Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that European laws and regulations unfairly and unreasonably burden American speech and innovation.
- Bill Number
- H.Res. 967
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- International Affairs
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-12-18: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Last Updated
- 2026-01-09T09:07:04Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This House Resolution (H. Res. 967) expresses the sense of the U.S. House of Representatives that certain European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK) laws and regulations unfairly burden American free speech and innovation. It disapproves of these foreign measures and urges the U.S. government to protect constitutional rights and economic interests without enacting new laws itself, as resolutions like this are non-binding statements of opinion.
Key Provisions
The resolution includes a series of "Whereas" clauses outlining concerns and a "Resolved" section with five main directives:
- Disapproval of foreign laws: Expresses opposition to the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA, which regulates online platforms to combat illegal content and disinformation) and Digital Markets Act (DMA, which promotes competition by targeting large tech firms); the UK's Online Safety Act (which aims to protect users from harmful online content) and Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (which addresses anti-competitive practices); and similar laws elsewhere.
- Call for diplomatic and economic protection of free speech: Urges the Trump administration to use tools like negotiations or sanctions to safeguard U.S. citizens' First Amendment rights (the constitutional guarantee of free expression) from foreign censorship.
- Protection of American innovation: Directs the administration to counter foreign antitrust actions (efforts to break up or regulate monopolies) that could harm U.S. companies and consumers.
- Rejection of foreign antitrust principles: Instructs the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC, agencies that enforce U.S. competition laws) to disregard the antitrust approaches in the EU's DMA and UK's equivalent act.
- Non-cooperation with enforcement: Calls on the DOJ and FTC to avoid assisting European governments in enforcing these or similar foreign antitrust laws.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This resolution introduces no changes to U.S. law, as it is a non-binding expression of congressional opinion rather than enforceable legislation. It does not amend statutes, create new rules, or allocate funds, but it signals potential future policy directions.
Potential Impacts
- On government agencies: The DOJ and FTC may face internal or congressional pressure to limit cooperation with EU and UK regulators, potentially altering how they handle international antitrust cases or data-sharing agreements.
- On citizens: U.S. individuals could benefit from stronger advocacy for online free speech protections, but it might complicate access to global platforms if tensions escalate.
- On international relations: Could strain U.S.-EU and U.S.-UK ties by framing European regulations as unfair trade barriers or attacks on American values, possibly leading to retaliatory measures or diplomatic negotiations over tech policy.
- Broader effects: American tech companies might see reduced compliance burdens abroad if U.S. actions deter foreign enforcement, but it risks higher costs from ongoing transatlantic disputes.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- U.S. Congress: Particularly the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Judiciary, which oversee the resolution's referral and could influence related hearings.
- U.S. Executive Branch: The Trump administration, DOJ, and FTC, tasked with responding to the calls for action.
- American tech companies: Firms like Meta and Alphabet (Google's parent), cited for past censorship pressures, stand to gain from reduced foreign regulatory burdens but may face short-term diplomatic fallout.
- U.S. citizens and innovators: Individuals exercising free speech online and workers/consumers in the tech sector, protected indirectly through advocacy against "misinformation" and "hate speech" labels (terms often used to restrict content deemed false or offensive).
- European and UK governments: Targeted as imposing "de facto international standards" that allegedly favor local competitors and fund social programs at U.S. expense.
- Global users: Affected by potential shifts in content moderation on international platforms.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional: Reinforces the First Amendment's primacy in U.S. policy, portraying foreign regulations as threats to domestic free expression without due process (fair legal procedures before penalties). It highlights concerns over extraterritorial jurisdiction, where foreign laws apply to U.S.-based activities.
- Legal: Could prompt U.S. agencies to prioritize national over international antitrust cooperation, potentially challenging treaties or mutual legal assistance pacts. No direct legal challenges arise, but it may inspire lawsuits against foreign fines on U.S. firms.
- Political: Serves as a partisan statement post-2024 election, critiquing prior administrations' censorship ties and aligning with "America First" priorities. It risks politicizing tech regulation, escalating U.S.-Europe divides on issues like disinformation, and influencing midterm or future congressional agendas without binding force.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2]
Cosponsors (6)
Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13], Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1], Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5], Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38], Rep. Edwards, Chuck [R-NC-11], Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]
Recent Actions
- 2025-12-18: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-12-18: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-12-18: Submitted in House
- 2025-12-18: Submitted in House
Bill Versions
- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that European laws and regulations unfairly and unreasonably burden American speech and innovation. — issued 2025-12-18 — PDF (4 pages)