The EU's December 2025 Changes to CS3D:
Quantifying Costs to U.S. Industry,'' Jan. 2026, Hudson
Institute, submitted by the Honorable Troy E. Nehls, a Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for
the record
A letter to Members of the Committee on the Judiciary, from The
Episcopal Parish of St. John the Evangelist, Feb. 3, 2026,
submitted by the Honorable Becca Balint, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Vermont, for the
record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, a
Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of
Illinois, for the record
An article entitled, ``Elon Musk's Grok A.I. Chatbot Made
Millions of Sexualized Images, New Estimates Show,'' Jan.
22, 2026, The New York Times
An article entitled, ``Elon Musk's X Faces EU Inquiry Over
Sexualized AI Images Generated by Grok,'' Jan. 26, 2026,
The New York Times
An article entitled, ``Grok, Elon Musk's A.I., Is Generating
Sexualized Images of Real People, Fueling Outrage,'' Jan.
9, 2026, The New York Times
An article entitled, ``Hegseth censured Sen. Mark Kelly for
saying things he's said,'' Jan. 25, 2026, Express News,
submitted by the Honorable Deborah K. Ross, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of North Carolina,
for the record
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
Questions to Deepinder Mayell, Executive Director, The American
Civil Liberites Union, Minnesota, submitted by the Honorable
Jerrold Nadler, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from
the State of New York, for the record
Response from Deepinder Mayell, Executive Director, The
American Civil Liberites Union, Minnesota
EUROPE'S THREAT TO AMERICAN SPEECH AND INNOVATION: PART II
----------
Wednesday, February 4, 2026
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan
[Chair of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Biggs,
Massie, Roy, Fitzgerald, Cline, Van Drew, Nehls, Kiley,
Hageman, Fry, Grothman, Knott, Harris, Onder, Schmidt, Raskin,
Nadler, Johnson, Jayapal, Scanlon, Neguse, McBath, Ross,
Balint, Garcia, and Moskowitz.
Chair Jordan. We will come to order. Without objection, the
Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. We welcome
everyone to today's hearing on Europe's Threat to American
Speech and Innovation.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Moskowitz, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Chair Jordan. Well, that would be a new rule, the guy who
announces that he is here--the individual who announces that
they are here gets to do the Pledge.
We now start with opening statements and then we will get
right to our witnesses. The Chair will recognize himself for an
opening statement.
On August 12, 2024, Thierry Breton of the European
Commission, which is the executive branch of the European
Union, sends a letter to Elon Musk. I just want to read the
first sentence. I think this captures what we are talking
about, what this hearing is about. It says,
Dear Mr. Musk,
I am writing to you in the context of recent events in the
United Kingdom and in relation to the planned broadcast on your
platform X of a live conversation between a U.S. Presidential
candidate and yourself which will also be accessible to users
in the EU.
We have highlighted this first sentence. This first
sentence captures it all. Here is someone from the European
Commission, Executive Branch of a European government, writing
an American citizen about an American company and about the
American Presidential election. He said the catalyst, the
context, the reason he is doing that are events that are
happening in a different country, the United Kingdom, not even
a member of the European Commission, about an interview that is
going to take place between Mr. Musk and the American
Presidential candidate. To America, also not part of the EU,
about events happening in the UK, not part of the EU, but this
individual thinks that they are going to regulate the speech
and are concerned about what may take place in this interview.
That is the context for all of this.
We called this out. We called it what it was, censorship
and election interference. The European Commission said,
``don't worry, don't worry. Mr. Breton acted alone.'' Really?
We didn't think Mr. Breton acted alone at all. He was just
foolish enough to say the quiet part out loud.
A year ago, this Committee started issuing subpoenas to
tech companies, big and small. We asked them to give us your
communications with foreign officials regarding censorship. The
production started rolling in. The European Commission
successfully pressured social media companies to change their
global content moderation rules directly harming the speech of
Americans in the United States. This hearing is not about
whether European governments can censor their citizens. They do
it. It is wrong. We know that. This hearing is about--we
disagree with that. This hearing is about whether American
speech in the United States is being silenced by regulators
across the Pond in Brussels. The truth is that is happening.
Just look at these documents from TikTok. This is the
community guidelines survey. We can put that one up, too. I
just want to read the highlight.
The primary motivation for the next round of community
guidelines updates is to achieve compliance with the Digital
Services Act.
Here again, Europe is trying to influence speech and
everything around the world. What did TikTok censor in the U.S.
to placate the Europeans? Let's go to the next document.
Censored, Marginalize speech, and behavior, ``media
presented out of context.'' I think that happens every single
day probably in this Committee. We always unanimous consents
about this media, that one. They will enter something from The
New York Times. We will enter something from Fox or something.
That happens all the time.
TikTok censored true information and political speech on
topics like immigration in the United States because of
European censorship demands. It gets worse. Not just the
European Commission is regulating the content moderation
guidelines, often they directly ask platforms how are they
handling U.S. speech? In 2024, the Vice President of the
European Commission, Vera Jourova, traveled all the way to
California to meet with TikTok to discuss U.S. election
preparations. Now, why on earth would the EU--let's put this
one up, too. Why on earth would EU travel to California to talk
about U.S. elections? Is the Vice President, Ms. Jourova, ``Is
the VP interested in discussing both EU and U.S. election
preparations, or to stay mostly EU focused?'' Her response,
``We are interested in both.'' I mean that, to me, is just
unbelievable. Again, this is where the Digital Services Act is
taking us.
The answer is obvious. The European Commission is trying to
censor speech and meddle in elections worldwide. Now, the
Europeans are trying to hide what they are doing. They say that
these censorship requirements are voluntary and achieved
through consensus. We don't think that is true either. When the
European Commission makes censorship demands, platforms have to
listen. Platforms said it themselves in internal emails that we
also got with our subpoenas.
Let's put this one up, too. This, again, captures it as
well. Let's put the next one up there, too, following on. There
we go. Yes, let's just look at the bottom one, ``The EC
[European Commission] is opening the Gen AI subgroup under the
Code of Practice. I assume we want to join'' in the course and
then comes the truth: ``(we don't really have a choice).'' We
don't really have a choice.
The Europeans try to hide what they are doing. They say
that these censorship requirements are voluntary, but they are
not, and achieved through consensus, but we know that is not
true, as I said, and platforms have said it in this document.
Finally, I just want to say today we have some victims of
European censorship, Dr. Rasanen, a doctor, a devout Christian,
and grandmother of 12. She tweeted out a Bible verse and is on
trial under Finland's hate speech law. That is the kind of
censorship Europeans want worldwide.
Mr. Linehan, to the Left, is going to be especially mad at
you because you used to be one of them. We had a similar
witness. We had a similar witness a couple of years ago, Matt
Taibbi, as part of the Twitter files and exposing what was
going on there. He was and probably still is Left of center,
but he stood for free speech, sat right where you guys are
sitting. Here is what happened to him. Democrats called him a
so-called journalist. They asked him to divulge his sources in
the middle of that hearing. After the hearing, they tried to
criminally refer Mr. Taibbi. Here is the kicker. During the
hearing, while he was sitting there testifying, the IRS was
actually at his home knocking on his door while he was
testifying. You talk about intimidation. While he was
testifying to Congress, the Biden Administration had the IRS
make a visit, make a friendly visit to his home.
We appreciate you being here as well. I don't think that is
going to happen today because we have different folks in the
White House, but we appreciate all our witnesses here. We will
get to you in just a few minutes, but first, I am going to
yield to the Ranking Member for an opening statement, and then
we will get to your five-minute testimony. With that, the
gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Thanks to the
witnesses for joining us. Our colleagues want to have a hearing
today about the First Amendment under attack. Let's have it.
Our freedom of speech, our freedom of assembly, our right
to petition government for a redress of grievances, our right
to a free press are all under siege today by President Trump
and his masked agents at ICE who operate like a lawless,
private, paramilitary force occupying American communities
across the country. In the last several weeks, ICE agents have
killed Renee Good, a U.S. citizen and 37-year-old mother of
three, gunning her down in cold blood simply for exercising her
First Amendment rights. They killed Alex Pretti, a U.S.
citizen, an ICU nurse treating military veterans, for
exercising his right to record government officials in action
and to speak to and to render aid and comfort to another U.S.
citizen, a woman who was violently shoved to the ground by an
ICE agent. This small act of kindness, solidarity, and dare I
say chivalry then brought the hellfire of a gang of masked ICE
agents down on Alex Pretti as they pummeled him. One agent
discovered Pretti's firearm which Pretti had never drawn or
brandished despite the instantaneous lies the Trump
Administration spewed out about him after he was killed. The
agent confiscated his weapon which he carried lawfully under
the Second Amendment in Minnesota State's concealed open carry
laws, and then the ICE agents proceeded to shoot him ten times
executing him in cold blood simply for exercising his First
Amendment and Second Amendment rights.
In Chicago, Border Patrol Police shot five times U.S.
citizen Marimar Martinez, a Montessori school teacher, when she
was on her way from her home to church to deliver clothes she
had collected for the poor when she saw the now familiar to us
aggressive, violent raid taking place against people in her own
neighborhood, she honked her horn to warn people. This prompted
an agent to swerve his car into hers at which point he began
shooting directly into her car. She could ``feel bullets
continue to pierce her body all over. I saw my life flash
before me and slowly began to think this is the end of me,''
she told a shadow hearing yesterday on Capitol Hill. In a now
predictable pattern, phony charges against her for ramming the
police car were filed, but then promptly dropped by prosecutors
when they were clearly contradicted by the video recorded facts
on the ground. Miraculously, she has lived to tell the story,
traumatized by our government, her own government, but
undaunted and standing up for her community and for American
freedom.
I could recite, Mr. Chair, equally gruesome cases to you
for the next two hours if we had the time, but everyone should
check out the sickening case of Aliya Rahman, a 43-year-old
citizen with autism in Minneapolis who was violently accosted
and assaulted by ICE agents as she tried to make her way to a
medical appointment. She screamed she was disabled and begged
to be left alone. You must look at the footage of her violent
abuse at the hands of these masked ICE goons smashing her car
window and pulling her to the ground to believe that something
like this could ever happen in the United States of America. Of
course, the Department of Homeland Security lied about her,
immediately calling the helpless, autistic woman an agitator,
the way they originally tried to defame Renee Good and Alex
Pretti as domestic terrorists with their pathetic propaganda
they had to withdraw.
If there are domestic terrorists on the loose in
Minneapolis, it is not the unmasked people exercising their
First Amendment rights. It is the masked agents who believe
they operate with impunity and immunity and violent domination
over the lowly citizens of America. Yes, we need a hearing
today, Mr. Chair. It has been more than a month since 3,000
agents descended into Minneapolis, outnumbering the entire
local police force three to one. It has been four weeks since
they shot and killed Renee Good. It has been 10 days since Alex
Pretti was executed in broad daylight by ICE agents whose
salaries we pay and who got a $50,000 sign-on bonus, and whose
ranks almost certainly include pardoned January 6th
insurrectionists like Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who now may
have gone from beating the daylights out of our police officers
on January 6th to beating the daylights out of our citizens.
In all that time, how many administration witnesses has the
Majority called to address these outrageous violations of the
Bill of Rights? Not one. A few days ago, Mr. Chair, every
Democratic Member of our Committee wrote to you and asked that
you call Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem before us
without delay. We wrote this Committee has devoted years of
oversight to alleged First Amendment Violations by social media
companies and we subpoenaed foreign companies over censorship
abroad. Look what is happening right here in front of our own
eyes. Federal agents have shot dead two Americans in the past
two weeks for exercising their rights to protest. We are glad
that you have heeded our calls and called Secretary Noem in.
Instead of demanding that she appear immediately today, her
hearing is set for a month from now. This is a Constitutional
Emergency today. The Government is destroying our social
contract by attacking the people and our rights on a daily
basis.
Where is the sense of urgency, Mr. Chair? It may be the
giant Republican donor and Jeffrey Epstein pal, Elon Musk, is
upset that his company is on the hook for violating the law in
Europe. It may be that the public is angry at him about his
platform Grok creating nude photos on demand of women,
children, and men all over the world. It may be that he was
fined for refusing to comply with the European law against
fraud. We can look at all that stuff.
In normal times, I would appreciate a vigorous, scholarly
discussion and debate about all that, comparing Europe's
aggressive, proactive approach to America's more laissez-faire
approach when it comes to regulating online evils like child
pornography, cyber bullying, and the epidemic of cyber scams
taking place online.
I am an academic, as you know, and I would welcome one more
Committee seminar on the difference in views of the Europeans
versus the Americans on things like revenge porn, AI programs
that compose suicide notes for teenagers, and racist conspiracy
theories being promoted online. We have got time for all of
that, Mr. Chair. This is an emergency today what is taking
place in our country. These are not normal times.
There are sweeping, blatant, and violent attacks on the
freedom of expression taking place right now in America, not in
Brussels, not in Geneva, not in a seminar room in Oxford.
Wherever you come down on child pornography, whether you agree
with the aggressive European approach or you like the Elon
Musk, Jeffrey Epstein libertarian approach, whatever, the truth
is that the European Commission is not posing a threat to our
central freedoms and constitutional rights today. The threat to
our freedom and our people today comes from the authoritarian
violence unleashed by the Trump Administration and this reign
of political terror and lawlessness being committed against our
people. As the Chief Federal Judge of Minnesota wrote last
week, ICE has violated more court orders in January 2026, than
some Federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.
ICE is not a law unto itself.
Mr. Mayell, you are the Executive Director of ACLU, we are
grateful you have come to tell what is going on in your State
and to help us make sense of the idea that a European statute
that no one in America has ever heard of poses a greater threat
to our freedom and our Bill of Rights than roving gangs of
masked ICE agents gunning down American citizens in broad
daylight.
Mr. Chair, let's bring in Secretary Noem without any
further delay and thank you for your indulgence and I yield
back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Just a couple of
quick comments. Four weeks from today, Ms. Secretary Noem will
be sitting right here in front of the Committee. One week from
today, Attorney General Bondi will be sitting here. The
European Commission, our witnesses would argue it is a threat.
Just ask Dr. Rasanen what has happened to her. I would point
out we have had Democrat witnesses here. In fact, last
Congress, we had a Democrat witness who at the time was a
Democrat candidate for President, RFK, Jr., and the Democrats
in that Committee hearing, the hearing on censorship, you can't
make this stuff up, it was a hearing on censorship, and the
Democrats made a motion to go to an Executive Session, so no
media could be in the room to hear what RFK, Jr., was going to
testify to in a hearing on censorship. You can't make it up.
I appreciate the Ranking Member's critique there, but there
is plenty of critique to go around.
We will now move to introduce today's witnesses. Well,
first, without objection, all other opening statements will be
included in the record.
Today's witnesses, we will start with Mr. Lorcan Price, who
has been with us before, is an attorney with Alliance Defending
Freedom International, a nonprofit organization that works to
protect religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and
the sanctity of life. Before joining ADF International, he was
an attorney in Ireland.
Mr. Graham Linehan is a comedian, director, and journalist
at Fox News, I saw him this morning. I was working out this
morning, and I see you doing an interview on Fox News. In
September 2025, he was arrested on his arrival at London
Heathrow Airport for tweets he posted while he was in the
United States.
Dr. Paivi Rasanen is a Member of the Finnish Parliament, a
medical doctor, former Minister of the Interior. She was first
elected to Parliament in 1995, a long time in Parliament. God
bless you. In 2021, she was criminally charged for tweeting a
Bible verse.
Mr. Deepinder Mayell, I got that close, Deepinder Mayell,
is Executive of the ACLU of Minnesota. He previously served as
Executive Director of the James H. Binger Center for New
Americans at the University of Minnesota Law School. We welcome
all our witnesses. Thank you for being here today.
We will begin by swearing you in. Will you please stand,
raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief so help you God?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative. Thank you. Please be seated. Please know that
your written testimony will be entered into the record in its
entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony
in five minutes. I think we will start with Mr. Price, and then
Mr. Linehan, and then Ms. Rasanen.
Mr. Price, you are recognized and welcome to begin.
STATEMENT OF LORCAN PRICE
Mr. Price. Thank you very much, Chair Jordan, Ranking
Member Raskin, and the distinguished Members of the Committee,
ladies and gentlemen. I am delighted to share the panel today
with a fellow Irishman, Graham Linehan. I am not a comedy
writer, so I won't make a joke about two Irishmen who walk into
Congress, of course, I might be arrested on returning to
London, as you have experienced, Graham. I am also delighted it
with our client, Paivi Rasanen, who will speak in due course
about her ordeal in Finland.
On the last occasion that we spoke, ladies and gentlemen,
on this subject, we had a discussion on the censorship
potential of the EU's Digital Services Act and at that point we
were speaking in the theoretical. It may cause censorship, it
has the potential to affect Americans, and so on, and then you
were not convinced. However, now, it is unmistakable that it
has, indeed, caused the censorship that we warned of. We have
moved from theory to practice. There can be no doubt that the
European's Digital Services Act is the tip of a massive
censorship industrial complex. The enormous fines levied on X
Corporation by the European Commission since the last hearing
has proved beyond all doubt that the European Union means to
strangle free speech by a systemic assault on U.S. companies.
The EU has a multipronged strategy to open multiple
investigations, to add more and more regulations, and to impose
crippling fines and ultimately to attempt to ban companies such
as X who are pro free speech. To go deeper, this censorship
campaign is not just aimed at destroying free speech in Europe.
It is about imposing European laws globally. Make no mistake
that Europe's draconian speech laws are being imposed on your
citizens via global content moderation rules, as indeed this
Committee's investigation has so amply pointed out.
The EU's obsession with eliminating free speech means they
have a global campaign to ensure that all speech online and
platforms that allow it are banning illegal content to prevent
``systemic risks to the discourse.'' The U.S. companies are
therefore transformed into a global censorship police. They
must engage in a process of analyzing, ``how platform design
algorithms and content moderation impact public debate,
misinformation, and media pluralism.'' This is what is being
forced on American companies today. If they don't comply, then
they face possibly endless investigations and crippling fines.
There are multiple ongoing investigations into X, including for
not allowing illegal content. In Europe, illegal content can
mean calling a German politician an idiot or posting, as we
know, a Bible verse.
Let's be clear. What is happening to X now is that free
speech is such a threat to the European elites that they will
either cripple X with fines and investigations, break up the
company, or force them to bend the knee at the altar of
censorship. I hope that they stand strong because we need free
speech in Europe now more than ever.
I want to commend this Committee on this investigation
which shows that U.S. companies are already having to adopt to
EU standards in relation to their content moderation policies,
so it is directly affecting, to answer Congressman Raskin's
point, First Amendment rights of Americans today in practice.
There are ongoing actions, as well, under the Digital
Markets Act and various other regulations. It is fair to say
that it has become a point where the European Union has fines
of American companies as a line item in their annual budget.
Last year, roughly $3.8 billion Euro was levied in fines
against U.S. companies.
National countries are also trying to get into the act. We
saw that the French police raided X's offices in Paris just
this week and the Spanish Prime Minister has announced criminal
liability against company owners for so-called hate speech. I
have submitted in my written testimony excerpts of the
ridiculous hate speech laws that we have to suffer under in
Europe. Of course, hate speech has no real meaning other than
speech they hate.
What I would say to our American friends is you cannot
allow the EU's rules of hate speech to be imposed on the entire
digital world via the DSA. Americans know how this goes when
this committee in the past has exposed censorship around COVID.
Tech censorship denudes and eliminates free speech online. The
threat is real and it is with us now.
Thank you very much and I look forward to our discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Price follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Price. Mr. Linehan, you are
recognized for five minutes. Make sure you hit the mic there,
yes. Pull that mic close and fire away.
STATEMENT OF GRAHAM LINEHAN
Mr. Linehan. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity. My
name is Graham Linehan. I spent 30 years writing comedy for
British television. It was a career I loved, but it ended when
I began noticing that women were losing their livelihoods,
their social circles, and even their freedom for defending
rights won over a hundred years ago by the suffragette
movement. I looked into what these women were saying and could
find nothing wrong with any of it. They believed, as I do, that
single-sex spaces are essential for women's privacy, dignity,
and safety. They believe that children should not undergo
experimental medical treatment that ravages their health and
shortens their lives. They believe that women have a right to
fair sport. These were not extreme positions, but for holding
them, I became the target of a series of harassment campaigns
that cost me my career, my marriage, and eventually drove me
from my homeland.
For a decade, the British Police have harassed me for
expressing views that the majority of the public share. In 10
years, not one person, not the police who arrested me, not the
colleagues who condemned me, not the friends who turned away,
has told any of us what we did wrong. Our accusers do not deal
with arguments. No one is able to point to flaws in our
analysis. We have simply been punished for objecting to
fashionable, yet incoherent orthodoxies. When I could no longer
make a living writing comedy, I returned to journalism which
was my first profession. I interviewed canceled women on my
YouTube channel, covering stories the BBC refused to touch. On
my Substack, my colleague published a weekly roundup of
outrages. We called it ``The War on Women.'' We were never at a
loss for stories.
This Committee is here to discuss threats to free speech in
Europe, but I briefly want to touch on the forms of quiet
censorship that don't require State suppression, for the State
has learned to let others do its work. When employers fire
workers for protected speech, when banks close accounts, when
publishers drop authors, when platforms suspend users, the
Government's hands stay clean. The censorship happens. The
State didn't do it. In Britain, we have discovered that you can
have formal free speech and no free speech at all.
I want everyone to understand that gender ideology and free
speech cannot coexist. You can hear the lie in the very
language: Trans-woman meaning man, trans-man meaning woman,
trans-healthcare meaning the opposite of healthcare, and trans-
rights means men's demands, an ideology that tells lesbians
they are bigots for not accepting male partners, is not
progressive. It is homophobic. I will bring this home to
Washington for a second. Right now, a man named Hobbie Bingham,
who calls himself Princess Zoee Andromeda-Love is a registered
sex offender in this country. He raped a 12-year-old girl. He
was transferred to the Washington Corrections Center for Women
where he raped a developmentally disabled female inmate. This
is not happening in Britain. This is happening here. These are
the policies we are being asked to accept. Just as in the
United Kingdom, those who refuse pay with their livelihoods,
their reputations, and their peace of mind.
Finally, I am asking the Committee to do three things.
First, use every diplomatic lever you to pressure the
British Government to implement its own Supreme Court ruling.
Women just won a landmark case confirming that sex means
biological sex. The guidance to enforce it has been written.
The Minister for Women and Equalities has blocked it for
months, calling it trans-exclusive. If the British Government
can ignore its own Supreme Court to appease gender activists,
so can yours. Please make sure--make it clear that America is
watching.
Second, put pressure on the Irish Government to reopen the
conversation it never had. In 2015, while Irish people were
celebrating their vote for marriage equality, the Gender
Recognition Act was quietly passed. No public consultation, no
referendum, and no women's rights organizations consulted. The
public did not know what they were signing up for. They do now.
The consequences are visible across Irish life. Men in women's
prisons, men in women's sports, and children taught lies in
their schools. Ireland is my country of birth; its women and
girls deserve the debate that they were denied.
Third, recognize that free speech is not preserved simply
by declining to arrest people. People from all walks of life
are being silenced by the institutions that license and employ
them. We need new whistleblower protections for the digital
age. If government will not defend dissenters from
institutional retaliation and mob rule, then what is the First
Amendment for? That is not an abstract question. The women who
lost their careers, the children who lost their health, and the
athletes who lost fair competition, they did not have a voice
in the decisions that failed them. I am asking you to give them
one. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Linehan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Linehan. Doctor, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAIVI RASANEN
Dr. Rasanen. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, and the
Members of the Committee, thank you so much for inviting me to
speak with you today. My name is Paivi Rasanen. I am from
Finland and I am a medical doctor and I have served previously
as a member of--or I now serve as a member of the Finnish
Parliament since 1995, but previously, I have served as a
Minister of Interior.
I love my country. Finland is a democracy that was built on
the rule of law and fundamental freedoms. These values matter
deeply to me as a European and as a Christian. More than six
years ago in 2019, I expressed my Christian beliefs about
marriage and sexuality in a Twitter post. I directed my post to
my church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland in response
to their decision to participate in a parade, Pride, which I
believe contradicts our Christian faith. I added a picture of
some Scripture verses with a post that guided my perspective on
this issue. I did so peacefully, without targeting or insulting
anyone.
For this exercise of my free speech, I was investigated by
the police. I was interrogated for more than 13 hours, and I
was charged with criminal hate speech. In addition to the
Twitter post, I also was criminally charged for a short
pamphlet on human sexuality I had written for the church years
earlier, in addition to comments I made in a radio discussion.
Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola was charged alongside me for
publishing my pamphlet for the church.
Under Finnish law, our charges fall under the section of
the criminal code dealing with war crimes and crimes against
humanity and can carry up to two years of prison time. This was
difficult to comprehend.
I want to be very clear. I didn't insult anyone. I simply
expressed my convictions rooted in my faith. Twice Finnish
courts unanimously acquitted me. They ruled that no crime had
been committed. Despite this clear ruling, the State
prosecution continued to pursue those charges against me. Last
October, the Supreme Court of Finland heard my case alongside
that of Bishop Pohjola. My defense was based on the freedoms of
speech and religion protected by Finnish, European, and
international law. Officials and I are now awaiting the
decision of the Supreme Court.
This case has never been only about us. It is about whether
peaceful expression of deeply held beliefs can be treated as a
criminal act in today's Europe. It is about whether citizens
including clergy and elected representatives may speak openly
on matters of conscience without fear of persecution. It is
about whether it is illegal to say what you believe. Our story
shows how the process itself comes to punishment. We have faced
years of legal uncertainty. This creates a chilling effect for
everyone who holds views outside the narrow State-approve
consensus.
When the State controls which ideas and beliefs may be
expressed, democracy becomes fragile. Speech that is lawful
today can become criminalized tomorrow. This should concern
every person that values freedom.
I have been supported by my faith and thousands of
expressions of support I have received from around the world,
including many from the U.S. Congress. I remain hopeful. I
trust that freedom of expression can still be upheld. It is too
important to lose. My wish is simple, that Europe and our
democratic partners remain places where every person can speak
freely. I am pleased with the good relations between United
States and Finland and hope that they will continue to
strengthen.
Thank you for listening and thank you for your commitment
to freedom.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rasanen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Mayell, you're
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DEEPINDER MAYELL
Mr. Mayell. Thank you. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin,
and the Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation
to testify today.
My name is Deepinder Mayell and I'm honored to serve as the
Executive Director of the ACLU of Minnesota. I appreciate this
Committee's interest in free speech, and I'm here today to talk
with you about what is happening in my home State of Minnesota,
where it feels like it is under siege and where the First
Amendment rights that we all cherish are under attack in a more
grave way than I have ever experienced in my life. If you have
not been on the ground in Minnesota in recent weeks, it is hard
to imagine how un-American it has felt, and I want to give you
a firsthand account.
For the people in Minnesota, this is a time of profound
grief, fear, and outrage. In recent weeks, we have experienced
violence, chaos, and abuse at the hands of hundreds, and now
thousands, of masked law enforcement agents brandishing weapons
of war on American streets.
Two people have been shot and killed for observing and
protesting the actions of Federal agents, Renee Good and Alex
Pretti. Witnesses to their deaths are their neighbors and
fellow Minnesotans.
One witness to Mr. Pretti's killing submitted a sworn
statement to court in our lawsuit, Tincher v. Noem, saying that
they were so afraid of retaliation, they went into hiding.
Quote, ``I do not feel safe in my city,'' said another
witness to Mr. Pretti's death. This person was a doctor who had
run to the scene to perform CPR on him. Quote, ``I worry that I
or someone I love will be shot and killed for voicing their
displeasure and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.''
This is not the America we recognize. This is not the
America, and the free country that we cherish. It is not the
America we deserve, nor one that our laws or Constitution
allow.
At the worst moments, it has felt like we are living in a
police State. Agents have stormed our parks and school yards.
They have blocked our streets. They have barricaded store
parking lots. They have thrown tear gas in front of our homes.
They have pepper-sprayed peaceful protesters and
indiscriminately pointed semiautomatic weapons in the faces of
American citizens.
People living in the United States are not, and should not
have to be, accustomed to armed agents demanding to see their
papers, but that's now happened in far too many places in the
region.
Heavily armed, masked squads have broken into people's
homes and dragged American citizens into the street. If you
appear to ICE or Border Patrol as a possible immigrant, you
risk being snatched of the street, often with physical
violence, and being put into detention. Although many
Minnesotans are peacefully protesting, thousands of Minnesotans
are now afraid to leave their homes.
Public schools in Minneapolis closed the week of January
8th, after Federal agents pepper-sprayed, tackled, and
handcuffed multiple people. According to school district
officials from Fridley and Richfield, more than 30 percent of
students were absent from classes that week. Across the region,
children are still learning online due to fear of attending
school.
The business and commercial districts are like ghost towns,
as the very presence of Federal agents make people terrified to
go about their daily life, and immigrant community members and
neighbors have not left their homes in weeks--avoiding even
basic daily activities, like buying groceries, picking up
prescriptions, or going to work.
This is not an unintended impact. It is intentional. The
administration has deployed thousands of agents in a bid to
spread fear, cause people to flee the country they call home,
and make the rest of us too afraid to speak out.
These agents are bound by the Constitution. Yet, they have
broken dozens of our laws and agency policies, as well as the
faith of the American communities they are meant to protect.
I'm here to ask you, as Members of Congress, to act. Our
cherished rights, all our cherished rights, are at stake.
Please use the power of the purse to rein in this
unprecedented, lawless, and dangerous escalation in our
community. We urge you to demand that Federal forces withdraw
from Minnesota now--before another life is taken. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mayell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you. We will now proceed with five-
minute questions from the Members. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our
witnesses.
History shows that freedom of speech is rare, and that
censorship and oppression are common. Perhaps the primary
principle that has set the United States apart through our 250-
year history is our commitment to freedom of speech as the
foundation of our democracy and self-government.
Yet, even here, we witness threats to freedom of speech
from time to time. Thanks to the work of this Committee, we
were able to uncover the extent to which censorship took hold
during the prior administration in pressuring social media
companies to censor the content and speech of American
citizens.
For example, on perhaps the most significant event in
generations, the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals were forbidden
from positing a theory as to how it started that likely turned
out to be true.
In the runup to the 2020 election, damaging information
about one of the Presidential candidates was systematically
censored on social media, which the leaders of those companies
have now admitted was wrong. Indeed, in response to this
Committee's investigation, Mr. Zuckerberg of Facebook has
stated that it was wrong for that platform to respond to the
censorship demands of the Biden Administration.
Thankfully, we are in a much different place in this
country now, although in some parts of the country there still
is an impulse to censor. In my State of California, the
Governor, Gavin Newsom, saw a parody video that was criticizing
Kamala Harris right before the 2024 election, promptly called
for a law to ban the video. It was signed. Thankfully, that was
struck down by the courts in short order. We still do have
checks and balances here.
Increasingly, we're seeing that the threats to the freedom
of speech of American citizens emanate from abroad, as the
different approach that some of our European allies have taken
to freedom of speech has become even more different and
systematic and global in nature in recent years.
Mr. Linehan, I want you to just walk us through what
happened to you. Because you were in the United States. You put
up a tweet. You're a comedian. You used some off-color
language, maybe different than the way I would say things
sometimes, but that's what you do. You made a comment about the
propriety of biological males being in female-only spaces. Can
you tell me exactly what happened when you landed at Heathrow
Airport in some detail?
Mr. Linehan. Well, as I said, because I'd been arrested
before, and because I'm sort of the victim of village gossip on
a global scale, when the plane actually taxied to a stop, and
we were kept there for longer than is usual, I sort of
immediately knew that I might be about to be arrested.
When I got to the door, I couldn't believe it. There were
five police, all of them armed, which is standard in Heathrow.
It was a shock. I didn't think they--I didn't see how five
police were necessary, especially as I was coming into the
country to testify in another trial, and they would have known
that.
Yes, I have to say, even though it was shocking and
unpleasant, and I ended up having such high blood pressure that
I had to be transferred to a hospital, in many ways, I'm very
glad it happened to me. Because my voice has been silenced so
long in the U.K.--I'm very much a niche voice because of the
kind of control gender ideology has over the whole country,
over institutions.
Mr. Kiley. Well, it's also probably the chilling effect,
right?
Mr. Linehan. Yes.
Mr. Kiley. You put up a tweet. You say something that you
believe, and you're met by five armed guards who put you in
jail. What effect does that have on other people speaking their
minds?
Mr. Linehan. As you know, as you say, the chilling effect,
who knows? Who knows what the effect is? Since the censorship
that's at play when it comes to issues around women's rights,
it's a kind of quiet censorship. People are counseled quietly.
They just stop being invited to things.
Mr. Kiley. Right.
Mr. Linehan. They stop getting contracts, and so on. Yes,
that's one of the things I wanted to get across to people, that
there's more than one form of censorship. It's not just the
government being heavy-handed. It is a sort of an orthodoxy
that has been imposed across British society, especially in
certain industries that attract very privileged middle-class
people. We have publishing, theater, the media, and the NHS
now, which is very frightening.
All these institutions have been captured by gender
ideology, and no one is objecting to it. Just the fact that no
one is objecting to it does not mean that people don't object
to it. Do you know what I mean?
Mr. Kiley. That's right and that is what has been
recognized by our courts as the peculiar evil of censorship, is
that it ends up silencing a much broader swathe of speech, and
thereby distorts democracy, distorts the values of society, and
impedes progress. That's what we're trying to stop with this
hearing today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Maryland is recognized.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you. Mr. Price, we've seen you
now four times. We met you in Brussels. We met you in London.
You've come twice to testify here. We're familiar with your
views. I do think you call yourself a civil libertarian,
someone who is a champion of free speech.
Would you agree with me that nobody should be shot or
killed by their government for exercising their freedom of
expression?
Mr. Price. Absolutely, people shouldn't be killed, unless
there's, obviously--there's an investigation I believe
underway, in the incident you're referring, but--
Mr. Raskin. How about reporting on the activities of
government officials? Do you think that the public has the
right to take notes, to video record, and then, to publicly
disseminate information about what our police officers, ICE
agents, or government officials are doing? Is that part of the
freedom of expression?
Mr. Price. I think people have the right to share
information online, sir.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, our courts have certainly found that.
Thank you for coming and contributing your voice on that.
Mr. Mayell, thank you for coming all the way from
Minnesota. I hope you don't feel like you've entered ``The
Twilight Zone'' here.
We're having another hearing about the imaginary threat to
the transphobic material of Irish comedians against the
European Union. We can't seem to have a hearing about ICE
agents shooting Americans in the face for exercising their
First Amendment rights. Please give us a sense of your
experience of what the topic of this hearing is versus what's
going on in our country.
Mr. Mayell. Thank you. I am here to talk about the most
significant threat to free speech in our lifetime. That is not
happening online or digitally right now. It is happening on the
streets of Minnesota and Minneapolis. As well as the most
significant attack on our First Amendment and the principles of
the First Amendment, and the protections against warrantless
arrests as well.
Mr. Raskin. Well, you made a really significant point in
your testimony when you said: ``We, of course, are seeing tens
of thousands of Minnesotans out in the streets every day
protesting this reign of terror.'' You've also said that, ``a
lot of people are afraid now to go out because of the violence
that's occurred.''
In other words, those huge protests could be even much
huger without government oppression? Am I reading you right on
that?
Mr. Mayell. Yes. I can't describe in words fully how
disruptive, terrifying, and intense this feeling is in
Minnesota right now. People are scared to leave their homes.
People are scared to go about their daily business.
I'm not talking about just immigrants. I'm talking about
immigrants with legal status. I'm talking about people of
color. I'm talking about whole swathes of the community that
are afraid to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm
talking about people who are exercising their protected First
Amendment rights of free speech.
Mr. Raskin. Well, are the ICE agents who we see ripping
people out of their cars, knocking down doors without warrants,
shooting people, are they distinguishing between U.S. citizens
and immigrants? Are these authoritarian, violent tactics being
used against anybody who they perceive to be in their way?
Mr. Mayell. Well, we heard, starting when the surge began
in late November--we started to immediately hear of reports of
unconstitutional activity, the use, the wild use of pepper
spray on crowds, and peaceful protesters; the pointing of
semiautomatic weapons indiscriminately; the deploying of tear
gas in playgrounds and in residential neighborhoods. It has
been a broad swathe of unconstitutional activity.
Mr. Raskin. Well, are the people in Minnesota upset about
the way that the European Union Digital Services Act is
affecting Elon Musk? Are people talking about that?
Mr. Mayell. I'm here to talk about what is happening on the
ground in Minnesota and the most significant free speech issue
happening in the country today.
Mr. Raskin. Well, we appreciate the fact that you came, and
we appreciate the fact that the ACLU is standing up for
people's rights.
You've seen lots of rights under attack. The freedom of
speech is under attack. The right to assemble peacefully is
under attack. The right to petition government for redress of
grievances is under attack. The freedom of the press is under
attack. The First Amendment right not to have your door knocked
down without a search warrant based on probable cause, issued
by a neutral, independent magistrate, is under attack there.
All these things have become the object of destruction by
ICE and by the Trump Administration. I just wonder if you would
reflect generally on the State of freedom in your city.
Mr. Mayell. I can tell you that it feels like the rule of
law is under siege in Minnesota.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. I yield back to you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Wisconsin is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Just an inquiry to the Chair, before I ask
my questions. I was wondering, is it possible, Chair, to bring
back Alejandro Mayorkas before the Committee? I realize that
the impeachment process certainly was explored and failed, but
it would be great to know how he sat before this Committee and
deceived and lied and systematically
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, point of order. Is the gentleman
using his time or is this a parliamentary inquiry? I'm not
quite sure what's going on.
Chair Jordan. Yes, his time should be running. It's five
minutes.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I'm just wondering if we could get the
Secretary, the former Secretary, before the Committee. Because
he systematically opened the border to illegals from 2021-2025
for a purpose, I suppose, of securing some type of new
political base.
Minneapolis never happens if it wasn't for Biden, Mayorkas,
and the elected officials have pretended that opening the
border to illegal criminals for five years wouldn't have to be
reversed and cleaned up at some point. I just think it would be
interesting if the Committee could bring him back.
Mr. Linehan, to my knowledge, you were the first person
arrested by the U.K. government over tweets, but this could
have happened to any American resident who uses social media to
discuss politics. Isn't that right? If somebody was on their
way back from the U.K. and suddenly arrived at Heathrow, they
could be arrested, too, even if they were an American citizen?
Mr. Linehan. I can't really speak to that, but I wasn't the
first. There are many women arrested because trans activists
have reported them to the police before me.
As far as America goes, I don't think they would like the
publicity of arresting an American national in the U.K. We
really only have that to depend on. They just choose not to do
it at the moment.
Yeah, that there is a general danger of people being
affected by really quite random rules on speech. Something
that, like saying that there are two sexes used to be something
we all believed. I believe Mr. Raskin possibly even believed
it. Nowadays, people are pretending not to believe that there
are two sexes, and it is something that destroyed my whole
career and life, that I insisted on the truth.
We can't rely on the mood of governments being affected by
incoherent liberal orthodoxies.
I'm sorry, it's not a great answer to your question, but--
Mr. Fitzgerald. No, no. It's very good. Thank you. Mr.
Price, why should Americans care about Graham Linehan's arrest?
Mr. Price. Why? They should care because it shows very
clearly what's happening in Europe. What we're talking about is
European laws now being exported by the European Union via
content moderation rules across the world. That's what is going
on now.
American speech is already being affected, and in my
written statement, you'll see a sample of some of the really
quite Draconian and bizarre laws that we have in Europe when it
comes to speech. That type of legal system is now being pressed
down via these digital content moderation rules into American
speech.
For Graham and for Paivi, you can see very clearly that
these laws aren't theoretical. They put them into force, and it
means people are arrested. There are interrogations. Their
freedom is taken away. Paivi has faced a six-year court battle
to get to this point. Graham, undoubtedly, is in their
crosshairs for more action in the future, which means that,
really, we just don't know--as we say, the extent of the
chilling effect is enormous in Europe, and exporting that
globally via EU digital regulation is--it should be a real
concern for this Committee. Indeed, it is, thanks to your
investigations.
Mr. Fitzgerald. A recent report by the House Judiciary
Committee shows evidence that the person in charge of enforcing
the Digital Services Act was also concerned about enforcement
of the DMA, the Digital Markets Act. Should we be concerned
that the EU regulators could be using a threat of additional
fines under the DMA to compel compliance with its global
censorship regime?
Mr. Price. Certainly. One way to look at it is that you
have to imagine there's concentric circles, and at the center
is speech. Speech is the greatest threat to the European Union
at this point. Being openly able to criticize the various
escalating crises in Europe is the worst thing that they can
have, and at the moment, X, and to a growing extent, Meta, is
where that conversation is being had.
They will use other forms of weapons outside of that to
attack companies allowed. There is a huge amount of regulation
over the last 10 years that they've introduced, including the
Digital Markets Act, the General Data Protection Regulation,
GDPR. It's growing all the time.
If they don't start an investigation under the Digital
Services Act, they have other options. At the core of this is
an antipathy of hatred of free speech, which they want to
globalize to protect their power in Europe.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Chair. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. There are =120 million reasons why DMA is a
concern to America. We know what's going on.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. The gentleman has a unanimous consent--
Mr. Raskin. Yes, thank you. I've got two quick UCs.
First, from Tech Policy Press, ``How the House Judiciary
GOP misread Europe's 120 million euro X decision.''
Then, I'm wondering if it's possible for us just to
incorporate by reference and resubmit everything that we had at
the last hearing, since this is, essentially, duplicative of
what we did last time, and just it's more environmentally
responsible just to have it resubmitted rather than--
Chair Jordan. As long as it's not a problem. I can check
with our parliamentarian.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. OK.
Chair Jordan. As long as it's not a problem--
Mr. Raskin. OK. Good deal.
Chair Jordan. Without objection, we can--
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much.
Chair Jordan. We can do that, and it saves us time.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Chair Jordan. Now, is it Mr. Nadler, the gentleman from New
York, is recognized.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, masked Federal agents are wreaking
havoc in our streets and killing our citizens. The Trump
Administration has launched a brutal and reckless campaign to
strike fear in immigrant communities--conducting warrantless
raids, pulling elderly people from their homes without judicial
warrants, tearing children away from their parents, and taking
the lives of American citizens who are exercising their First
Amendment rights to protest, and to shine a light on the
horrors unfolding in their communities.
It's no wonder the Republican majority wants to change the
subject and to distract from its utter failure to perform
oversight over the Trump Administration's lawless and deadly
policies. It is absolutely gulling that they have called yet
another hearing on alleged threats to free speech in Europe,
while they stay silent about the greatest threat to free speech
on either side of the Atlantic--the President of the United
States.
From the earliest days of his administration, the President
has conducted a full-scale assault on the First Amendment--
targeting news organizations, individual journalists,
individual students, and even comedians who would dare
challenge him or his policies. Any news organization that
publishes unflattering coverage, or any journalist who asks a
question he does not like, is at risk.
He has tried to ban the Associated Press from the Oval
Office because it refuses to use the absurd name ``Gulf of
America.''
He sued such prestigious outlets as the BBC, The New York
Times, and The Wall Street Journal for billions of dollars
apiece because they have reported true and critical
information.
He was hoping that they would be intimidated and will
follow the cowardly examples set by CBS and ABC's corporate's
owners who settled baseless lawsuits. CBS's parent company was
handsomely rewarded for this strategy, when its multibillion
dollar merger was approved days after settling with Trump.
The threats of CBS continued just last month, when the
White House press secretary relayed a message directly from
Donald Trump to a CBS anchor who had just conducted an
interview with the President, that if they did not add the full
interview, the interview in full, then, quote, ``We'll sue your
ass off.''
Just last week, his Attorney General ordered the arrest of
independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for
reporting in a protest in St. Paul, Minnesota, despite a judge
having previously found no probable cause to believe they had
broken the law.
Even comedians who are critical of the President cannot
escape his retribution. We all remember his hand-picked FCC
Chair threatening that, if ABC did not take Jimmy Kimmel off
the air, the FCC could, quote, ``do this the easy way or the
hard way.''
After comedian Trevor Noah made a joke about the
President's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein during the Grammy
Awards the other night, Trump threatened on Truth Social that,
as he did with ABC and CBS, he would send his lawyers to sue
him and, quote, ``have some fun with him.''
Between the school-yard torrents and the childish nicknames
in his posts, it would be easy to dismiss this pathetic rant as
a joke, but the President has shown that he's all too serious
about using and abusing his authority to go after critics.
His administration has followed his lead, sometimes with
deadly consequences. When Alex Pretti and Renee Good were shot
in cold blood by ICE agents, it was because they were
exercising their First Amendment rights to protest and monitor
law enforcement. They were trying to hold these agents
accountable, filming their activities, and shining a light on
their abuses.
The administration officials rushed to paint the victims as
the aggressors, smearing their names, and making false claims
about what happened. It is only because we have video evidence
of these incidents that we all know the truth, and that is
exactly what is so threatening to this administration. They
want to silence their critics. They will use any means to do
so.
They've even pressured tech companies to take down apps
that allow people to alert their neighbors about ICE activity
in their community.
While the Trump Administration conducts a breathtaking
assault on the First Amendment, we have not heard a peep from
our Republican colleagues. Instead, they want to focus our
attention on European regulators and online safety laws. The
Republicans insist that they are the true defenders of free
speech. Give me a break.
Mr. Mayell, the people of Minnesota have shown us how
powerful it can be when citizens bear witness to the dangerous
and unlawful actions of their government. Why is that so
important to protect?
Mr. Mayell. Well, our First Amendment protects our right to
record ICE. I want to just focus-in on that as really important
part of the constellation of accountability. Taking photographs
and videoing of things that are plainly visible in public
spaces is a constitutional right, and that includes police and
other government officials carrying out their duties.
Specifically, the First Amendment protects the right to both
photograph and video police conduct occurring in both public--
because it protects the right to gather information about what
public officials do on public property, and because it protects
the right to record such matters. That includes the right to
livestream such content.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Mayell, thank you for being here today to
share with us your firsthand account of the terror that Federal
agents are inflicting on our communities.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Mayell, did
the Biden Administration censor people?
Mr. Mayell. I'm sorry. Thank you for your question. I'm
here to talk about what's happening in Minnesota on the First--
Chair Jordan. Well, it's a simple question. Did they do it?
Mr. Mayell. --on the ground there.
Chair Jordan. Did the previous administration censor
American speech? You're from the ACLU. You should care about
that, too.
Mr. Mayell. We do care about free speech, but what I'm
talking about here today is the most significant threat to free
speech happening in this country.
Chair Jordan. You can say the truth. I got that. You said
that every time the Democrats asked you a question. I want to
know, did the previous administration censor American speech?
Mr. Mayell. Chair, this is not--what is happening in
Minnesota is not normal.
Chair Jordan. OK. Well, here's what Mark Zuckerberg said to
the Committee in August 2024: ``Senior officials from the Biden
Administration''--
Mr. Nadler. Pardon me. On what time is the Chair asking
this?
Chair Jordan. My time and the clock is ticking.
Mr. Issa. He hasn't gone yet.
Mr. Nadler. Oh, OK.
Mr. Issa. Could we restore the time?
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yielded, and it's my five
minutes.
Officials from the Biden Administration, including the White
House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor
COVID-19 content, including humor and satire.
Did it happen, Mr. Mayell?
Mr. Mayell. Chair, I would love to be sitting here talking
about online privacy.
Chair Jordan. Did Mark Zuckerberg lie to the Committee?
Mr. Mayell. I'm here talking about what's happening on the
streets in Minnesota.
Chair Jordan. Did Mark Zuckerberg lie to the Committee? Did
Mark Zuckerberg lie to the Committee when he said that?
Mr. Mayell. I am not here to speak about that. I wish I
was, but I'm here to speak about the more significant threat to
free speech.
Chair Jordan. Here's how it works. Mr. Price, let me ask--
here's how it works. Day three of the Biden Administration,
they send a tweet from the White House to Twitter, ``Take down
this tweet ASAP.'' It was tweet from RFK, Jr., and it was about
COVID. That's how it started, specific tweets.
Then, it progressed to policy. We have all kinds of
documents we got in our investigation last Congress which show
the policy: Change your policy. The leadership asked for
misinformation policy, a couple of teams on product policy, to
brainstorm some additional policy levers.
Then, it was broader. First, it was just specific tweets,
``Oh, we've got to stop this tweet from influential people.''
Then, it's a broader policy. Now, we have got foreign
governments trying to impact American speech.
It's so pervasive that you have individuals who put a Bible
verse up that they're coming after. That's the progression this
takes.
Is that accurate, Mr. Price?
Mr. Price. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. That's how it goes. One tweet. We don't like
RFK, Jr.,--oh, by the way, everything RFK, Jr., said in that
tweet was true, back to Mr. Kiley's point. Many things they
said to take down were true.
I bet Mr. Linehan would agree with that, too. That's how it
goes. Sometimes the thing they want to censor is the truth.
That's how this works.
By the way, Mr. Linehan, when they arrested you, were there
cameras there? I'm just curious.
Mr. Linehan. No.
Chair Jordan. How about you, Doctor? When you were charged,
how was that--how did that happen?
Well, let me go back for a second. I was curious about
this, too, Mr. Linehan. When you were apprehended at Heathrow
Airport, what did the police officers say? What did they say to
you? Did they say--were they coming in aggressive? Or did they
say, ``Hey, man, we're sorry. This is ridiculous. We've got to
do our . . . '' How did that go down?
Mr. Linehan. I got that impression, that they felt a bit
embarrassed about it, yes. Basically, the U.K. police are now
in this situation where they are trying to contain every
problem that Keir Starmer doesn't want to talk about, and
that's all they do.
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Mr. Linehan. We can't get burglaries investigated and
rapists put in prison, but we can get the police--
Chair Jordan. They can arrest a comedian who tweeted
something in the United States who's not even a U.K. citizen.
They can do that?
Mr. Linehan. Yes.
Chair Jordan. The police are just like, ``Dude, sorry about
this. We've got to--we've got to do it??
Mr. Linehan. Yes.
Chair Jordan. Right?
Mr. Linehan. Now--
Chair Jordan. I guess it was the same with you, Doctor. Is
that right? What did they say?
Dr. Rasanen. I mean, they said--
Chair Jordan. Maybe I'm wrong, but that would be my guess.
Dr. Rasanen. Yes. My process started over six years ago,
and there was a Pride parade in Finland, and my church, the
leadership of the church, decided to support that parade; also,
finance really.
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Dr. Rasanen. It was a shock to me. I was afraid that this
would undermine people's trust in the Bible. Then, it is not
only about marriage or sex, but also about salvation of people.
That's why I wrote that Twitter update, where I took a quote
from the Bible and made a question to the leadership of the
church.
Chair Jordan. Yes. Yes.
Dr. Rasanen. After that, some citizen made a criminal
complaint about my Twitter update--
Chair Jordan. Did the police--
Ms. Rasanen. --and the police starting coming there--
Chair Jordan. Did the police come to your house? Did the
police come to your house and charge you? How did it work? The
police came--
Dr. Rasanen. The police started to investigate the case.
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Dr. Rasanen. I was then interrogated by police in a small
police room, which was a very unreal situation, because some
years before--
Chair Jordan. For a Bible quote?
Dr. Rasanen. --I was the Minister of Interior. Then, I was
sitting there. The Bible was on the table, and the police was
asking me very theoretical questions.
Chair Jordan. If I could, I'm just about out of time,
Doctor, but I just want to say this. Thank you for that.
Dr. Rasanen. Yes.
Chair Jordan. That's where it progresses to. Specific
tweets. Broad policy. Foreign governments getting involved in
American speech, and focused on it, that they're willing to
come after a member of Parliament who simply posted a Bible
verse. They know it's wrong, as evidenced by the police have
said like, ``Dude, we're sorry. We've just got to--we've got to
do it.'' They know it's wrong.
We can't even get the guy from the ACLU to admit that the
previous administration censored speech. That's the State of
affairs. That is the State of affairs. The fact that the guy
from ACLU can't even say, ``Oh, yes, they did it. Mark
Zuckerberg said it. We got all kinds of evidence of it.''
It's so pervasive, they're even going after people, nice
people like the doctor, who simply put a Bible verse online.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Could I introduce for unanimous consent the
Supreme Court's decision and Justice Barrett
Chair Jordan. It sounds like you're doing that right now.
Mr. Raskin. If that's all right?
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. It's Murthy v. Missouri, rebutting everything
that you just said about what happened to that in the last
administration.
Chair Jordan. Without objection. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Georgia for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Price, you would
agree that a free press is a hallmark of freedom of speech,
would you not?
Mr. Price. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. You would have a problem if reporters and
reporting organizations were barred from government offices and
officials if they did not agree beforehand that they would
allow those officials to approve their publications or their
stories? You would agree that would be against principles of
free speech, correct?
Mr. Price. In responding to the theoretical question, I
would--
Mr. Johnson. Well, it's actually not even a theoretical
question. It happened about a year ago. Just days into this new
administration, the Department of Defense kicked out news
organization that refused to agree to allow their stories to be
preapproved to have access to the government offices and those
officials. That actually happened.
This Committee has had no hearings on that. Yet, it would
call you over here, and you agree with me that is an impediment
toward free speech, when the press does not have access to
government officials. You would agree with that. Correct?
Mr. Price. If--
Mr. Johnson. Yes or no?
Mr. Price. Well, it's a little bit more complicated than
that, sir.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, no, it's not complicated at all.
What do you think about that, Mr. Mayell? You would agree
that government officials should be subject to the media,
correct?
Mr. Mayell. Yes. I believe in a free press, as protected by
the First Amendment.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, this Committee also has not had any
hearings about this administration issuing a search warrant to
obtain the communications devices, computers, and records of
The Washington Post reporter. That was something that was
egregious, but this Committee is silent about it.
Calls you all from overseas to talk about First Amendment
issues here in America, but is failing to look at what this
current regime is doing to stifle free speech when it comes to
freedom of the press, which, Mr. Price, you agree is a hallmark
of freedom of speech.
Why is it that this Committee is wasting time because of a
$125 million assessment against Elon Musk by Great Britain for
violating its rules? This man is worth $700 billion, and you
all are over here talking about $150 million. This Committee is
wasting its time trying to protect Elon Musk from $125 million,
when we have our First Amendment that is under attack in this
country. We've said nothing about it.
News organizations being sued by the billionaire Donald
Trump for saying something that he disagrees with, when your
top government official is suing news organizations, doesn't
that create an impediment to the exercise of the First
Amendment, Mr. Price? Yes or no?
Mr. Price. Sir, you're very blessed you have a First
Amendment. We wish we had that on our side of the Atlantic.
Mr. Johnson. Well, shouldn't we be talking about those
issues here in this Committee rather than bringing you,
importing you over from Great Britain to talk about what's
going on in your country, when we who set the standard for the
First Amendment are sitting idly by while it's burned, crushed,
and shattered? Isn't that ironic? Don't you find some irony in
that?
Mr. Price. All the things you described are ultimately
under the right to appeal to a court.
Mr. Johnson. Just this past weekend two members of the
press arrested. Don't you find that troubling, Mr. Price? In
America, don't you see that our First Amendment is under
attack; our freedom of speech is under attack in this country?
Mr. Price. You have a court system, hopefully, that will
vindicate it.
Mr. Johnson. Well--
Mr. Price. We don't have that, unfortunately.
Mr. Johnson. Well, the court system, we have a Supreme
Court that is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the billionaire
President. That posed some very difficult problems for American
democracy moving forward--at this 250-year mark of the
Declaration of Independence from the monarchy, which I'm sure
that you can appreciate.
Mr. Price. As an Irishman, I certainly do.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. Are you going to have one of these every
time?
Mr. Raskin. Well, I'm struggling to keep up with the
onslaught here.
Chair Jordan. Well--
Mr. Raskin. This will go quickly.
Chair Jordan. All right.
Mr. Raskin. My UC, first, ``Twitter kept entire database of
Republican requests to censor posts.'' That is February 8,
2023, Rolling Stone.
Second, ``Trump asked Twitter to take down derogatory tweet
from Chrissy Teigen: Whistleblower.''
Third, `` `Trump censorship and control campaign threatens
press freedom,' FCC Commissioner says.''
Finally, ``FBI raids home of Washington Post reporter in
highly unusual and aggressive move.'' That's from The Guardian,
January 14, 2026.
Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from
California is recognized.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. I'm sure Mr. Raskin will cut me off
exactly at zero, unlike his own people that go well beyond
that.
Mr. Mayell, would you agree that one of the tenets of the
First Amendment, the most important part in the ACLU in its
history, is the ability to seek the enforcement of it in court?
Without the support of the court, the First Amendment is moot,
as far as its enforcement. Is that correct?
Mr. Mayell. That accountability is a constellation of
things.
Mr. Issa. No, no. Of course, I know I'm a Republican and I
know you want to be evasive. The ACLU has sued probably in
Federal court more than any other entity to enforce the First
Amendment in the past, including some very important things,
and other constitutional--the access to the court is how we
enforce the First Amendment here in the United States; how we
enforce what is right and wrong. Is that correct?
Mr. Mayell. I don't want to I'm going to answer the
question. What I want to say is that the courts are one way to
seek redress and a cause of action for a First Amendment
violation. Accountability is more than just that.
Mr. Issa. OK.
Mr. Mayell. Accountability is just a number of different--
Mr. Issa. OK. I hear you answer. I hear your answer, but
you said--
Mr. Mayell. It's not just--
Mr. Issa. I hear you answer, but I heard nothing when we
had this tirade about a man seeking to be made whole when he
felt he was sued inappropriately because $125 million, from the
gentleman from Georgia, isn't much money. I heard you and I
hear you loud and clear.
You think it's OK to obstruct justice here in America; to,
in fact, use the First Amendment as a sword instead of a
scalpel. I'll give you an example.
You said that people were being forced to flee the country
of their choosing, flee the country they call home. Were you
talking about people who came here illegally? Yes. Were you
talking about people who came here illegally, and then, may
have gotten temporary protective status? Yes.
Mr. Mayell. I--
Mr. Issa. Now, look, it's my time, and if I ask you a
question, I'll ask you a question.
The fact is you've come here for a hearing that was about
whether or not the First Amendment should have a global reach--
where there's somebody who says something in America who's a
citizen of another country, can be arrested in a third country,
because they don't like what was said in America. Instead of
being here to testify for that, when the Chair asked you a
question, you go dumb.
Shame on the ACLU. You didn't protect the First Amendment
under the last four years. Now, you've come here with the
hypocrisy of all time to pretend that the ACLU hasn't become an
arm of the Democratic Party; that it hasn't become--
Mr. Mayell. No administration has gotten a free pass from
the ACLU.
Mr. Issa. Yes, yes. Well, the last one got a hell of a free
pass.
I'm going to ask the other folks a question, which is a
question--I'm the Vice Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Although this is Judiciary Committee, clearly, the question of
whether we can work together to enforce it is important.
For each of the witnesses who came here to answer questions
related to the hearing, if the United States uses its global
reach, power, and influence to enforce that, when the First
Amendment occurs--when speech occurs in the United States, that
you are at that point an American person for purposes of
protection under the First Amendment. If we begin a process of
retribution, censoring--I'm sorry--sanctioning, whatever it
takes, even against our best friends in Europe, to say, if you
say it in the United States, you cannot be prosecuted in
another country, is that something you believe that we should
do as a tenet of global democracy that America was founded on?
We were founded just on the question of rights here. We were
founded on spreading democracy and freedom around the country.
Yes or no, to the greatest extent possible, should we, in
fact, begin a process of doing what I know the Chair wants to
do, and I want to do, which is making you a protected person?
If you say it in America, if you publish it in America, that we
will not allow you to be prosecuted for that speech in another
country?
I'm going to start with the doctor.
Dr. Rasanen. Yes, I have to say that I'm very happy for
your support for freedom of speech. I noticed that you all have
raised great respect to the First Amendment. I'm happy for the
support that you give.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, briefly, could the others--
Chair Jordan. Yes, Mr. Price and Mr. Linehan.
Mr. Linehan. Yes, that would be a great--I think that's a
great idea. If they won't--we need freedom of speech. It's that
important. These are--I know there's been efforts to dismiss
the subjective--the trans issue, but it's a very important
issue. A lot of children have been hurt. Thousands of children
have been hurt. They have received double mastectomies--
Mr. Issa. Mr. Price, briefly.
Mr. Price. Yes, sir, it's a very wise idea, and there are
plenty of options, I think, that we could discuss.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady
from Washington is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have a five-alarm fire here on the First Amendment
rights in the United States. Even your Republican witnesses
have said that this is the model. You wish you had it, right,
Mr. Price?
Yet, this Committee is spending no time at all on actually
looking at that. It's the first time Republicans have wanted to
import foreigners to talk about any issue.
Let me just be clear that, right now, we have a situation
where Trump's ICE and Border Patrol agents are routinely using
excessive force, killing two U.S. citizens, using chemical
weapons, physically assaulting and threatening people, directly
attacking people who are exercising their free speech rights,
hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times.
With respect to Mr. Price and Mr. Issa who seem to suggest
that the courts can resolve everything, there is no court order
that can bring back people from the dead after they've been
shot.
This is a serious issue and I don't want you all to be used
to further some false thing about how we have to fight for free
speech rights of Americans in your countries, when we are not
addressing the First Amendment right here at home.
You don't have to just take my word for it. I have a video
to play. Please play the video.
[Video shown.]
Ms. Jayapal. Those are just a small fraction of what is
happening in the United States of America. Be very careful when
you come here at the request of my Republican colleagues to
testify on the abuses of First Amendment rights, when we have
this happening right here in this country. Do not let
yourselves be used.
Mr. Mayell, as Executive Director of the ACLU of Minnesota,
you and your colleagues have been on the frontlines of Trump's
assault on Americans' free speech rights. The video we wanted
is so horrific. Yet, there are so many more terrifying tactics
that immigration agents and Border Patrol agents are using
against people of all statuses.
In fact, Tom Homan seems to suggest that their intimidation
and attack tactics on First Amendment protections will
continue, saying, quote, that they, ``will not draw down on
personnel providing security and responding to hostile
incidents until we see a change in what is happening.''
Let's be clear that, while he is admitting that Kristi Noem
has failed in this whole effort, when he says he'll draw down
700 agents in Minnesota, that's still 2,300 agents that are
left in Minnesota, four times the size of the local Minneapolis
police force.
Can you just describe how agents are surveilling people and
the fear that even U.S. citizens face in being threatened at
their homes?
Mr. Mayell. Yes, thank you for the question.
I'll tell you about Sue Tincher, who is our lead client in
our lawsuit Tincher v. Noem. She has been living in Minnesota
for 30 years. She heard about an ICE activity in her
neighborhood. She went out to the site, and distance from an
ICE agent, simply asked the question, ``Are you ICE?''
She was then tackled in the snow, arrested, taken to the
Whipple Detention Center. At that site, she was--had parts of
her clothes cutoff. She had her purse cutoff, and she had her
wedding band cutoff.
This is not normal, what is happening. I just want to make
that very clear, that this is not normal law enforcement.
Ms. Jayapal. There are cells in Whipple specifically for
U.S. citizens who are being held, most of whom are then being
released without charges. I have a series of very quick
questions.
Are you aware of any city in Belgium where 3,000 agents
have been deployed and those agents are dragging people out of
their cars?
Mr. Mayell. Not that I'm aware of?
Ms. Jayapal. Any city in the U.K. where Federal agents
point firearms at civilians exercising their legal right to
observe them?
Mr. Mayell. In recent--
Ms. Jayapal. Quickly, Mr. Mayell.
Mr. Mayell. In recent years, not that I'm aware of.
Ms. Jayapal. Are you aware of any city in the United--EU
where a Federal agent has shot and killed a citizen, and the
leaders of that country justify the killing with no credible
evidence before any investigation had occurred?
Mr. Mayell. In recent moments, not that I'm aware of.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Mayell.
I think the situation is clear. This Committee should focus
on our First Amendment violations right here at home instead of
pulling people in from other countries. That's where we have to
protect our democracy and our rights--right here at home.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman
from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair. Mr. Mayell, let me ask you a
question. Kenneth Moreno Guzman, a criminal alien from Mexico,
forcibly broke into the backdoor of a family's home on January
12, 2025, a year ago, and proceeded to rape an 11-year-old girl
and held her 10-year-old sister at knifepoint.
Was sought after to be removed by ICE. Should ICE remove
that individual from the United States?
Mr. Mayell. First, I want to say that's tragic. It's
horrible--
Mr. Roy. Yes or no, should ICE carry out its function to
remove that individual from the United States--
Mr. Mayell. I just want to say that every--
Mr. Roy. --and get him to law enforcement for prosecution?
Mr. Mayell. --every victim deserves justice, as--
Mr. Roy. Hector Balderas-Aheelor, a criminal alien from
Mexico was arrested for a felony hit-and-run that killed an 11-
year-old boy on Thanksgiving morning. ICE worked to get this
person into custody. Should ICE do that?
Mr. Mayell. This, what I'm talking about is not normal law
enforcement. I want to be really clear about that.
Mr. Roy. Should, yes or now, should ICE remove these
individuals who are a danger to the American people? Yes or no?
Mr. Mayell. I am here to speak about--
Mr. Roy. Yes or no, should ICE carry out--
Mr. Mayell. --what is happening--
Mr. Roy. --its function in law enforcement to remove these
people who are killing Americans? Yes or no?
Mr. Mayell. ICE has the ability to do its law enforcement
activity. What I'm talking about is not normal--
Mr. Roy. ICE should carry out its law enforcement function
to remove people who are criminal--who are harming the American
people, such as the next person. Marvin Fernando Morales Ortez,
a criminal legal alien from El Salvador, brutally murdered a
resident inside his home in Reston, Virginia, just one day
after sanctuary politicians refused to honor the ICE arrest
detainer and released his from jail. That's what we've been
dealing with. That was the product of the previous
administration.
Now, we're trying to remove dangerous actors, and you want
to turn that into some sort of cause celebre.
Mr. Mayell. I'm trying to speak--
Mr. Roy. Meanwhile, meanwhile, meanwhile--
Mr. Mayell. --about something that is not normal law.
Mr. Roy. It's my time. It's my time, Mr. Mayell. Meanwhile,
Mr. Price, in the United Kingdom, do you not have your own
level of immigration problems?
Mr. Price. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roy. Right now, are there not significant impacts by a
massive increase in the Islamic population in London and
throughout the entire U.K.? Now, is it not true that there are
significant questions about whether the U.K. will adopt anti-
Muslim hate speech provisions.
For example, a draft definition that says, ``Anti-Muslim
hostilities. Engaging in or encouraging criminal acts,
including acts of violence, vandalism''--but here's the key
part--``that is harassment/intimation which is directed at
Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim because of their
religion/ethnicity. Also, the prejudicial stereotyping and
racialization of Muslims.''
Is that kind of language also not going to interfere with
free speech?
Mr. Price. It's very serious. We have a client who was
arrested for preaching the gospel, and on the arrest, one of
the arresting officers said, ``You shouldn't be saying those
kind of things during Ramadan.''
Mr. Roy. There is a direct connection to dealing with
immigration policy and what we're dealing with from a First
Amendment standpoint.
Now, I want to direct some questions to Dr. Rasanen.
First, thank you. Thank you for standing up. Thank you for
standing up in the face of the tyrannical interference with
your ability to carry out your faith and speak freely about it.
As you know, a number of us have been watching this very
closely and we are proud of what you have been doing to send a
message around the globe.
Let me ask you just a couple of quick questions.
Is it correct that the alleged crimes against you, that
were charged against you, consisted solely of, as you described
before, a Bible verse posted on social media, comments during
radio debate, and a religious pamphlet published years earlier?
Dr. Rasanen. No, I don't think that it is right because I
have not insulted anyone. My speech has been peaceful.
Mr. Roy. At no point did you call for violence, coercion,
or unlawful conduct?
Dr. Rasanen. No, no. I have told all the time that all
people are equal and we all are sinners, and we all are in need
of Christ. I do not insult any--
Mr. Roy. Is it true that prosecutors reportedly compared
portions of the Bible to extremist literature when they were
going after you?
Dr. Rasanen. Yes. The prosecutor thought up charges because
of my five Twitter update. The main focus was on the Bible
verses.
Mr. Roy. Has the prosecution reportedly offered you a deal
to recant your statements in exchange for avoiding prosecution?
Is that accurate?
Dr. Rasanen. Already in the police investigation the police
have gaven me two weeks' time to take away my writings and I
said that I will stand up before these meetings.
Mr. Roy. My final point is, the trial court unanimously
acquitted you, correct?
Dr. Rasanen. Pardon?
Mr. Roy. The trial court unanimously acquitted you,
correct?
Dr. Rasanen. Yes, yes.
Mr. Roy. The acquittal was later affirmed by an Appellate
court. Despite that, prosecutors appealed again to the Supreme
court in your country, keeping you under legal threat for
years, even now, is that correct? For simply speaking about
your faith, putting it in a pamphlet years before, that's what
is occurring? Is that correct?
Dr. Rasanen. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Well, we thank you for that. I would like to
insert into the record, Mr. Chair, a letter that I signed and
sent to Dr. Rasanen and some others, dated May 21, 2024, on
this point.
I wrote an op-ed called, ``The War on Religious Freedom: We
Must Stand up for Finnish Christians Facing Trial for Their
Faith,'' in which we described this, that I jointly authored
with Tony Perkins.
I would like to include, also, several letters that I could
go through one by one, but, for the sake of time, I would just
like to insert them in a group form; that are signed by a host
of our colleagues; that were directed to Dr. Rasanen about her
courage and her faith, letters that we've sent since 2021,
2022, 2023, and 2024, encouraging her and others to stand up.
I'd like to insert those into the record without objection.
Chair Jordan. Without objection. Doctor, God bless you for
your courage as well.
Dr. Rasanen. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. I think the gentlelady from Washington has a
UC.
Ms. Jayapal. I do. I have a couple of UCs here, Mr. Chair.
First, from The New York Times, I believe, about the way in
which the Trump Administration is smearing and humiliating
citizens to influence public opinion, while sending a warning
to other critics to beware of crossing the administration.
It's called, ``They Couldn't Break Me': A Protestor, the
White House and a Doctored Photo.''
Second, from CBS News, titled, ``ICE Agents Wrongfully
Detained U.S. Citizen in Minneapolis for Looking Somali.''
Third, the BBC, ``New Jersey Mayor Arrested in Protest at
Migrant Center.''
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Jayapal. I believe that's it. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. Is it the gentlelady from Vermont? Or Ms.
Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon. I'm next.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is
recognized.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I understand that our Republican
colleagues would prefer to distract and divide with a hearing
that completely misses the moment--just days after armed and
masked U.S. agents have shot and killed two citizens on the
streets of an American city. It's important that we refocus on
the threats to civil rights and liberties that are occurring
right here right now in America.
I want to thank Mr. Mayell for bringing firsthand testimony
to Congress about what is happening on the streets of
Minneapolis. Because the people of Minneapolis have risen to
this moment and understand it better than everyone.
The White House has unleashed armed and masked Federal
agents onto our streets to terrorize our communities. If you
think it doesn't affect you, think again.
Masked government agents are kidnapping people on the
streets of American cities, citizens and noncitizens alike;
breaking into their cars and homes; holding them at gunpoint;
raiding homes without warrants--in violation of the Fourth
Amendment.
The government agents are surveilling, threatening, and
assaulting Americans when they peacefully observe and protest
these actions are in violation of the First Amendment.
They're detaining children and adults with no criminal
records in nightmarish conditions are in violation of every
standard of human decency.
In the last 28 days, Trump's paramilitary goons have
violently and lawlessly shot and killed two Americans. In the
aftermath, the administration tried to smear the dead
Americans' actions and characters and convince the world not to
believe what we saw with our own eyes.
Throughout our government--not foreign governments--has
tried to silence those who expose or criticize those excesses--
arresting and threatening elected officials, journalists, and
concerned citizens.
Why is Republican leadership of this Committee and Congress
hauling the Department of Homeland Security and Kristi Noem
before this Committee? Why aren't they conducting an
investigation into the killing of American citizens and the use
of excessive force by ICE and CBP? Why aren't they doing their
jobs to demand accountability?
Americans are outraged. I don't understand why my
Republican colleagues are not. Instead, they're trying to
deflect attention and tell us that Europe poses the biggest
threat to Americans' rights. It's insulting because it is
really clear that right now the most serious threat to American
civil rights and civil liberties is coming from our own
government.
Now, Mr. Mayell, we've seen ICE agents conducting
warrantless arrests. A particularly egregious example occurred
in Minnesota when masked agents broke into a man's home, held
him at gunpoint, and dragged him out into the freezing cold in
his underwear and a pair of Crocs--only to realize he was an
American citizen with no criminal record, and the guy they were
actually looking for was already in prison.
How would the Fourth Amendment address this situation? Why
is it important that we have warrants with respect to searches
of people's homes, et cetera?
Mr. Mayell. The Founders ensured that the Fourth Amendment
places significant limits on the government's ability to enter
our homes, search our persons, and subject us to arrest. One of
the clearest rules under the Fourth Amendment is that Federal
agents just can't break into your home and arrest you without a
judicial warrant. A judicial warrant is a critical component to
ensuring accountability.
That is what we are seeing more and more that is missing.
We are seeing on the ground the use of administrative warrants,
which do not allow someone, an agent, to enter your home and
arrest you.
Ms. Scanlon. If a judicial warrant is sought, doesn't the
judge require the government to show that they have the right
house, and the right person, and there is reasonable--that
there is probable cause to suspect that they are going to find
the person they are looking for there?
Mr. Mayell. That's right. That's that layer of
accountability that comes into showing that you are not just
going into someone's home based on a limited amount of
suspicion or, in certain cases; in these cases, racial
profiling or just thoughts that this person might not be here
legally.
Ms. Scanlon. Would you agree that when folks argue that
immigrants don't have constitutional rights or immigrants don't
have the right to demand a warrant before their home is
searched, not only is that contrary to the Constitution, but if
you take that position, then you can end up with the situation
that we had in Minnesota, where a citizen's constitutional
rights are being violated, because there was no due process, no
probable cause, no warrant?
Mr. Mayell. Our constitutional rights and the rights of the
Bill of Rights apply to us all.
Ms. Scanlon. Explicitly, the Fourth Amendment says ``all
persons.'' It doesn't say citizens, does it?
Mr. Mayell. That is correct.
Ms. Scanlon. OK. Are you familiar with the opinion by the
Texas judge in the case involving the boy in the blue, long
bunny hat? Didn't the judge there say that using an
administrative warrant is like the fox guarding the hen house?
Chair Jordan. OK. You can answer that real quickly, Mr.
Mayell.
Mr. Mayell. We are really concerned, very concerned, about
the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. I know that this is
something that is dear to many people on this Committee. The
use of an administrative warrant is a significant erosion if it
is being used to go into homes to arrest people.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I have a U.C.
Chair Jordan. OK, go ahead.
Ms. Scanlon. I seek unanimous consent to introduce a
Guardian British Newspaper article, ``Eight people have died in
dealings with ICE so far in 2026. These are their stories.'' It
is dated January 28th.
Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from Arizona
is recognized.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mayell, isn't it true
that there are constraints on the use of First Amendment speech
rights?
Mr. Mayell. I mean, so, yes. In the First Amendment--
Mr. Biggs. The First Amendment, there are constraints on
it, right? It is permissible for individuals to protest in
America, right?
Mr. Mayell. There are rights to protest in the United
States of America.
Mr. Biggs. Right. I would--
Mr. Mayell. People can even--the courts have found--
Mr. Biggs. These are yes or no. You don't need to go
through it.
Mr. Mayell. Sure.
Mr. Biggs. If you filibuster, which sometimes people like
to do, we will never get through this. I am going to make sure
we get through it, no matter how much overtime I go. Just like
the Democrats are.
People can even video police actions in public spaces,
right? Courts have held that?
Mr. Mayell. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. Multiple courts, right?
Mr. Mayell. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. There is a caveat to that right, isn't there?
There is a list of constraints even there, right?
For instance, you cannot videotape police activity if there
is a reasonable expectation of privacy by anyone there, right?
Mr. Mayell. I am not following that.
Mr. Biggs. That is what the courts say.
Mr. Mayell. I am not following that.
Mr. Biggs. You have a right to videotape law enforcement
when law enforcement is conducting its activity in public
spaces. In public spaces, right?
Mr. Mayell. That is wrong.
Mr. Biggs. If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy,
courts have said that you can't go beyond that. They have also
said you can't interfere with or obstruct police activities,
right?
Mr. Mayell. The First Amendment does not protect
interference with law enforcement obstruction.
Mr. Biggs. Right? You don't need to repeat everything I
say. You can either agree or disagree, that is fine.
If there is an intention to interfere or if the individual
should have known that they were interfering, their right to
videotape is not protected. Isn't that true? Just answer the
question.
Mr. Mayell. Well, the issue that is happening is when there
is unlawful speech, when it is not protected, it--
Mr. Biggs. Does the court say that?
Mr. Mayell. It does not give law enforcement the right to
wildly pepper spray.
Mr. Biggs. Sir. Sir.
Mr. Mayell. It does not give them the right to throw tear
gas.
Mr. Biggs. OK. You want to pontificate. We realize that you
were brought here to pontificate the Democrats deal.
Sir, you are--
Mr. Mayell. I was brought here to tell you what is
happening on the ground in Minnesota.
Mr. Biggs. Arguing instead of--
Mr. Mayell. It is happening and it is being recognized by
Republicans and Democrats. Law enforcement--
Mr. Biggs. Sir. Sir.
Chair Jordan. The time belongs to the gentleman, the time
belongs to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. I am asking you questions. You answer them.
You can agree or disagree. These are very simple. I think you
will get them, even, because they are yes or no questions.
The individual cannot videotape if it actually it hinders
public safety. Isn't that true? You are not allowed to
interfere with law enforcement?
Mr. Mayell. You can if you are--
Mr. Biggs. If you interfere--
Mr. Mayell. You are talking about a hypothetical scenario.
Mr. Biggs. If you are in--
Mr. Mayell. You are talking about laws.
Mr. Biggs. If you are impeding public safety, courts have
held you can't get there. Apparently, I can't ask you
questions, because you are not going to answer truthfully. Here
we go. Here is the deal.
Mr. Mayell. I have answered that.
Mr. Biggs. Here is the deal.
Mr. Mayell. I have answered that. You cannot imply--
Mr. Biggs. Here is the deal. It is my time. I would like to
reclaim it. Here is the deal. If you are impeding public
safety, the courts have said you cannot continue to videotape.
The courts have said the police can set distance parameters
that the public must stand back from, to preserve public safety
or to prevent damage to a crime scene. You would agree with
that much at least, right?
Mr. Mayell. Well, but--
Mr. Biggs. Yes.
Mr. Mayell. There are limits to protected speech.
Mr. Biggs. You can't enter public, excuse me, private
property. You can only do it on public property, correct?
Mr. Mayell. There are limits to protected speech. Your
hypotheticals are really broad.
Mr. Biggs. These are court cases. You can't trespass
either, right? You cannot violate someone's privacy rights.
That is all true.
Mr. Mayell. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. That is true. Let's watch a video really quick
here of what is going on in Minnesota. This is not peaceful
protest.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Biggs. All right. What you got, what you have there, in
that first scene, is not peaceful protest. That is not
protected speech.
If you look at the statute, and I assume that you have Mr.
Mayell, if you look at the statutes here and the courts have
upheld it, something called administrative warrants, where you
have a reasonable suspicion to believe somebody is in this
country illegally, you are allowed to make the stop.
You are allowed to make the arrest. You are allowed to
presume that way. Reasonable suspicion is the standard under
INA, Sec-tion 236.
When I look at this and I listen to you, and I am looking
at it, and I am sorry you folks have come here, you have seen
the real attack is coming from the Left, on speech rights in
this country.
Here is the beautiful part about it, because they have
conviction and they have so much passion, they think they are
correct. They think that it is true. Much of what we have heard
today is inaccurate, false, and wrong. Here is the bottom line,
conviction and passion does not make you correct. Sometimes it
just makes you crazy.
I will yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Georgia.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In part one of this
hearing earlier, I asked our witness, Professor David Kay, what
this country would look like if the Majority did not join the
Minority in checking First Amendment violations committed by
the government.
We were warned that there would be dark days ahead. Well,
sadly, we are in those dark days right now.
This government was built to include checks and balances, a
practice that has protected this democracy for the last 240
years. Democrats have done our part in honoring that
constitutional intent.
Whether in the Majority or in the Minority, we have taken
the time to ensure that we are truly doing our job, providing
oversight to other branches regardless of the party that is
governing in the White House. Will my colleagues across the
aisle commit to doing the same?
Secretary Noem has done nothing to reign in her agents, to
remind or even to inform them that it is unconstitutional to
impede on First Amendment rights.
We have seen countless videos and justified outrage after
Federal Immigration Enforcement agents shot and killed a 37-
year-old woman, Renee Nicole Goode, a mother, a poet, and a
writer.
Operation Metro Surge continued and protestors continued to
exercise their rights. Not even three weeks later, 37-year-old
ICU nurse Alex Pretti was helping others and recording on his
phone, when officers surrounded him and proceeded to shoot him
11 times in the back.
When protestors are literally being shot in the street as
they exercise their First Amendment rights, gunned down while
peacefully protesting heightened enforcement operations,
targeted raids that break up families, and watch in the
oppression of their communities by agents of their own Federal
Government. I know for a fact that these situations are what we
should be talking about, not Europe, our own. We should be
focusing on the government agencies here at home that are
impeding the constitutional rights of our citizens.
From the First Amendment to the 14th Amendment, even due
process rights, right here in America, are being violated. So
much so, that a government attorney asked to be held in
contempt, just to get sleep, because ICE arrests have been so
sloppy that her office has become overwhelmed with ICE, because
ICE complies with the flooded court orders coming in.
Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request. I would like
to enter into the record this article from Fox News, entitled
``ICE Attorney, this job sucks.''
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. McBath. Thank you. In which attorney Julie Lee, she
states, and I quote, ``The system sucks. This job sucks. I'm
trying with every breath I have, to get you what I need.''
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. McBath. Thank you. People across our country are taking
to the streets, asking for justice, calling for Federal law
enforcement to leave their communities, and they are demanding
accountability.
This continued threat to our First Amendment rights extends
to voting and elections. My home State of Georgia Federal
Election Investigations and Enforcement actions have created
fear, confusion, and hesitation among voters and election
workers alike, all for an election that was decided over five
years ago, over a vote count that leaders from the sitting
President's own party have affirmed to be lawful and correct.
These tactics are meant to scare voters and make them worry
that their vote, and therefore their voice, is not going to
matter. Volunteers may step back rather than step forward, that
is how suppression works in practice. Not only through the laws
on the books, but through fear, and discourages participation.
Mr. Mayell, you have said that Minnesotans are foregoing
basic daily tasks, their children are not even going to school.
If conditions persist, how could the government's response to
citizens exercising their First Amendment rights, impact on our
voter turnout and our upcoming elections?
Mr. Mayell. Thank you for the question. I can tell you
right now that the feeling in Minnesota is one of disruptions.
Normal day-to-day activities, and we are talking about work,
groceries, going to school, have been disrupted significantly.
If we continue to have this presence of this Federal force,
life will continue to be disrupted.
Ms. McBath. Thank you for that. I contend to say that there
are going to even be darker days in our future.
I yield.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields. The gentleman from
Texas is recognized.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have had a lot of
discussion here today about DSA, DMA, and their effect on
American free speech.
While these are very important issues, I also want to
emphasize the danger of other EU overreach that directly
affects my constituents in the great State of Texas.
The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, the CSRD and
the CS3D, are nothing short of a full-blown assault on American
sovereignty and energy independence.
These extraterritorial ESG mandates force Texas oil and gas
companies to comply with burdensome rule reporting and due
diligence rules tied to the environmental treaties we never,
ever ratified.
With over 4,000 U.S. companies affected, including
thousands in our energy sector, these laws impose massive
compliance costs, deter investments in LNG exports, where
America leads the world, and threatens thousands of high paying
Texas jobs in drilling, refining, and clean energy projects.
The CS3D could cost the Texas economy over $68 billion in
one-time compliance costs, and over $1 trillion in potential
loss revenue. In my State's manufacturing sector alone, one-
time compliance costs are forecast at $26 billion, along with
ongoing annual compliance costs.
The CS3D could cost over 63,000 Texas jobs, which is the
equivalent of raising my State's unemployment by 0.4 percent.
Payroll losses could exceed $6 billion, and over 490,000 Texas
small businesses will be most affected since they lacked their
sources to
comply.
Exxon's CEO rightly called the CS3D the worst legislation
he has ever seen. The ironic thing is, Europe is actually
shooting itself in the foot by driving away innovation,
accelerating deindustrial-ization, and chasing off key energy
suppliers.
I am glad President Trump is taking strong action by
flagging these rules as threats to our trading relationship,
securing commitments to limit their undue burdens on American
companies, and standing ready with tariffs and every tool
necessary to defend our innovators from foreign overreach.
Mr. Chair, I have a UC request. I would like to enter it
into the record, a January 2026 report by Hudson Institute
Senior Fellow, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, ``Quantifying costs of
the EU's CS3D on U.S. industry.''
Chair Jordan. OK. Without objection.
Mr. Nehls. Legislative responses, we have a great Member,
you heard from him earlier, Rep. Fitzgerald out of Wisconsin,
H.R. 4279, his legislation, Protect U.S. companies from Foreign
Regulatory Taxation Act, would prevent U.S. courts from
recognizing foreign judgments under rules like the CSRD and
CS3D.
Mr. Price, what additional steps can Congress take to
shield American businesses from these extra territorial ESG
mandates?
Mr. Price. Well, sir, the aggregation of more and more of
these regulations, and, as you say correctly, extractive
industries, but also in the tech space, are part of a concerted
effort by the European Union to make the world in its image,
the so-called Brussels Effect.
You are correct that passing legislation here that would
restrict the ability to enforce these decisions, is a very wise
step.
Ultimately, what will have to happen is using diplomatic
pressure and indeed, as this Administration has done, start to
name names about the people who are forcing these things on
U.S. companies.
The cumulative effect of this is extraordinary. As I was
saying, it is not just simply the Digital Service Act, but all
these regulations, and then expanding even further into the
mandates you are describing, are trying too effectively, create
a trade barrier regulatory-wise, against the United States. It
is not explicitly a tariff barrier, but it has the same effect.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Price, for being here. I yield
the balance. I appreciate it.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Price, is government the biggest purveyor
of misinformation?
Mr. Price. I certainly think, sir, we have seen during the
last number of years, and particularly in COVID, that to be
very much the case.
Chair Jordan. Indeed.
Mr. Price. The European Union as well.
Chair Jordan. Do you agree Mr. Linehan?
Mr. Linehan. Yes. I think that often by--oh, sorry. Yes.
Often by reasons, or often by means of omission, yes. It is the
things they don't talk about.
Just as today, people haven't been talking about the
Minnesota fraud that kicked this whole thing off. The
journalist on X who exposed it, Nick Shirley.
It is what they don't say that is often where they are
dishonest.
Chair Jordan. Our government actually tried to set up,
well, actually not tried, did set up a Disinformation
Governance Board.
A bunch of bureaucrats are going to tell you what you can
say, what you can tweet, what you can post, and what you can
read, frightening. That is the same. That dynamic is what we
are concerned about.
I bet even the guy from the Minnesota ACLU, Mr. Mayell,
would probably say that this is not a good idea to have a board
tell you what you can say, or some bureaucratic board, tell you
what is true and what isn't true.
Typically--well, I am over time. We will get back to that.
We will go to the gentlelady from Vermont is recognized.
Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the witnesses for
being here.
I wanted to just start by sort of level setting here. Where
we are at right now in this country, it is not good. It is not
good.
I can talk to the European guests here. My dad was born in
Europe, came here after losing his father in the Holocaust.
Built a new life here. Understand in the most deepest way, the
importance of protecting our civil rights and civil liberties.
At a very young age, I was taught that rights do not erode
overnight. It happens little by little while you are not even
sure that it is happening. Norms are upended. Groups are
scapegoated.
When I look, and I have spent time both in Minneapolis-St.
Paul, and I have spent time in Chicago, and what we are seeing
on the ground, is absolutely terrifying.
You have members of the clergy being pepper balled in the
head while they are peacefully praying and protesting in front
of immigration facilities.
You have members of the press being arrested. Other members
of the press being roughed up, even after they are identifying
themselves as members of the press.
You have election offices being raided. You have Americans'
First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Fourth Amendment rights
being eroded. You have citizens being arrested.
Even before the murders of Renee Goode and Alex Pretti, we
had documented over 170 American citizens who had been arrested
and detained by ICE and Border Patrol. It has gotten worse
since then.
When we talk about ChongLy Scott Thao, who was arrested,
Patty O'Keefe, Aliyah Rahman, Sue Tincher, and we can go on and
on.
We take this very seriously. I understand that you care
deeply about First Amendment rights. The battle that we have
right now with all due respect, is not about what is happening
in Europe. It is what is happening right here in our cities.
I am just so shocked that in the last few days too, we have
a President now saying that we should nationalize our election,
in clear violation of our Constitution, and not hearing
anything from the Members in this Committee about that. It is
shocking.
Now, as I said, I have been to both Minneapolis and I have
been to Chicago, and I have seen the violations of our civil
Constitution, and honestly, our humanitarian rights.
Mr. Mayell, I was able to meet with you there. I just want
to go through this again to reestablish what it is that
Americans are allowed to do.
Does the First Amendment give people a right to film
Federal Immigration agents on our streets?
Mr. Mayell. Yes, it does.
Ms. Balint. Does the First Amendment give people a right to
tell their neighbors and others around them that ICE raids are
happening?
Mr. Mayell. You are allowed to alert other people and
notify people of law enforcement activity, and particularly
aggressive law enforcement activity.
Ms. Balint. Does the First Amendment still apply to apps or
social media posts?
Mr. Mayell. The First Amendment applies to everyone however
they choose to speak.
Ms. Balint. Because that is what we are here to talk about,
right? As my Republican colleagues have made clear today, they
care deeply about First Amendment rights as it relates to
online content.
Big tech is actually at the center of this issue. The Trump
Administration has a two-part strategy right now, and both
parts require big tech support.
(1) The first part is to censor what is online, force the
companies to pull down the content showing what is really
happening on American streets.
(2) To craft a message that will recruit more agents,
regardless of qualifications, who are willing to carry out
atrocities on Americans.
We know that Apple has removed apps dedicated to tracking
ICE raids. Apparently, under government pressure, Meta has
blocked apps seeking to identify government agents. These
companies are folding under pressure from this Administration.
The press has reported that both Google and Meta have taken
millions of dollars from DHS to display content with clear
connections to White nationalism.
Since last summer, DHS has reportedly spent half a million
dollars on recruitment advertisements. Many of these have clear
connections to White nationalist ideology, including phrases
like, ``we will have our home again.''
This is happening at the same time that DHS has lowered
hiring standards. I have a letter along with my colleague on
this Committee, Representative Jayapal, that we sent to Meta
and Google demanding answers regarding the work with the
Department of Homeland Security in recruiting immigration
agents for Trump's assault on American cities.
We are demanding that these companies provide us with
answers to why they are choosing to platform this hatred, this
scapegoating, and are complicit in what, I believe, is
President Trump's authoritarian work.
The dangers are right here at home. That is why we are
speaking up in this Committee. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
I should have mentioned this earlier, and I apologize, if
any of you need a restroom break, just let us know, or let some
of your team behind us let us know. We will be able to do that.
We are going to go to the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank you all of you on
the panel for being here to share today.
We have heard a lot from your testimony. Dr. Rasanen, I
want come to you. What Bible verse did you post that caused you
to be criminally prosecuted?
Dr. Rasanen. Thank you. It was from the Book of Romans,
first chapter, and verses 24-27.
Mr. Harris. OK. Could you help me know why you chose that
particular passage to post?
Dr. Rasanen. The Apostle Paul teaches in these verses about
the marriage and about the same sex relationships. He defines
them as sinful and shameful.
Mr. Harris. What message were you trying to convey in that?
Dr. Rasanen. I wanted to make it clear that what if the
leadership of the church is supporting the pride event, it is
in contradiction with its verses, the Bible.
Mr. Harris. OK. After you posted the Bible verse, if I
understand correctly, you were charged under Finland's War
Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Law?
Dr. Rasanen. Yes. In that section, we have a law about
aggregation against minorities.
Mr. Harris. Wow. Well, as a pastor for 37 years now myself,
to think of someone that can be criminally charged for posting
a Bible verse in the EU and NATO country, worries me deeply.
As you have already heard from this panel today, God bless
you. God bless you for coming here today to share your story.
My prayer is that it causes people to wake up to the
threats that we are facing from those who seek to undermine our
God-given right to free expression. We even saw just in a piece
of the video clip that Mr. Biggs shared, of when a church was
stormed right there in Minneapolis.
Leaving families scattering, and all kinds of threats that
were felt that day. Still dealing with that even now.
I also want to State to Mr. Price, one of the things that
brings Western countries together is our shared values. In my
view, the right to freedom of speech is one of these values.
While I understand our European counterparts have not
always been as gung-ho perhaps, about free speech is us in the
United States, I never thought in 2026, we would be seeing
people jailed for posting Bible verses or even crass jokes.
Thankfully, high profile Americans are calling out our
friends for this madness. In February 2025, Vice President
Vance gave a high-profile speech at the Munich Security
Conference, in which he urged Europeans to turn away from
censorship and re-embrace fundamental free speech principles.
What effect, Mr. Price, do you think the Vice President's
words had, and what signal did they send to Europe?
Mr. Price. They were very impactful, because the
Administration was shining a light on the nature of the
problem. This is going to get worse.
We have people being arrested for praying silently in the
U.K. We have people being prosecuted for posting Bible verses,
for making jokes.
The European Union is attempting now to export that through
the Digital Services Act, and force it on Americans, these
European laws.
They are not going to back down easily, because as you can
see with the approach they have taken to X, when a company
commits itself to free speech, they have to stop that, because
of, as I say, they see it as an existential threat.
I am ashamed to say as an Irishman, my own country is
playing a central role in this, because most of these large
U.S. platforms are headquartered in Dublin. It is the Irish
regulator that is cooperating closely with the European
Commission enforcing this.
As I said on the last occasion, I really hope that the
United States, using its diplomatic channels, brings this home
to the Irish government. That forcing American companies to
police American speech, and generally to police anyone's
speech, is wrong.
That if they escalate in this direction, it is going to
cause significant additional problems.
Mr. Harris. Well, I applaud our Vice President for his
speech. I hope we can continue to remind our friends and allies
of the value of free speech and expression.
Unfortunately, we have heard in today's hearing, we have a
long way to go. Mr. Chair, I yield back to you, the balance of
my time.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman. We will, we will
just--
Ms. Balint. Mr. Chair, I have a UC.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Vermont is recognized.
Ms. Balint. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to introduce
for the record, a letter from Reverend Jered Weber-Johnson of
St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church in Saint Paul,
Minnesota, which calls what is happening in Minnesota,
``unlawful and unconstitutional, as well as a blasphemy against
God.''
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Washington is recognized.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask unanimous consent
to enter into the record, an article from The Hill, entitled,
``Poll: 62 percent think ICE efforts go too far.'' That
includes 92 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of Independents,
and even 30 percent of Republicans, a 10-point shift in
Republican's attitudes to ICE.
Chair Jordan. Without objection. Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask for unanimous
consent to enter into the record, this Minnesota Star Tribune
article from February 2, 2026, titled, ``Another Wave of
Departures in Minnesota's U.S. Attorney's Office, as 14
Additional Attorneys Left This Year.''
Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from
Illinois is recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I join my Democratic
colleagues in denouncing this sham hearing, which is an effort
to distract from the brutal assault on First Amendment rights
by the Trump Administration and its lackeys in Congress.
The greatest threat to free speech and dissent is the
Republican Party today. We are in the midst of an authoritarian
crackdown on the First Amendment, led by ICE and CBP agents who
are murdering American citizens in peaceful protests, while the
President threatens to sue a comedian over a joke.
That ain't funny. These attacks have escalated, but they
are not new. Republicans have gutted funding for colleges and
universities while trying to dictate the academic content and
make it more Right-wing.
They have weaponized the immigrant system against Mahmoud
Khalil, Rumeus Ostrid, and others who dared to speak for
Palestinian rights.
They have literally banned the Federal Government from
using words and phrases they are terrified of, like women. Oh
my God, diverse, holy cow.
Affordable housing, who would ponder that? Clean water, you
want to drink dirty? Equality, think of that. I thought all
people were created equal.
These attacks have not spared the Chicago-land region.
Republicans have attacked Chicago and Illinois for our
welcoming policies and illegally tried to withhold funding
based on decisions by local officials.
They funded mass death squads that killed, in my district,
Silverio Villegas Gonzalez, shot Marimar Martinez, who was here
in the U.S. Senate yesterday, and spread violence and terror in
our streets.
As our neighbors exercised their First Amendment rights to
peacefully protest the severe abuses at the Broadview facility,
they were met with brutal repression by the Federal Government.
A pastor was shot in the head with pepper balls, right
adjacent to my district. Journalists were tear gassed and six
protestors, including local elected officials, were arrested on
vague conspiracy charges without substantial evidence. These
charges and the actions of Federal agents overall constitute a
fascist attack on democracy.
We are not backing down. We continue to nonviolently
protest, and the courts have struck down the attacks on
welcoming policies, and the extreme use of force against
protestors and journalists at Broadview.
Mr. Mayell, thank you for being here today and for the work
that you have done keeping Minnesotans' safe. I deeply
appreciated your testimony at the field hearing that many of us
attended in Minneapolis a couple of weeks ago.
Can you speak to how the Administration's occupation in our
neighborhoods, in our cities, and our basic freedoms has
escalated over the past year from Los Angeles to Chicago to the
Twin Cities?
Mr. Mayell. Yes. That you can look at what is happening in
Minnesota as part of a broader pattern of abuse that has been,
and brutality that has been documented in court after court
across the country.
That includes the targeting of protesters and observers,
and also the targeting of immigrants, and the due process
rights that are being violated in the process of arrests and of
apprehending immigrants.
That is a really important piece of this conversation here,
is the racial profiling and the warrantless arrests that are
happening on the streets of Minnesota right now.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Mayell, can you talk about what you take
away from the things that have mobilized people in Minneapolis,
like we haven't seen anywhere else in the country? What is at
the heart of it?
Mr. Mayell. What I can say is that the people of Minnesota
have been disrupted, are shocked, are in a State of grief, and
they are opposing what they are seeing as unlawful,
unconstitutional, un-American activity on their streets.
This goes across party lines, across employment. You are
seeing it with law enforcement. You are seeing it with elected
leaders.
Again, this is not normal law enforcement. This is not
normal what is happening in Minnesota, and it should alarm
everybody.
Chair Jordan. The time for the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from North Carolina.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is worth noting, just
for the people watching this hearing, that what is happening in
Minnesota, appears to be fairly unique to Minnesota.
Local leftist law enforcement has abrogated their
responsibilities to maintain order, and rather, they are
encouraging attack on Federal law enforcement. It is not
happening in my State. It is not happening in South Carolina,
Texas, Florida, and even California.
What is happening in Minnesota is a unique circumstance
that is aggravated by the Left and the Left only. My colleague
who proceeded me is a suitable spokesman, and an able spokesman
for the Democratic party.
It is worth noting that his home State, while illegals are
welcomed in droves to Illinois, lured there by traditional
leftist overtures, what he left out is that for more than ten
consecutive years, hundreds of thousands of Americans have left
Illinois, because of high costs, high crime, and a landscape
that is unrecognizable to most people who used to see Chicago
and Illinois as a flagship for American exceptionalism.
The Left has destroyed Illinois. Americans have shown that
with their movement.
Dr. Rasanen, I want to start with you by thanking you for
taking a stand. You, in many ways, represent concern that
Christians all over the world fear, that is growing hostility
toward our faith from leftist governments.
I want to talk to you specifically about what you were
prosecuted for. You did not post a Bible verse in an official
capacity, correct?
Dr. Rasanen. Yes. I posted it in--
Mr. Knott. It was not part of a State action.
Dr. Rasanen. No, no.
Mr. Knott. It was a personal action, correct?
Dr. Rasanen. Yes. Yes, my personal.
Mr. Knott. Then, you issued a pamphlet in your personal
capacity.
Dr. Rasanen. Yes. Yes, it is here.
Mr. Knott. Yes. You did not incite. You did not advocate
for violence. You did not advocate for the silencing.
Dr. Rasanen. No, absolutely not. I said for example, in
this pamphlet, that I believe that all people are equal and we
have to respect all people.
Mr. Knott. In regard to your litigation, your case, you won
your case at the trial level, correct?
Dr. Rasanen. Yes.
Mr. Knott. How many times?
Dr. Rasanen. Two times.
Mr. Knott. Two times?
Dr. Rasanen. Yes.
Mr. Knott. Then, the prosecutor appealed.
Dr. Rasanen. Yes. It is possible in Finland, even though
that you are acquitted, that the prosecutor can appeal to the
Supreme Court, which is the highest level.
Mr. Knott. What remedy is this prosecutor looking for? Do
they want to put you in jail? Do they want to fine you?
Dr. Rasanen. They want to have, they want to fine me. What
is the most dangerous, they want to ban, for example, this
booklet with my paper post.
Mr. Knott. Yes. Well, ultimately, they want to ban your
belief in scripture. They want to ban your ability to cite the
Bible.
Dr. Rasanen. Yes.
Mr. Knott. To believe in the Bible.
Dr. Rasanen. Yes.
Mr. Knott. To make it socially unacceptable to do so,
correct?
Dr. Rasanen. Yes.
Mr. Knott. I want to make this very clear, as a former
prosecutor myself, I find it grossly offensive that the
resources of the State are going after wonderful people like
you, while crime of every sort has increased over the last
number of years in your home country.
The property crimes, sex crimes, and violent crimes, they
are increasing, and they are going after you.
Dr. Rasanen. Yes. At almost seven years now.
Mr. Knott. That is disgusting. Again, thank you for your
faith. Thank you for your bravery. Know that we are behind you
in full support.
Dr. Rasanen. Thank you.
Mr. Knott. Mr. Price, I want to talk to you. You said that
speech was the chief threat to the European Union.
[Audio interruption.]
Mr. Knott. You can go ahead and answer that.
Mr. Price. Oh yes. Yes sir, indeed, that is how they see
it, unfortunately. What I would say is, as far as the European
Union is concerned, and we have seen this again and again from
the President of the Commission of Senior European Leaders,
they regard misinformation, disinformation, these very nebulous
fake terms, and hate speech as a threat to the democratic
cohesion of it.
What I think is quite interesting, and I don't want to go
too far into a history lesson, but all this started after
Brexit, the election of Donald Trump for his first term, and
the migrant crisis in the EU. Before that, we had essentially
almost no regulation on online speech.
Mr. Knott. Right.
Mr. Price. We had an e-commerce directive and a few other
pieces of legislation, but nothing on content as such at an EU
level.
The Germans were the first to move. They brought in their
own draconian law. Then, as often happens in the European
Union, everybody follows Germany.
Since then, we have just added more and more layers of
this. Now, it is really starting to bite, because they are
trying to destroy, frankly X.
Mr. Knott. Now, they are going after X--
Mr. Price. Yes.
Mr. Knott. With lock, stock, and barrel. You have one
individual, in Elon Musk, whose companies exceed the GDP of
most European countries. You would think that they would
welcome Elon Musk to try to incentivize some type of freedom,
economic activity, and economic expansion, but they are
attacking him.
Mr. Price. Yes. The story over the next couple of decades,
for all of us, will be watching Europe descend into a
significant series of crises, demographic, economic, and so on.
It is going to be a real tragedy.
The only solution they have, is don't talk about it, just
ignore it. That is why they have targeted X.
Mr. Knott. Um-hum. Thank you, sir.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Florida is recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I offered a UC. I want to submit the
following articles for the record:
First, ``Elon Musk's Grok A.I. Chatbot Made Millions of
Sexualized Images, New Estimates Show,'' The New York Times,
Jan. 22, 2026.
Second, ``Elon Musk's X Faces EU Inquiry Over Sexualized
A.I. Images Generated by Grok,'' Jan. 26, 2026, The New York
Times.
Third, ``Grok, Elon Musk's A.I., is Generating Sexualized
Images of Real People, Fueling Outrage,'' Jan. 8, 2026.
Chair Jordan. Without Objection. The gentleman from Florida
is recognized.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you want to know
how things are going in America, just look at my colleagues.
They want to talk about Europe, because things are going so
well here.
Mr. Chair, Secretary Noem is scheduled to appear here in a
month, and I am going to say something that might surprise you,
I don't think she should come.
You know why I don't think she should come? Because, I
think, she should be fired before that. She shouldn't be here.
If you want to invite her as a private citizen, no problem.
Leader Thune was asked, does he have confidence in her? He
said, ``that is up to the President.''
Josh Hawley was asked, ``Would he vote for her again?'' He
says, ``Thank God he doesn't have to.'' That is a real vote of
confidence there. Senator Kennedy wants Tom Homan to run the
show.
By the way, he now is. Senator Tillis wants her fired.
Senator Murkowski wants her fired. Congresswoman Malliotakis
says, all options should be on the table with who should run
the agency.
Not a single Republican House Member or Senator is running
to the television to defend Noem. By the way, President Trump,
it wasn't lost on me, skipped her in his cabinet meeting just a
couple days ago. She was the only Secretary he didn't allow to
talk.
It is time to fire her. Why hasn't it happened? I know what
I need to do. I need to remind the President who it used to be.
I want to take you down memory lane.
You know what we need? We need apprentice Trump. Where is
that guy? Look, let me remind him of who he used to be really
quick.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Moskowitz. Where is that guy? What happened to him? Mr.
President, you had one of the most popular TV shows, right?
People would tune in weekly.
You would fire the weakest link of your teams. People loved
it when you fired people, Mr. President. Sitting in the
boardroom, Eric on one side, Junior on the left, was much watch
TV.
You made millions of dollars firing people for a living.
Now, someone convinced you that firing people is weakness. That
is why ratings are down, Mr. President.
It would be much watch TV, think about it, Mr. President,
tens of millions of people will tune in. You bring Kristi Noem
into your little conference room. You have a cabinet meeting,
right?
You fire her right there on TV. Oh, the ratings would be
through the roof. Think about the hat she would wear. It will
be majestic. OK?
Let me show you, Mr. President, what that might look like.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Moskowitz. That is how that would look, right? I would
watch it. We would all watch it. Mr. President, you fired
people so many times, they even made a doll about you firing
people. I bought it on Amazon. It was $9. Obviously, it is
doing very well.
Look, you take this doll out, it is probably made in China.
You take the doll out and look, it has got, very nicely done by
the way, if any of my Republican friends want to spend time
with it later, I will loan it to them.
Look, here is the doll. It says to fire people in 17
different ways. You go to the back, you push it. The battery is
a little old. Let's see if I can find the little button.
Well, anyway, it says you are fired, 17 different ways, Mr.
President. OK? I don't understand what the problem is.
I don't get it. For years, you fired people. It was
strength. Now, you think that is weakness?
If we can't get apprentice Trump, can we at least get like,
Home Alone 2 Trump? Can he at least show her the lobby and out
the door?
She is coming here in a month, OK? It is not going to be a
good hearing for her. It is going to be a disaster. You all are
going to have to defend her, which you are not willing to do on
TV. This will be very televised.
Why did the President not let her speak in the cabinet
meeting? Why didn't she get to talk, right? Why is Tom Homan
now running the Department?
Why is Roger Stone taking shots at her? It is time for her
to be fired. She is the weakest link of his team, and it is
enough.
Again, I got plenty of material as you see, Mr. President,
to remind you how to do it. Just go back, go on your reruns, go
find some old episodes for some inspiration.
I yield back.
Mr. Van Drew. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. I
will recognize myself.
Real quickly, just on a lighter note, Mr. Price, do you
think that the Congressman might have been censored in what he
said and what he did if it was up to the EU?
Mr. Price. Yes, sir. Under German legislation, he is
engaged in criminal insults to a politician.
Mr. Moskowitz. Is that what happened to Jimmy Kimmel?
Mr. Van Drew. It is my time now.
Mr. Price. Moreover, he might well have been violating
electoral disinformation. Which would mean that the EU's
watchdog on electoral disinformation, we call him.
Luckily, he is in Florida, of course, and he can invoke the
First Amendment. Mr. Van Drew. Do we still have--
Mr. Moskowitz. This isn't disinformation. They made a doll.
Mr. Van Drew. I remind the gentleman from Florida, this is
not his time, that he had his time. I thank the gentleman.
All right. I don't know where to begin, but let me begin by
we, how do I say this? I really want to try to be a little
friendlier to the other side here.
It is always politics 24/7. The damn hearing isn't about
politics. Quite frankly, it isn't about Minnesota particularly.
It isn't about that issue.
Is that issue worthy of discussion? Absolutely, the issue
here was the threat to America's freedom by foreign countries.
Now, just in case anybody needs a reminder, I don't think
we do, we have got a real lot of smart people in this room.
American men and women died so that we have that freedom of
speech.
American men and women were willing to give up everything,
so we have that freedom. This is a big deal. It is always the
politics of the day on the other side.
It is always whatever is the hot issue, but nothing to do
with what the hearing is about. The hearing is important,
because we really could lose our freedoms.
We have other countries controlling the hard-fought
freedoms of the United States of America. It is terrible. It is
awful.
That is why we are having this hearing, I thank you all for
being here. Mr. Mayell, I am not trying to give you a hard
time, but you are from the ACLU. You are a really smart guy.
You know your stuff, right?
You look pretty smart. If I ask you a question, although
they wanted you to talk about Minnesota, because God forbid, we
talk about the real issue.
You should be able to answer issues of the loss of freedom,
whether you are liberal, conservative, Republican, or Democrat,
socialist, and progressive. I don't care what you are, you
should have that right to speak about what you believe.
If you are a Christian, you should be able to have that
right. If you are Islamic, you should be able to have that
right.
That is what this hearing is about. Most of all, Mr.
Mayell, the hearing is about whether you are an American and
you have that right.
It is not just, we don't need another politician here
talking about politics. We need somebody that is going to tell
us what that freedom really means and what the First Amendment
really means.
Mr. Price, I am going to ask you a few questions. I just
need yeses or nos, because I want to not run out of time. Yes
or no, major social media platforms generally apply one global
set of content moderation rules worldwide.
We are part of globalism now. We are all the same, yes or
no?
Mr. Price. Yes.
Mr. Van Drew. Because platforms rely on global rules,
global, not American rules. Forgive me, I know some of us
aren't American, but I want to talk about America.
Global rules, changes to those rules affect users, are
people that cherish freedom in America. It affects us, yes or
no?
Mr. Price. Yes, it does.
Mr. Van Drew. Under the Digital Services Act, platforms can
be fined up to six percent of their global revenue for
noncompliance. Yes or no?
Mr. Price. Global turnover. Yes, sir. That is how, boy,
that is a really effective way to stop freedom and freedom of
speech. That is what we are supposed to be talking about today.
Not all this other stuff.
We can have a hearing. We are going to have Kristi Noem. We
are going to have the Attorney General. We are going to have
other hearings.
We may have a hearing on Minnesota, I don't know. We will
talk about those issues then. Let's talk about this big bad
issue that threatens the very foundation of America and
American freedom, for God's sake.
Yes or no, are the threats of fines that large, designed to
pressure platforms to over-censor speech to avoid getting
punished in that way?
Mr. Price. Yes, sir. They have that effect.
Mr. Van Drew. Yes or no, when Americans are censored
because of foreign government pressure, they have no ability,
talk about taxation without representation, this is worse.
You lose your freedom of speech, and you have no ability to
get those people out of office. They are in another country.
They are not liable to you at all, but you have to acquiesce to
them, yes or no?
Mr. Price. Yes. We can't get them out of office either.
Mr. Van Drew. It is scary. If Americans are losing their
speech rights because of laws written overseas, then this is
not just a tech issue.
This is not some boring issue that people want to put in a
closet somewhere where people go on and forget about it. There
is freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the way
to raise your family the way you want to. All the freedoms that
we cherish in America, yes or no?
Mr. Price. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. Is it a direct attack on American
sovereignty, and shouldn't we do everything we can to stop it?
Mr. Price. Absolutely.
Mr. Van Drew. That is the bottom line here, ladies and
gentlemen. This is a big deal. I am sorry for what you went
through. God knows, it is a big deal.
It doesn't matter if they agree with your face. It is your
face and it is your right to represent that face. You shouldn't
go to jail, you shouldn't be fined, you shouldn't be
embarrassed, and you shouldn't be censored. Damn it, we are
sick of it.
Instead of talking about that, which is an area we should
all agree on, Republican and Democrat, what do we do? We avoid
it and we go to the political issues of the day. Every hearing.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, that the gentleman's time has
expired by about 49 seconds.
Mr. Van Drew. My time has expired, yes. I think the real
Chair is going to take over now.
Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] We have about 20 minutes. If you
can all hang with us for 20 minutes, that would be great.
We are going to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, and
then Ms. Hageman, the gentleman from South Carolina, and then
Mr. Onder from Missouri. The gentleman from Wisconsin is
recognized.
Mr. Grothman. Sure, thanks. I am very glad we are having
this hearing. I think it is a very scary hearing.
Not only because our platforms can be affected by laws
abroad, but frequently what happens in the United States,
happens in--I guess, you would say, the decline in the United
States right now that we see in our culture, sometimes follows
a decline in Europe.
When we hear what is going on in Europe today, we have to
be really careful what is going to happen in this country.
When I think that last time a Presidential candidate ran,
got 48 percent of the vote after the Administration she was in
tried to set up a Disinformation Governance Board, once that
was done, that party should have been in Timbuktu for a long
time.
In any event, Mr. Price, could you give us some more just
quick examples?
I am going to yield to my Chair, some quick examples,
egregious examples, so the American listening public can know
the type of speech they are banning in what used to be the
wonderful bastion of freedom, Europe?
Mr. Price. Yes, sir. Well, we, or my client here beside me,
Paivi Rasanen, have given a very good account of what has
happened to her.
We were, myself and my colleague, Paul Coleman, very
honored to stand beside her in her Supreme Court hearing.
That is just only one part of it. In the United Kingdom,
where, in London where I am living at the moment, we have a
situation where people are being criminally prosecuted for
praying silently, for offering to have conversations with
people in public places.
Mr. Grothman. Anti-Christianity in Europe.
Mr. Price. That is a very accurate way of describing it,
yes. We have situations where people are being prosecuted for
reading scripture when other people find it offensive,
particularly people from the Islamic community, and they make
criminal complaints. We act for those as well.
We have a client, for example, Rose Doherty in Scotland,
who held a sign saying, ``I'm here to talk if you want.'' Five
police officers arrived to arrest, detain, and search her for
breaching Scottish law in relation to that.
There are many examples. I have given some statistics in my
written testimony, which outline the dire State of affairs.
It is entirely correct when Vice President Vance said when
he was in Munich, that we now have a civilizational divide
opening up between Europe and the United States.
That would be bad enough for us on our own, if it wasn't
for the fact that the European Union is trying to impose it on
you as well, by virtue of these tech regulations such as the
DSA.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I am going to yield to my great
Chair here.
Chair Jordan. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for
yielding. Mr. Price, why are they really going after X?
Mr. Price. Sir, it is my view that they are going after X,
because X has decided to take a maximalist position for free
speech. To have the most possible free speech.
That is inimical to their view, which is that we cannot
have free speech.
Chair Jordan. The Left loved Elon Musk until he spent, what
did he say, I spent, ``I didn't spend $50 billion to buy
Twitter, I spent $50 billion to save the First Amendment.''
They loved him before he bought X and said, ``I'm going to
honor the First Amendment and respect the First Amendment.'' Is
that--would you agree, Mr. Linehan?
Mr. Linehan. Yes. The effect of all these policies in
Europe is, I will give you one example. In Dublin recently,
there were riots.
I have never seen riots in Dublin in my life. This is
because people cannot speak honestly about the thing that
matters most to them at the moment, which is unchecked
immigration.
That frustration and the kind of silencing of alternative
voices is what is leading to things like riots.
Long-term, we could see societal collapse. I really do
think that it is a possibility in some countries.
Chair Jordan. In the last Congress, we had a journalist
from Canada, Rupa Subramanya, came here, testified. She had
covered the truckers' crisis in Canada back during COVID.
She had covered that and been censored for her, as a
journalist, and been censored.
Mr. Linehan. Yes.
Chair Jordan. She sat right there and said the same thing
you did. She said, ``the hallmark of Western civilization is
free debate, free expression.''
Mr. Linehan. Yes.
Chair Jordan. To your point, if you don't have that, the
alternative is scary, right?
Mr. Linehan. Yes.
Chair Jordan. Because you can't settle the, then disputes
don't get settled via debate, they get settled via some other
way. That is the scary thing.
That is what is so frustrating. The DOJ, the SEC, and the
FTC, all go after Elon Musk here in the United States after he
buys Twitter.
Now, we got Spain, the U.K., and Ireland, all going after
him. France going after him, the EU. Never before when he was
on the Left.
As soon as he comes out for free speech--
Mr. Linehan. Yes.
Chair Jordan. Free expression, here comes the government. A
scary, scary world.
Again, thank you all for--I do have to run, I apologize. We
are going to let someone else Chair. We are down to the last 20
minutes.
Before I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, I
wanted to say thank you all for coming. We appreciate it.
Doctor, thank you.
Many people have said it, but the courage that you have
shown, and frankly, the courage Mr. Linehan has shown, when you
are attacked for speaking your mind.
God bless you. We really appreciate you all being here. Mr.
Price and Mr. Mayell, we appreciate you. We will have you all
back at some point as well.
With that, I recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina
for five minutes.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I find it ironic that my
Republican colleagues are spending this Committee's time
talking about an imagined threat of Europe to America's freedom
of speech and innovation.
Never has freedom of speech in this country been more under
threat, maybe since the Alien and Sedition Act. The threat
isn't coming from Brussels. It comes from inside the White
House and the President's cabinet.
We are seeing this Administration send masked roving
paramilitary forces to cities whose leaders have stood up to
the President.
We are seeing these agents use the excuse of immigration
enforcement to execute American citizens in the street for
exercising their freedom of speech and their freedom of
assembly.
If you are executed without a trial, don't worry, the
Administration's chief propagandist will make up the reason why
you deserved it, 10 minutes after the news breaks. Probably
because you committed domestic terrorism by filming them.
Even Saturday Night Live had a good time with that last
weekend. Helping a woman up who had been pushed to the ground.
In my State of North Carolina, ICE and CBP descended on
cities, snatching up people based on the color of their skin or
because of where they worked, frequently, U.S. citizens.
It is not just Republicans in the Federal Executive Branch
that are going after freedom of speech. When ProPublica was
researching a story on how Paul Newby, the Chief Justice of the
North Carolina Supreme Court, politicized a once impartial and
respected institution, the spokesman for the North Carolina
Republican Party told ProPublica that, ``I'm sure you're aware
of our connections with the Trump Administration, and I'm sure
they would be interested in this matter. And I would strongly
suggest you dropping this story.''
The Trump Administration called Renee Goode and Alex
Pretti, agitators and domestic terrorists. They have used
rubber bullets, real bullets, tear gas, and military equipment
against peaceful protestors.
The Administration is calling everyday Minnesotans, who
record ICE and CBP officers, agitators. Mr. Mayell, does
recording immigration enforcement agents make someone an
agitator?
Mr. Mayell. You have a First Amendment right to record and
video law enforcement.
Ms. Ross. Does delivering meals to neighbors too scared to
leave their home make someone an agitator?
Mr. Mayell. Delivering meals is not unlawful activity.
Ms. Ross. Does standing outside a school pickup line to
make sure your child's friend doesn't get abducted make someone
a domestic terrorist?
Mr. Mayell. My understanding of the definition of
``domestic terrorism'' does not match any of what we have seen.
Ms. Ross. Yet, all this is happening in your State?
Mr. Mayell. Our State is under siege in a way that we have
not seen, certainly not in my lifetime, and free speech is
under threat in a way that--in the most significant way that we
have seen in our lifetime. The rule of law is under siege.
Ms. Ross. Well, I really want--I appreciate your testimony
today. I appreciate what you're doing during this very
difficult time to protect Americans' right to free speech.
Every time I do a townhall, people ask me what they can do,
I remind them that in this country we have the First Amendment,
and the only way we can change things is to use every single
right in the First Amendment. Pull out your Constitution and
pick what you're going to do, whether it's praying, speaking,
petitioning the government for redress of grievance. We have
all those rights in this country, and we should be proud of our
citizens for standing up against their government when their
rights are being infringed.
Mr. Chair--or Madam Chairwoman, I didn't notice. Thank you.
I have a unanimous consent request. It's from the San
Antonio Express News, January 25, 2026, ``Pete Hegseth censures
Mark Kelly for saying the things he himself said.''
Ms. Hageman. [Presiding.] Ordered.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I now recognize myself for five
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Linehan, in your testimony, you describe how the U.K.
police identify what they refer to as ``noncrime hate
incidents'' against citizens, even if there's no actual
violation of the law. Talk about Orwellian. Could you please
briefly explain to us what a ``noncrime hate incident'' is?
Mr. Linehan. It's, essentially, the British Government's
attempt to control people's speech without appearing to.
``noncrime hate incidents,'' I believe they appear on
background checks, but it's very hard to find out what they are
saying about you.
I was invited to the Conservative Party Conference in the
U.K., and my accreditation was turned down. I still don't know
why. The Conservative Party overthrew it. I have a feeling that
my--the kind of popular conception about me being a bigot, and
so on, has found its way into the police files.
Ms. Hageman. You're saying these allegations against
British citizens actually appear on your record like a criminal
conviction, but there is a criminal conviction. Is that right?
Mr. Linehan. That's right. That's right.
Ms. Hageman. This sounds to me like a form of a social
credit score, where the State uses taxpayer funds to collect
information on its citizen as a mechanism for public shaming.
Is that a fair description?
Mr. Linehan. I would say so, yes.
Ms. Hageman. Are these so-called ``noncrime hate
incidents,'' are they at least enforced equally? In other
words, are these targeted against people of certain religious
or political beliefs or against people who fail to subscribe to
in-vogue woke ideology?
Mr. Linehan. Well, I'm not sure. As I said earlier, I think
the U.K. police, their main job now is keeping the people under
control. Because too many of them are noticing things that are
worrying them, things that they want to talk about, and they're
not allowed to talk about it.
For instance, the BBC, for 10 years now, has basically
ignored the gender issue completely, which means that the side
of the story that is just a very kind of calm and compassionate
laying out of things that feminists believe is just unspoken on
the BBC.
Yes. I don't know, I don't know much about the operation of
noncrime hate incidents. I believe, because of my arrest, they
say they're not going to prosecute them anymore; they're not
going to investigate them.
Ms. Hageman. Oh.
Mr. Linehan. I'm hoping that's true.
Ms. Hageman. Well, but isn't it a fact that the information
is then often used by employers, banks, people who may have
invited you to speak, to actually ruin someone's life--a person
that has not been convicted of any crime, but in this shadowy
netherworld of surveillance and observation, and trying to
define what is appropriate speech and inappropriate speech,
it's actually ruining people's lives or preventing people from
getting jobs, simply because of this nebulous antifree speech
other world.
Mr. Linehan. Sure. Yes.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Well, how did we come to this point? How
did a European country claiming to be free, and allied with us,
with our country, to defeat mankind's greatest threats to
freedom in the 20th century--here they are; they have now
become this type of very ugly, censorious regime. How did that
happen?
Mr. Linehan. Because they won't fix the problems that are
causing the--some people have been arrested for genuinely
violent speech, and they've gotten into trouble for that. A lot
of people are frustrated, simply because they cannot speak
about the things that matter to them. When they do speak about
the things that matter to them, they're labeled as bigots or
racists. Also, I think it's the same here as well, in the sense
that--
Ms. Hageman. Yes, it is.
Mr. Linehan. --it's not just the absence of people talking
about it; it's mainstream legacy media directing people's
attention elsewhere and simply not reporting on things.
There's just a huge bubbling sense of frustration that
could, as I said earlier, lead to some sort of societal
collapse. I don't think that's out of the question at all.
Ms. Hageman. That your warning in that regard is very well
taken, at least for some of us on this panel.
The first act of a tyrant is to strip you of your right to
speak, because they know that their policies and ideas cannot
withstand scrutiny, which is, I believe, what you're saying.
They cannot survive being mocked. That we're seeing that
repeatedly in England, in Spain, in France, and other
countries. We're seeing it here as well.
We do have the First Amendment, freedom of speech. We have
the right to freedom of speech. What I have been observing in
terms of what is going on in Europe is they cannot tolerate
dissent; they cannot tolerate alternative views, because they
cannot tolerate the scrutiny that will come with allowing
people to freely speak and having to defend the horrific
policies that they've been implementing in their countries for
the last couple of decades.
I'm out of time. I now am going to call on the gentleman
from South Carolina for his five minutes of questioning. Thank
you.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Price, are the Online
Safety Act and the Digital Services Act extraterritorial in
scope?
Mr. Price. They, in effect, are, yes.
Mr. Fry. They were not designed that way originally, right?
Mr. Price. Well, that's a very good question. There's
enough ambiguity that this was the intention in my view. It's
not precise.
Mr. Fry. At our last hearing, Mr. Farage--that you were
here--Mr. Farage discussed the emergence of a two-tiered system
of justice and how censorship efforts in the EU and the U.K.
disproportionately target conservatives and individuals
critical of their governments, particularly on issues like
migration.
Under the DSA, would a statement like, ``We need to take
our country back'' be considered illegal hate speech?
Mr. Price. It was given, in fact, that very phraseology, as
an example of something that would be in some of the documents
that this Committee has revealed.
Mr. Fry. Right. That was in the European Commission's May
2025 workshop, right?
Mr. Price. Yes. Correct.
Mr. Fry. In your opinion, do you think that there is a
migrant crisis in Europe?
Mr. Price. There is a very serious crisis in Europe with
migration, and I agree entirely with Graham that it's fueling a
lot of political division because our governments are not seen
to take actions on it, not take it seriously.
We saw in Spain recently over 500,000 migrants, their
status was changed. They were regularized or legalized, and
then, almost immediately afterwards, the Spanish Prime Minister
is announcing that he intends to launch a major crackdown on
what he describes as ``hate speech online.'' I don't think
those things are unconnected. I think they're very much
connected.
This is what we're seeing across the European Union as
well--a desperate attempt to hold together the civic discourse
by using censorship and threats. That's precisely--it's very
interesting talking to Ranking Member Raskin about this--it's
precisely the opposite of the tradition of this country
historically. You have the debate out in open here; whereas, in
Europe, your silenced, your suppressed, and your arrest.
Now, the problem with the DSA, as we've been describing,
that takes the European approach to things and it globalizes
it, and it forces it on the Americans.
Mr. Fry. That's kind of remarkable. If you live in Europe
and you recognize this migrant crisis, you see the strain maybe
on the social--the system itself. You see the money that's
being spent. You're kind of wondering, what about us that live
here?
If you were to speak out about that would be hateful
speech; therefore, illegal under the DSA, just by speaking out
about it. Briefly, under the DSA, who determines what qualifies
as hate speech or deceptive content? Who makes that
determination?
Mr. Price. That's made, in practice, by national
regulators, by local law enforcement. We all come down,
unfortunately, to the lowest common denominator, and, in
effect--I don't mean to be attacking Germany all the time--it's
Germany. The Germans and the U.K. has its own system outside of
the DSA, but the level of crackdown on speech in Germany is
unprecedented. 60 Minutes did a very good documentary
highlighting that issue.
Because of the German obsession with controlling speech,
that has been now expanded across the European Union, and is
now being globalized, unfortunately, through the DSA, we're
seeing everything set to that standard.
Mr. Fry. In effect, this is the subject of determination by
some faceless, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat that is
making the determination on what ``hate speech'' is or
``deceptive content'' is or is not.
Do you trust EU bureaucrats to define hate speech when they
label ``We need to take our country back'' as such?
Mr. Price. No, I don't, and as I say, most of the raft of
digital regulation that we've seen came in on the foot of the
so-called ``rise of the right,'' the BREXIT folks, and that's
very tightly connected. It's caused by that. It's correlated
with it. The reason being that they felt they had lost
narrative control, and Graham is correct, the legacy media in
Europe is heavily funded by the State in many accounts;
whereas, with X, people can post their opinions. They can get
millions of views for them.
Mr. Fry. Right. It's a free exchange of ideas. Right?
Mr. Price. A free exchange of ideas.
Mr. Fry. It's the modern public square. Under the DSA,
companies are required to monitor and censor such language, and
violations, obviously, would result in fines or maybe even FBI
raids or Federal raids in Paris on X. Right? That's the next
punitive step?
Mr. Price. Yes, sir, that's where we see--
Yes, the lawyers are often careful about making
predictions, but the next--I confidently predict that the next
round of fines on X will be connected with illegal content and
this content moderation for systemic risk. They identify so-
called ``antimigration narratives,'' or others, as a systemic
risk to the discourse inside the European Union, and they have
to stop it.
It's not just Europeans, and this is where this becomes
global. If you're in Texas, South Carolina, or New York, and
you're commenting on what's going on in Europe, saying, ``The
migration situation is a disaster,'' they don't want that
speech to leak across into Europe. Either X will start to
globally moderate it by removing it or we're going to see a
firewall being set up in the center of the Atlantic, and that
would be a disaster even further for free speech. It creates
exactly what Vice President Vance described as a
``civilizational divide.''
Mr. Fry. Well, it's alarming to me. I just visited the DMZ
a couple of months ago, and the divide between the West and
South Korea, if you will--
Mr. Price. Uh-hum.
Mr. Fry. --and then, North Korea, this seems like--and the
suppression, the length that the North Koreans go to make sure
that things don't come into the country sounds exactly like
where Europe is headed, and hopefully, they can course-correct,
and that we never follow them on this path.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and with that, I yield. Mr. Chair,
I yield back.
Mr. Onder. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. I want
to recognize myself for five minutes.
First, I want to personally thank you, Mr. Linehan and you
Dr. Rasanen, for your courage in speaking out against gender
ideology. I share your conviction, and I speak out because of
my own medical training and my understanding of human biology.
Most concerning of all, this ideology is dangerous when
it's imposed upon our children. For years, many of us have
raised alarms on this issue, despite knowing that it would be
unpopular.
I am often asked why I continue to press this point. The
answer is simple: Because we are confident, we are right and we
believe that, finally, now mainstream medicine in the United
States is catching up. We were late to the game compared to
some of our colleagues in Europe.
Just yesterday, a major U.S. medical association, the
American Association of Plastic Surgeons, reversed its position
and came out against so-called gender-affirming surgeries for
minors. They did so for very good reasons that many of us have
articulated for years. Because these procedures do more harm
than good, and they are not supported by solid clinical
evidence.
In response, the American Medical Association then
acknowledged that it is time to stop performing these surgeries
on children.
That is why I have worked with the Attorney General who
transmitted the Chloe Cole Act to Congress. This bill would
allow all victims who are permanently harmed by the
experimental trans-
gender procedures to sue for damages, and I look forward to
continuing that conversation when the Attorney General
testifies next week.
Mr. Price, I'm going to read you something that Pope Leo
the 14th said when he was serving as Bishop in Peru. I'd like
you to tell me whether this would be considered hate speech
under current European law. Quote,
The idea of promoting gender ideology is confusing because it
creates genders that don't exist. So, God created men and
women, and the attempt to confuse ideas from Nature will only
harm families and people.
He further said,
To talk about matters of identity and sexual orientation with a
child who hasn't yet reached a sufficient age of development
will create much confusion.
In your opinion, would this be considered hate speech and
subject to censorship and prosecution under European law?
Mr. Price. It's entirely possible that a prosecutor or
regulator somewhere in Europe could see that as denigrating a
specific identifiable group.
Mr. Onder. Yes. I believe--I'm Catholic--this is accurately
Catholic doctrine on this subject. It's actually, a soft
statement of it, in fact. The Catholic faith is shared by 1.4
billion people around the world. Potentially, the faith of 1.4
billion people around the world is hate speech?
Mr. Price. Yes.
Mr. Onder. Potentially?
Mr. Price. We've seen examples--there's Dr. Rasanen,
sitting beside me of people being prosecuted for their
religious beliefs.
Mr. Onder. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Onder. I would like to ask you, Doctor, you were
questioned by police about a message from the Book of Romans
and the meaning of the word ``sin.'' You were charged with the
crime, one categorized as ``a crime against humanity.'' The
prosecutor even lectured you on the Gospel itself.
Now, you were quoting from the Book of Romans, from the
Bible, considered by 2.6 million Christians around the world to
be the inspired word of God. Yet, this text you quoted was
considered to be hate speech. Do I understand your case
correctly?
Dr. Rasanen. Yes. Yes, you understand.
Mr. Onder. It's fair to say that the Finnish Government
adopted the position that speaking what you consider, and many,
probably billions of Christians around the world consider to be
biblical truth, they consider that to be hate speech?
Dr. Rasanen. Yes. In fact, it is the prosecutor general who
has said and who has claimed that this is hate speech. This is
against the law about agitation against minorities.
Mr. Onder. Yes. Well, thank you.
To describe the current European censorship regime as
Orwellian, I'll tell you, the Big Brother had nothing on the
European censorship industrial complex. From George Orwell's
1984,
The Ministry of Truth concerns itself with lies. War is peace,
freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
In the end, the Party could announce that 2 + 2 = 5, and you
would have to believe it.
We have a regime where boys can be girls; COVID came from
pangolins in a wet market; toddlers should be wearing masks;
Trump was elected by the Russians, and speech we don't like is
hate speech.
Western Civilization is in a sorry State if we reject
freedom of speech.
Thank you all, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, I just have a few UC requests.
Mr. Onder. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly.
First, ``Elon Musk, King of Censorship: 10 Times the `Free
Speech Absolutist' Silenced Twitter Users,'' Gizmodo.
Second, Salon, ``Trump's war on comedy threatens the free
speech for all Americans.''
Third, aclu.org's No. 162025, ``Trump Is Firing Federal
Workers over Beliefs He Doesn't Like.''
Fourth, ``Trump calls for `termination' of 60 Minutes in
fresh attack on the U.S. media.''
Mr. Onder. This concludes today's hearing. We thank the
witnesses for appearing before the Committee today.
Without objection, all Committee Members will have five
legislative days to submit additional written questions for the
witnesses or materials for the record.
Mr. Onder. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Committee on the Judiciary can be found at: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118923.
[all]