The American Firewall: Technical and Geopolitical Mechanisms of Information Isolationism in the Second Trump Administration

by Gemini 3.0, Deep Research. Warning, LLMs may hallucinate!

Executive Summary

As of December 2025, the digital information landscape of the United States has undergone a radical structural transformation. Under the second administration of President Donald Trump, a coordinated effort utilizing executive authority, regulatory pressure, and immigration policy has effectively constructed a “digital iron dome” designed to shield the American electorate from foreign information deemed critical of the administration. This report, based on exhaustive technical and policy analysis, concludes that the U.S. government, often in coerced or strategic collaboration with major technology firms, is prioritizing “information sovereignty” over the traditional open internet model.

The mechanisms employed are not the blunt blocking tools of authoritarian regimes, but rather a sophisticated matrix of legal and economic deterrents. The administration has redefined the moderation of foreign disinformation as “censorship of American speech,” thereby delegitimizing the removal of hostile foreign narratives if they align with domestic political goals. Simultaneously, the “enhanced vetting” of H-1B visa applicants has decapitated the Trust and Safety infrastructure of Silicon Valley, removing the human expertise required to identify and contextualize foreign information operations.

This report details the technical implementation of these policies, from the granular review of GitHub commits by consular officers to the algorithmic deprioritization of news content by Meta and Google. It analyzes the geopolitical rift with the European Union over the Digital Services Act (DSA), the strategic alignment between the administration and X (formerly Twitter), and the dismantling of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC). The cumulative effect is a fragmented internet where the American digital sphere is increasingly isolated from global critique, creating a hermetically sealed information ecosystem protected by state power.

1. The Geopolitical and Legal Framework of Information Sovereignty

The transition from a “global internet” to a “sovereign internet” in the United States has been driven by a fundamental reinterpretation of First Amendment principles and national security priorities. The administration’s policy framework, established immediately upon President Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, treats the flow of information across borders not as a trade or speech issue, but as a domain of warfare where “protection” of the citizenry is paramount.

1.1 Executive Order 14149: The Doctrine of “Anti-Censorship”

The cornerstone of this new paradigm is Executive Order 14149, signed on January 20, 2025, titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship”.¹ While the public narrative surrounding EO 14149 focused on preventing the federal government from coercing platforms to remove domestic misinformation (a reaction to the Murthy v. Missouri case and pandemic-era policies), its application has had profound extraterritorial consequences.²

The order prohibits federal agencies from communicating with social media platforms for the purpose of “suppressing” speech. In practice, this has severed the lines of communication between the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and technology companies regarding foreign influence operations. By framing the flagging of foreign propaganda as potential “censorship by proxy,” the EO has created a chilling effect where agencies like the FBI and DHS are reluctant to warn platforms about foreign information campaigns for fear of violating the order or facing investigation by the Department of Justice.⁵

This legal maneuver effectively insulates foreign narratives from government scrutiny. If a Russian or Chinese state actor amplifies a narrative that is also being shared by Americans, any government attempt to flag that foreign activity is now legally perilous, interpreted as an infringement on the “constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens” who might be engaging with that content.⁴

1.2 The Redefinition of “Foreign Malign Influence”

The administration has fundamentally altered the definition of Foreign Malign Influence (FMI). Historically, the Foreign Malign Influence Center (FMIC) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) defined FMI as subversive activities by foreign powers to undermine democratic processes.⁷ Under the current policy framework, FMI is increasingly viewed through a partisan lens.

The dismantling of the Global Engagement Center (GEC) at the State Department in April 2025 serves as the primary case study for this shift. The GEC was the lead interagency body for exposing foreign disinformation.⁸ Its closure was justified by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the grounds that it had “devolved into tools for political censorship” and was “wasting taxpayer money”.⁹

However, the technical consequence of closing the GEC is the blinding of the U.S. government to foreign information environments. The GEC managed the “disarming disinformation” portfolio, which included tracking Russian and Chinese narratives in real-time.¹¹ By eliminating this node, the administration has removed the primary mechanism for distinguishing between organic foreign discourse and coordinated state manipulation. The result is a permissive environment for foreign narratives that support the administration, while critical narratives are labeled as “interference” by political appointees rather than career analysts.¹²

1.3 The Weaponization of the FCC and “Public Interest”

Domestically, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under Chairman Brendan Carr has expanded the scope of “public interest” obligations to pressure media entities. While the FCC’s direct authority over internet platforms is limited compared to broadcasters, Carr’s aggressive posture against broadcasters—exemplified by the threat to revoke licenses over content decisions involving Jimmy Kimmel in late 2025—signals a willingness to use regulatory levers to punish content decisions deemed hostile to the President.¹⁴

This “permission structure,” as Carr described it, extends to Big Tech. The threat of Title II reclassification or the removal of Section 230 protections remains a potent Sword of Damocles. Tech companies, observing the pressure campaigns against legacy media (ABC, CBS, Disney), have engaged in anticipatory compliance, adjusting their content policies to avoid becoming the next target of a “news distortion” investigation.¹⁶ This regulatory environment forces companies to err on the side of non-removal for pro-administration content, regardless of its origin or veracity.

2. The Weaponization of Immigration Policy: The “Censorship” Visa Ban

One of the most technically intricate and effective mechanisms for shielding Americans from foreign criticism has been the weaponization of the U.S. immigration system. In December 2025, the State Department implemented a policy of “enhanced vetting” for H-1B visa applicants, specifically targeting the global workforce responsible for Trust and Safety operations in Silicon Valley.

2.1 The “Censorship” Ineligibility Standard

The policy, detailed in a State Department cable sent to diplomatic missions, instructs consular officers to deny visas to individuals “responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship of protected expression”.¹⁸ Crucially, the definition of “censorship” in this context has been expanded to include standard content moderation activities such as:

• Fact-checking

• Content moderation

• Misinformation/Disinformation mitigation

• Trust and Safety compliance.²⁰

This policy effectively criminalizes the profession of online safety for foreign nationals. Consular officers are directed to scrutinize the LinkedIn profiles, resumes, and even GitHub activity of applicants to identify past employment or contributions to projects related to “online safety” or “fact-checking”.²²

2.2 Technical Impact on Content Moderation Infrastructure

The impact of this policy on the technical infrastructure of social media platforms is catastrophic. Trust and Safety is a discipline that relies heavily on cultural and linguistic diversity. To effectively moderate content originating from outside the U.S., platforms require native speakers who understand regional dogwhistles, slang, and political contexts.²¹

By banning foreign workers with this specific expertise, the administration is forcing a “brain drain” within the tech sector.

1. Decapitation of Expertise: Senior policy experts and engineers specializing in abuse detection are often foreign nationals on H-1B visas. The threat of visa non-renewal or denial forces these individuals to leave the U.S. or transfer to other roles, hollowing out the institutional knowledge required to combat complex foreign information operations.²³

2. Paralysis of Enforcement: Tech companies, fearing liability for their employees, are incentivized to dismantle or offshore their Trust and Safety teams entirely. This results in a degradation of the feedback loops between human moderators and automated systems (AI classifiers). Without expert human review (Human-in-the-Loop), AI models become less accurate at detecting nuance, leading to either massive over-blocking (which companies avoid to prevent “censorship” accusations) or massive under-blocking.²⁴

3. Blindness to Foreign Context: As the workforce becomes more homogenized and US-centric due to visa restrictions, the ability of platforms to distinguish between legitimate foreign criticism and coordinated foreign malign influence diminishes. This serves the administration’s goal: if platforms cannot confidently identify “malign” foreign content, they are less likely to remove it, especially if that content supports the administration.

2.3 Expansion of Travel Bans

Beyond the tech sector, the administration has expanded the list of countries subject to travel bans to over 30 nations, including many with volatile political climates.²⁵ This restriction further isolates the U.S. from direct human intelligence and cultural exchange. The reported cancellation of naturalization ceremonies for individuals from these countries underscores the hostility toward foreign integration, reinforcing the narrative that foreign influence is inherently suspect.²⁷ This creates a physical barrier that complements the digital one, reducing the number of voices within the U.S. capable of challenging the administration’s narrative on foreign policy.

3. The Transatlantic Digital Schism: The U.S. vs. The European Union

The most significant geopolitical front in the battle for information control is the deepening rift between the United States and the European Union. The conflict centers on the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a regulatory framework designed to force platforms to mitigate systemic risks, including disinformation. The Trump administration has framed the DSA not as a safety regulation, but as a “foreign censorship threat” to American sovereignty.

3.1 The “Foreign Censorship” Narrative

In late 2025, the European Commission fined X (formerly Twitter) €120 million for breaches of the DSA, specifically citing “deceptive” verification practices (the blue checkmark) and lack of advertising transparency.²⁸ The reaction from the Trump administration was immediate and coordinated.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly characterized the fine as “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments”.³¹ This rhetoric elevates a commercial regulatory dispute into a matter of national defense. By framing EU regulation as an aggression, the administration provides political cover for U.S. companies to refuse compliance.

3.2 The Threat of Regulatory Retaliation and Geo-Blocking

The administration has threatened to retaliate against the EU, potentially through tariffs or counter-investigations, if European regulators persist in enforcing the DSA against American companies.³³ The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), aligned with this view, has warned tech firms that complying with foreign “censorship” laws (like the DSA) could constitute an “unfair or deceptive practice” under U.S. law if it impacts American users.³⁴

This puts global tech platforms in a double bind.

• Compliance with EU Law: Risks U.S. antitrust retaliation and political wrath.

• Compliance with US “Anti-Censorship” Policy: Risks massive EU fines (up to 6% of global turnover).

The likely outcome, and one that appears to be emerging, is Geo-blocking. To satisfy both masters, platforms are moving toward a fragmented model where the internet experience in the U.S. is distinct from that in Europe.³⁵ U.S. users would be shielded from the transparency tools and fact-checking labels required in Europe, while EU users might be blocked from accessing certain U.S. content that violates DSA standards. This fragmentation effectively shields Americans from the “safety” features mandated by Europe, ensuring that the U.S. information ecosystem remains unregulated and permeable to the administration’s preferred narratives.

3.3 X (Twitter) as a State Proxy

The platform X, owned by Elon Musk, has become the primary vehicle for this transatlantic confrontation. Musk’s appointment to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has blurred the line between the private platform and the state.³⁶ X’s refusal to comply with DSA transparency requirements is now backed by the full weight of U.S. diplomacy.

This alignment transforms X into a state proxy. The platform’s algorithm, which Musk has admitted to tweaking, amplifies the administration’s messaging while suppressing “woke” or critical content under the guise of “freedom of speech”.³⁷ The removal of headlines from news links and the deprioritization of external links further insulate users from detailed reporting, reducing complex geopolitical issues to viral memes and soundbites that favor populist narratives.

4. Corporate Retreat and Algorithmic Soft Power

While X openly collaborates with the administration, Meta (Facebook/Instagram) and Google have adopted a strategy of defensive retreat. Facing the threat of antitrust action and the “censorship” visa bans, these companies have systematically dismantled their counter-disinformation capabilities, resulting in a “soft” shielding of the American public from critical news.

4.1 Meta: The End of News and Fact-Checking

In January 2025, Meta announced a pivotal shift in its content strategy: the termination of its third-party fact-checking program in the U.S. and its replacement with a “Community Notes” model.³⁸ This decision was explicitly framed by executives as a move to “allow more speech” and avoid “enforcement mistakes,” language that directly mirrors the administration’s critique of moderation.³⁹

Technical Implications:

• Removal of Guardrails: Third-party fact-checkers provided a verified layer of truth that could label viral falsehoods. “Community Notes,” while useful, rely on consensus which can be brigaded or manipulated by coordinated groups, especially in a polarized environment.

• Deprioritization of Political Content: Meta’s algorithm has been retuned to suppress “political content” in the Feed, effectively reducing the reach of news outlets.⁴⁰ This disproportionately affects foreign news organizations, which often rely on social distribution to reach U.S. audiences. By replacing news with entertainment and “creator” content, Meta insulates users from the friction of geopolitical reality.

4.2 Google: Core Updates and the Visibility of Foreign Sources

Google’s search algorithms underwent significant changes in 2025, specifically the March and June “Core Updates”.⁴¹ While ostensibly aimed at reducing “spam” and “unhelpful content,” analysis suggests these updates have consolidated traffic towards a smaller set of domestic, mainstream sites, while penalizing niche or foreign independent outlets that lack the “authority” signals Google now prioritizes.

Furthermore, Google has updated its political content policies to restrict election ads and political visibility, particularly aligning with the new U.S. administrative reality.⁴² The removal of thousands of YouTube channels linked to China and Russia continues, but the transparency around these takedowns has decreased.⁴⁴ The risk is that these automated takedowns are now calibrated to remove anti-administration foreign influence while being more permissive of pro-administration foreign influence, under the cover of “national security.”

4.3 The “Chilling Effect” on Trust and Safety

The combination of visa bans and regulatory threats has led to a widespread “chilling effect.” Tech companies are preemptively firing or reassigning Trust and Safety staff to avoid confrontation with the State Department.²³

• Internal Self-Censorship: Employees are reportedly hesitant to flag content from high-profile foreign accounts that support Trump, fearing that such action will be interpreted as “censorship” and lead to personal or corporate retaliation.

• Reduced Transparency: The publication of transparency reports has become less detailed, masking the extent of government requests or the nature of content removals.⁴⁶ This opacity serves the administration by obscuring the mechanics of information control.

5. Hard Power: Bans, Seizures, and Sovereign Nets

Beyond soft pressure, the administration has utilized hard power to physically sever connections to “hostile” information nodes.

5.1 The TikTok Limbo: Leverage over Ban

The legal saga of TikTok exemplifies the administration’s transactional approach to information control. Despite the passage of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act in 2024, the Trump administration has repeatedly delayed enforcement through a series of Executive Orders, extending deadlines into late 2025.⁴⁷

Strategic Insight: The delay suggests that the threat of a ban is more valuable than the ban itself. By keeping the Sword of Damocles hanging over ByteDance, the administration holds immense leverage to ensure the platform’s algorithm does not promote anti-Trump content. A compliant TikTok, owned by China but moderated to U.S. executive standards, is preferable to a banned TikTok. However, the legal framework remains ready to be deployed instantly if the platform becomes a vector for critical foreign narratives.

5.2 Starlink and the “Sovereign” Internet

The controversy surrounding Starlink in late 2025 highlights the role of infrastructure providers in information shielding. Investigations have revealed that Starlink terminals were being used by scam centers in Myanmar, yet action to disable them was slow and politically charged.⁵⁰

More broadly, the ability of Starlink to bypass local censorship (as seen in Brazil or Iran) is now being inverted. If the U.S. administration deems certain foreign sites “illegal” or “malign,” it can pressure Starlink (via its owner’s government role) to geo-block those sites at the satellite level for U.S. users. The seizure of 32 Russian domains by the DOJ in late 2024 set the legal precedent for seizing “malign” infrastructure.⁵²

5.3 FARA as an Information Weapon

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) has been revitalized as a tool to delegitimize foreign media. The administration has renewed pressure on Al Jazeera(AJ+) to register as a foreign agent, citing its funding by Qatar and its critical coverage of U.S. foreign policy.⁵³

Designating a media outlet as a “foreign agent” triggers labeling requirements on social media (if the platforms comply) and stigmatizes the content for American audiences. It also opens the door to limiting the access of these outlets’ journalists to government officials and press briefings. This creates a two-tier press system where “friendly” foreign media operate freely, while “critical” foreign media are legally branded as tools of espionage or influence.

6. The Intelligence Vacuum: Dismantling the Watchdogs

The final pillar of the shielding strategy is the intentional blinding of the U.S. government itself.

6.1 The End of the Global Engagement Center (GEC)

The closure of the GEC was not merely a budgetary decision; it was a strategic dismantling of the “disinformation defense” architecture. The GEC was the primary node for sharing threat intelligence with NATO allies and the EU.⁵⁴ By shutting it down, the administration has severed the U.S. from the global early-warning system for Russian and Chinese information operations.

Consequence: Without the GEC, there is no centralized body to identify and publicize foreign disinformation campaigns unless they are strictly cyber-intrusions handled by the NSA/Cyber Command. Narratives that spread organically or through “gray” channels are now ignored. This allows foreign actors who are savvy enough to avoid hacking—and who amplify pro-administration themes—to operate with impunity.

6.2 The Purge of CISA and the DHS

The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), specifically its “Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation” (MDM) team, has been effectively neutralized. The firing of key staff and the reorientation of the agency away from “cognitive infrastructure” protection means the federal government has ceased monitoring domestic disinformation, even when it has foreign origins.⁵

This creates a feedback loop: Foreign actors plant a narrative; Americans pick it up; the narrative becomes “protected domestic speech”; the government is legally barred by EO 14149 from flagging it; and the agencies that could have flagged it (GEC/CISA) no longer exist or are staffed by loyalists who view the narrative as beneficial.

7. Conclusion: The State of the Shield in December 2025

The research indicates that the shielding of American citizens from negative foreign information is not a future possibility but an operational reality. It is being achieved through a “defense-in-depth” strategy:

1. Layer 1: The Human Firewall. Visa bans have removed the foreign experts needed to detect and moderate non-English or nuanced foreign threats within US tech companies.

2. Layer 2: The Regulatory Firewall. Threats of antitrust action and the weaponization of the FCC have forced broadcasters and tech platforms to self-censor and deprioritize “political” content to avoid government wrath.

3. Layer 3: The Ideological Firewall. The redefinition of “censorship” has delegitimized any attempt to moderate foreign propaganda, provided that propaganda aligns with the administration’s “free speech” definition (i.e., is not critical of the administration).

4. Layer 4: The Infrastructural Firewall. The dismantling of the GEC and the isolation from EU regulatory standards (DSA) have severed the U.S. from the global information integrity ecosystem.

The result is a United States that is digitally sovereign but informationally isolated. American citizens are increasingly living in an algorithmic reality that is distinct from the rest of the world, shielded from foreign critique not by a single “Great Firewall,” but by a thousand invisible cuts to the infrastructure of truth and transparency.

8. Works Cited in this Report

1. Executive Order 14149 - Wikipedia, accessed December 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14149

2. Murthy v. Missouri | Oyez, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-411

3. Murthy v. Missouri (2024) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia - Free Speech Center, accessed December 7, 2025, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/murthy-v-missouri-2024/

4. Executive Order: Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship | Insights, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/01/executive-order-restoring-freedom-of-speech

5. The Mechanics of Government Censorship - Senate Commerce Committee, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/BFE7787E-0C18-47DF-B781-D6B92613DDC3

6. Restoring Freedom Of Speech And Ending Federal Censorship - The White House, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/

7. FMI Primer - DNI.gov, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.dni.gov/files/FMIC/documents/products/04-25-24_Report_FMI-Primer-Public-Release.pdf

8. Report to Congress on Efforts to Combat Disinformation of Foreign Adversaries and Authoritarian Regimes - State Department, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Report-Efforts-to-Combat-Disinformation-of-Foreign-Adversaries-006070-Accessible-07.15.202.pdf

9. Global Engagement Center - Wikipedia, accessed December 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Engagement_Center

10. United States Champions Free Expression, Ceases Censorship Frameworks, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/09/united-states-champions-free-expression-ceases-censorship-frameworks

11. Disarming Disinformation - United States Department of State, accessed December 7, 2025, https://2021-2025.state.gov/disarming-disinformation/

12. The Downfall of the Global Engagement Center and Disappearing Guardrails Against Disinformation | TechPolicy.Press, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.techpolicy.press/the-downfall-of-the-global-engagement-center-and-disappearing-guardrails-against-disinformation/

13. Protecting and Championing Free Speech at the State Department, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.state.gov/protecting-and-championing-free-speech-at-the-state-department

14. The Honorable Brendan Carr Page 1 September 18, 2025 The Honorable Brendan Carr Chairman Federal Communications Commission 45 L, accessed December 7, 2025, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-415483A3.pdf

15. Beyond Kimmel, the FCC controversy exposes a larger struggle over free speech, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/beyond-kimmel-the-fcc-controversy-exposes-a-larger-struggle-over-free-speech/

16. The Honorable Fara Damelin - Democrats, Energy and Commerce Committee |, accessed December 7, 2025, https://democrats-energycommerce.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-energycommerce.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/sept-2025-fcc-oig-letter-re-censorship-and-abuse-of-office.pdf

17. Sen. Cantwell Asks the Important Question at Opening of Committee Hearing on Government Censorship: Where is Chairman Carr?, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/10/sen-cantwell-asks-the-important-question-at-opening-of-committee-hearing-on-government-censorship-where-is-chairman-carr

18. Trump administration orders enhanced vetting for H-1B visa applicants against ‘censorship’ of free speech, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/trump-administration-orders-enhanced-vetting-for-h-1b-visa-applicants-against-censorship-of-free-speech/article70355985.ece

19. H-1B visa row: Trump admin orders enhanced vetting for applicants — what are the new requirements?, accessed December 7, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-business/h-1b-visa-row-trump-admin-orders-enhanced-vetting-for-applicants-what-are-the-new-requirements/articleshow/125756220.cms

20. Tech workers face new H1-B scrutiny as Trump targets ‘censorship’, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/12/06/trump-censorship-h1b-visas/

21. State Department to deny visas to fact checkers and others, citing ‘censorship’, accessed December 7, 2025, https://laist.com/news/state-department-deny-visas-fact-checkers-others-citing-censorship

22. Trump administration tightens H-1B visa vetting rules, targets applicants linked to censorship, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.businesstoday.in/nri/visa/story/trump-administration-tightens-h-1b-visa-vetting-rules-targets-applicants-linked-to-censorship-504898-2025-12-04

23. U.S. targets ‘online censorship’ jobs in new H-1B visa screening rules - VisaHQ, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.visahq.com/news/2025-12-06/us/us-targets-online-censorship-jobs-in-new-h-1b-visa-screening-rules/

24. AI-driven disinformation: policy recommendations for democratic resilience - PMC, accessed December 7, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12351547/

25. Trump administration will expand travel ban to more than 30 countries, Noem says, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.opb.org/article/2025/12/05/trump-administration-will-expand-travel-ban-to-more-than-30-countries-noem-says/

26. Homeland security head reveals plans to widen US travel ban to more than 30 countries, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/05/kristi-noem-travel-ban

27. Lawmakers decry Trump’s immigration halt for 19 countries: ‘scapegoating entire nationalities’, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/03/trump-immigration-ban

28. Trump Administration Locks Arms with Musk’s X Against EU Tech Enforcement, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.techpolicy.press/trump-administration-locks-arms-with-musks-x-against-eu-tech-enforcement/

29. EU slaps Elon Musk’s X with $140M fine, risking Trump ire | Daily Sabah, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.dailysabah.com/business/tech/eu-slaps-elon-musks-x-with-140m-fine-risking-trump-ire

30. Elon Musk’s X fined €120m by EU in first clash under new digital laws, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/dec/05/elon-musk-x-fined-eu-first-clash-under-new-digital-laws

31. US blasts EU fine on social media company X as ‘attack’ on American tech, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-blasts-eu-fine-on-social-media-company-x-as-attack-on-american-tech/3763419

32. EU decision to fine X ‘attack’ on US tech, users: Rubio | Daily Sabah, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.dailysabah.com/world/americas/eu-decision-to-fine-x-attack-on-us-tech-users-rubio

33. Trump threatens more tariffs after EU fines Google €2.95B - POLITICO Pro, accessed December 7, 2025, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/09/trump-threatens-more-tariffs-after-eu-fines-google-00547922

34. FTC Chair Warns Tech Firms: Weakening Encryption or Censoring Americans for Foreign Governments May Violate US Law | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/09/ftc-chair-warns-tech-firms

35. Special report 03/2025: Unjustified geo‑blocking in e‑commerce | European Court of Auditors, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/sr-2025-03

36. Political activities of Elon Musk - Wikipedia, accessed December 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_Elon_Musk

37. X transparency report looks like ‘last-ditch effort to win back advertisers’ | The Drum, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.thedrum.com/news/x-transparency-report-looks-last-ditch-effort-win-back-advertisers-experts-say

38. More Speech and Fewer Mistakes - About Meta, accessed December 7, 2025, https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/

39. Meta, Facebook to drop fact-checkers: What does this mean for social media? - Al Jazeera, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/10/meta-facebook-to-drop-fact-checkers-what-does-this-mean-for-social-media

40. Changes to the Facebook Algorithm Decreased News Visibility Between 2021-2024 - arXiv, accessed December 7, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2507.19373v1

41. March 2025 Core Update: SEOZoom analysis of the affected sites, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.seozoom.com/march-2025-core-update-complete-analysis/

42. Update to Political content policy (September 2025) - Google Help, accessed December 7, 2025, https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/16409999?hl=en-GB

43. Update to Political Content policy (July 2025) - Google Help, accessed December 7, 2025, https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/16289331?hl=en

44. TAG Bulletin: Q2 2025 - Google Blog, accessed December 7, 2025, https://blog.google/threat-analysis-group/tag-bulletin-q2-2025/

45. State Department to deny visas to fact checkers and others, citing ‘censorship’ - NEPM, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.nepm.org/national-world-news/2025-12-04/state-department-to-deny-visas-to-fact-checkers-and-others-citing-censorship

46. X Shares Latest Info on Content Removals and Government Requests | Social Media Today, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/x-formerly-twitter-account-removals-government-requests-data/741721/

47. Restrictions on TikTok in the United States - Wikipedia, accessed December 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_United_States

48. Further Extending the TikTok Enforcement Delay - The White House, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/further-extending-the-tiktok-enforcement-delay-9dde/

49. Saving TikTok While Protecting National Security - The White House, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/saving-tiktok-while-protecting-national-security/

50. US Congress committee investigating Musk-owned Starlink over Myanmar scam centres - The Guardian, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/14/us-congress-committee-investigating-musk-owned-starlink-over-myanmar-scam-centres

51. Starlink Halts Service to Myanmar Scam Centers Amid Congressional Probe - CNET, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/starlink-halts-service-to-myanmar-scam-centers-amid-congressional-probe/

52. US seizes 32 websites to stop alleged interference by Russia - Silicon Republic, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/us-russia-interfering-presidential-election-sites-seized

53. The Trump administration should bring Al Jazeera in line with US law - FDD, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2025/03/24/the-trump-administration-should-bring-al-jazeera-in-line-with-us-law/

54. FT: The USA ends international campaign to combat fake news from Russia, China and Iran, accessed December 7, 2025, https://babel.ua/en/news/121274-ft-the-usa-ends-international-campaign-to-combat-fake-news-from-russia-china-and-iran

55. Firewall Frenzy: Cyber Vendors Benefit Amid Rising Global Tensions - Capstone DC, accessed December 7, 2025, https://capstonedc.com/insights/cybersecurity-2025-preview/

56. Trump pauses immigration applications for 19 nations on travel ban list, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/12/02/trump-immigration-applications-paused-19-countries/

57. Raising Online Defenses Through Transparency and Collaboration - About Meta, accessed December 7, 2025, https://about.fb.com/news/2023/08/raising-online-defenses/

58. 3rd EEAS Report on Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Threats, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2025/EEAS-3nd-ThreatReport-March-2025-05-Digital-HD.pdf

59. FREEDOM ON THE NET 2025, accessed December 7, 2025, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Freedom_on_the_Net_2025_Digital.pdf

60. Internet Fragmentation Index - CLTC Berkeley, accessed December 7, 2025, https://cltc.berkeley.edu/publication/internet-fragmentation-index/