“Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation: Part II”

[Gavel sounds.] Committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Europe's threat to American speech and innovation. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Moskowitz, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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.

[Laughter.] Would that be a new rule? The guy who announces that he's here gets to do the individual who announces that they're here gets to do the gets to do the pledge. We will now start with opening statements and then we'll 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. And I just want to read the first sentence because I think this captures what we're talking about, what this hearing is about. 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." So we've highlighted this this first sentence. And I think this first sentence kind of captures it all. Here's someone from the European Commission, the executive branch of the European government, writing an American citizen about an American company and about the American presidential election. And he said the catalyst, the context, the reason he's 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's going to take place between Mr. Musk and the American presidential candidate. So 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're going to regulate the speech and are concerned about what may take place in this interview. That's 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 don'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. 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's wrong. We know that. But this hearing is about we disagree with that. But this hearing is about whether American speech in the United States is being silenced by regulators across the pond in Brussels. And the truth is, that's happening. Just look at these documents from TikTok. This is the community guidelines survey. If we can put that one up too. I just want to read the highlighted: "The primary motivation for the next round of community guidelines updates is to achieve compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA)." So here again, Europe's trying to influence speech and everything around the world. And what did TikTok censor in the U.S. to placate the Europeans? Let's go to the next document. I think this censored, quote, "marginalized speech and behavior, media presented out of context." I think that happens every single day in this probably in this committee. We are always putting unanimous consent about this media, that one, the other from something from the New York Times, the Wall, or something from from Fox or something like that. 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. But it gets worse. It's 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, Věra Jourová, 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 the EU travel to California to talk about U.S. elections? Is the Vice President, Ms. Jourová, is she interested in discussing both EU and U.S. election preparations or to stay mostly focused on the EU? Her response: "We are interested in both." I mean, that that to me is just unbelievable. But 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 try to hide what they're doing. They say that these censorship requirements are voluntary and achieved through consensus. But we don't think that's 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, because I think this this again captures it as well. Let's put the next one up there too, following on. There we go. Yeah, let's just look at the bottom one. "The European Commission is opening the GenAI subgroup under the Code of Practice. I assume we want to join and of course then you then comes the truth. We don't really have a choice. We don't really have a choice." Europeans try to hide what they're doing. They say that the censorship requirements are voluntary, but they're not and achieved through consensus, but we know that's not true as I said, and platforms have said it in this in this document. Finally, I just want to say today we have some some victims of European censorship. Ms. Räsänen, a doctor, devout Christian, and grandmother of 12. She tweeted out a Bible verse and is on trial under Finland's hate speech law. And that's the kind of censorship Europeans want worldwide. Mr. Linehan, I'm sure the left is going to be especially mad at you because you used to be one of them. We've had we had a similar witness. We had a similar witness couple years ago, Matt Taibbi, was 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. And here's 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. And here's the kicker: during the hearing, while he's sitting there testifying, the IRS was actually at his home knocking on his door while he was testifying to Congress. You talk about intimidation. While he was testifying to Congress, Biden administration had the IRS make a visit, make a friendly visit to his home. So we appreciate you being here as well. I don't think that's going to happen today because we have different folks in the in the White House. But we appreciate all our witnesses here. We will get to you in just a few minutes, but first I'm going to yield to the ranking member for an opening statement and then we'll get to your five-minute testimony. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, 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. So let's have it. Our freedom of speech, our freedom of assembly, our right to petition government for 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've killed Alex Petty, a U.S. citizen and ICU nurse treating military veterans for exercising his right to record government officials in action and to speak to and 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 Petty. As they pummeled him, one agent discovered Petty's firearm, which Petty 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's state's conceal and open carry laws, and then the ICE agents proceeded to shoot him 10 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'd 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, quote, "feel bullets continue to pierce her body all over." Quote, "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 in standing up for her community and for American freedom. I could recite, Mr. Chairman, equally gruesome cases to you for the next two hours if we had the time, but everyone should check out the sickening case of Alia Rahmam, 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 Petty as domestic terrorists with their pathetic propaganda they had to withdraw. If there are domestic terrorists on the loose in Minneapolis, it's not the unmasked people exercising their First Amendment rights. It's the masked agents who believe they operate with impunity and immunity and violent domination over the lowly citizens of America. So yeah, we need a hearing today, Mr. Chairman. It's been more than a month since 3,000 agents descended on Minneapolis, outnumbering the entire local police force three to one. It's been four weeks since they shot and killed Renee Good. It's been 10 days since Alex Petty 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 6 insurrectionists like Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who now may have gone from beating the daylights out of our police officers on January 6 to beating the daylights out of our citizens. But 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, you know, Mr. Chairman, 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've subpoenaed foreign companies over censorship abroad. But look what's 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, but instead of demanding that she appear immediately today, her hearing is set for a month from now. But 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 emergency where is the sense of urgency, Mr. Chairman? It may be that giant Republican donor and Jeffrey Epstein pal Elon Musk is upset that his company's 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'd appreciate a vigorous scholarly discussion and debate about all of that, comparing Europe's aggressive proactive approach to America's more laissez-faire approach when it comes to regulating online evils like child pornography, cyberbullying, and the epidemic of cyber scams taking place online. I'm an academic, as you know, and I'd 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. But we've got time for all of that, Mr. Chairman. This is an emergency today, what's taking place in our own 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 essential 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 likely 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're the executive director of the ACLU, we're grateful you've come to tell us what's 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. Chairman, let's bring in Secretary Noem without any further delay. Thank you for your indulgence and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Just a couple quick comments. Four weeks from today, 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, I think our witnesses would argue is a threat. Just ask Dr. Räsänen what's happened to her. And I would point out, we've had Democrat witnesses here. In fact, last Congress we had a Democrat witness who's at the time was the Democrat candidate for president, RFK Jr., and the Democrats in that committee hearing, it was a 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 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. So I appreciate the ranking member's critique there, but I think there's plenty of critique to go around. We will now move to our to introduce our today's witnesses. Well first, without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. Today's witnesses, we will start with Mr. Lorcan Price, who's 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, and now Fox News. I saw this morning, I'm working out this morning, I see you on an interview on Fox News. In September 2025, he was arrested upon his arrival at London Heathrow Airport for tweets he posted while he was in the United States. Dr. Päivi Räsänen is a member of the Finnish Parliament, medical doctor, former Minister of the Interior. She was first elected to Parliament in 1995. That's a long time in Parliament. God bless you. In 2021, she was criminally charged for tweeting a Bible verse. Mr. Deepinder Mayell, I think I got that close, Deepinder Mayell, is the executive director 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 if you'd please stand. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?

I do.

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 we'll start with Mr. Price and then Mr. Linehan and then Ms. Räsänen. So Mr. Price, you're recognized and welcome to begin.

Thank you very much, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, distinguished members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. I'm delighted to share the panel today with a fellow Irishman, Graham Linehan. I'm 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 did experience, Graham. I'm also delighted to share it with our client, Päivi Räsänen, 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 many were not convinced. However, now it's 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 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 multi-pronged strategy to open multiple investigations, to add more and more regulations, and to impose crippling fines, and ultimately, I fear, to attempt to break up or ban companies such as X who are pro-free speech. But it goes deeper. This censorship campaign is not just aimed at destroying free speech in Europe. It's about imposing European law 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, quote, "systemic risk" to the discourse. U.S. companies are therefore transformed into a global censorship police. They must engage in a process of analyzing, quote, "how platform design, algorithms, and content moderation impacts 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. So let's be clear: what's 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 its investigation, which shows U.S. companies are already having to adopt 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. And I think it's fair to say that it's 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. And what I would say to our American friends is: you cannot allow the EU's rules on 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.

Thank you, Mr. Price. Mr. Linehan, excuse me, you are recognized for five minutes. Make sure you hit the mic there. Yeah. Pull that mic close and fire away.

Thank you. And 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 100 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.

...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 these clear rulings, the state prosecution continued to pursue the charges against me, and 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. The Bishop 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 prosecution. It is about whether it is illegal to say what you believe. Our story shows how the process itself becomes the punishment. We have faced years of legal uncertainty. This creates a chilling effect for everyone who holds views outside a narrow state-approved 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. And I'm 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.

Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Mayell, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. My name is Deepinder Mayell, and I am honored to serve as the Executive Director of the ACLU of Minnesota. And 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, which 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 first-hand 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 Preddy. Witnesses to their deaths are their neighbors and fellow Minnesotans. One witness to Mr. Preddy's killing submitted a sworn statement to court in our lawsuit, Tintscher v. Nome, saying that they were so afraid of retaliation, they went into hiding. "I do not feel safe in my city," said another witness to Mr. Preddy's death. This person was a doctor who had run to the scene to perform CPR on him. "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 the 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 schoolyards. 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 semi-automatic 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. And if you appear to ICE or Border Patrol as a possible immigrant, you risk being snatched off the street, often with physical violence, and being put into detention. And 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 8 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. 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 am here to ask you, as members of Congress, to act. Our cherished rights, all of 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.

Thank you. We'll now proceed with five-minute questions for members. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses. History shows that freedom of speech is rare and that censorship and repression are common. And perhaps the primary principle that has set the United States apart throughout our 250-year history is our commitment to freedom of speech as the foundation of our democracy and self-government. And yet, even here, we witness threats to freedom of speech from time to time. And 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. Or in the run-up 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. But 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. So, 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 use some off-color language, maybe different than the way I would say things sometimes, but that's what you do. And 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?

Well, as I said, because I'd been arrested before and because I sort of am 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 usual, I sort of immediately knew that I might be about to be arrested. So, but when I got to the door, I couldn't believe it. There were five police, all of them armed, which is standard in Heathrow, but it was a shock. You know, 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. So, yeah, it, 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 UK. I'm very much a niche voice because of the kind of control gender ideology has over the whole country, over institutions.

Well, it's also probably the chilling effect, right? 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?

As you say, chilling effect. Who knows? Who knows what effect it has? The censorship that's at play when it comes to issues around women's rights is a kind of quiet censorship. People are canceled quietly. They just stop being invited to things. They stop getting contracts and so on. So, yeah, 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's a sort of orthodoxy that has been imposed across British society, especially in certain industries that attract very privileged middle-class people. So 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?

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 swath of speech and thereby distorts democracy, distorts the values of society, and impedes progress. So that's what we're trying to stop with this hearing today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Maryland is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Price, I think we've seen you now four times. We met you in Brussels, we met you in London, you've come twice to testify here. So we're familiar with your views. I do think you call yourself a civil libertarian, someone who's 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?

Absolutely, people shouldn't be killed unless there's obviously an investigation, I believe, underway, I think, in the instance you're referring to.

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?

I think people have the right to share information online, certainly.

Yeah, and our courts have certainly found that. So 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. And 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.

Thank you. You know, I'm 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 Fourth Amendment and the principles of the Fourth Amendment and the protections against warrantless arrests as well.

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, but 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?

Yes. I mean, so I can't describe in words fully how disruptive, terrifying, and intense the feeling is in Minnesota right now. People are scared to leave their homes, people are scared to go about their daily business. And 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 swaths of the community that are afraid to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I'm talking about people who are exercising their protected First Amendment rights of free speech.

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, or are these authoritarian violent tactics being used against anybody who they perceive to be in their way?

What we have heard, starting when the surge began in late November, we started to immediately start to hear of reports of unconstitutional activity: the use, the wild use of pepper spray on crowds, peaceful protesters, the pointing of semi-automatic weapons indiscriminately, the deployment of tear gas in playgrounds and in residential neighborhoods. So it has been a broad swath of unconstitutional activity.

Well, are the people of Minnesota upset about the way that the European Union Digital Services Act is affecting Elon Musk? Are people talking about that?

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.

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 press is under attack. The Fourth Amendment right not to have your door knocked down without a search warrant based upon probable cause issued by a neutral independent magistrate is under attack there. All of 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.

I can tell you that it feels like the rule of law is under siege in Minnesota.

Thank you. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five minutes.

Just an inquiry of the chair, I guess, before I ask my questions. I was wondering, is it possible, Chairman, to bring back Alejandro Mayorkas before the committee so that we, 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...

Mr. Chairman, point of order. Is the gentleman using his time, or is this a parliamentary inquiry? I'm not quite sure what's going on.

His time should be running. It's five minutes.

I'm just wondering if we could get the former Secretary before the committee, because he systematically opened the border to illegals from 2021 to 2025 for a purpose, I suppose, of securing some type of new political base. And Minneapolis never happens if it wasn't for Biden, Mayorkas, and the elected officials that 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 UK government over tweets, but this could have happened to any American resident who uses social media to discuss politics. Isn't that right? I mean, if somebody was on their way back from the UK and suddenly arrived at Heathrow, they could be arrested too, even if they were American citizen.

Well, I can't really speak to that, but I wasn't the first. There's been 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 UK, but we really only have that to depend on. You know, they just choose not to do it at the moment. So, yeah, I think that there is a general danger of people being affected by, you know, 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. But nowadays, people are pretending not to believe that there are two sexes. And it is a, it's something that destroyed my whole career and life, that I insisted on the truth. So, yeah, we can't rely on the kind of mood of governments being affected by incoherent liberal orthodoxies. I'm sorry, it's not a great answer to your question.

No, no, it's very good. Thank you. Mr. Price, why should Americans care about Graham Linehan's arrest?

I think 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. So 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. So that type of legal system is now being pressed down via these digital content moderation rules into American speech. And for Graham and for Päivi, you can see very clearly that these laws aren't theoretical. They put them into force, and it means people are arrested, they're interrogated, their freedom is taken away. Päivi 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 should be a real concern for this committee. And indeed it is, thanks to your investigations.

So 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 the threat of additional fines under the DMA to compel compliance with its global censorship regime?

Certainly. One way to look at it, I think, is that you have to imagine this 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 weapon outside of that to attack companies that allow it. 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, and it's growing all the time. So if they don't start an investigation under the Digital Services Act, they have other options. But I think at the core of this is an antipathy and hatred of free speech, which they want to globalize in order to protect their power in Europe.

Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.

There's 120 million reasons why the DMA is a concern to America. I mean, we know what's going on. Gentleman has a unanimous consent.

Thank you. I've got two quick UCs. One is from Tech Policy Press, "How the House Judiciary GOP Misread Europe's 120 Million Euro X Decision." And 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 it's more environmentally responsible just to have it resubmitted rather than...

As long as that's not a problem, I can check with our parliamentarians. As long as that's not a problem, without objection, we can do that, and it saves us time. And now it's Mr. Nadler, the gentleman from New York is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, 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 were exercising their First Amendment rights to protest and to shine a light on the horrors unfolding in their community. 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. But it is absolutely galling 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 has 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 is hoping that they will be intimidated and will follow the cowardly examples set by CBS and ABC's corporate owners, who settled baseless lawsuits. CBS's parent company was handsomely rewarded for this strategy when its multi-billion dollar merger was approved days after settling with Trump. But the threats to 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 air the interview in full, then, quote, "We'll sue your ass off."

...to gather information about what public officials do on public property and because it protects the right to record such matters. And that includes the right to livestream such content.

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.

Gentleman yields back. Mr. Mayell, did the Biden administration censor people?

I'm sorry, thank you for your question. I'm here to talk about what's happening in Minnesota...

It's a simple question. Did they do it? Did the previous administration censor American speech? You're from the ACLU, you should care about that too.

We do care about free speech, but what I'm talking about here today is the most significant threat to free speech...

You can say the truth. I got that. You've said that every time the Democrats ask you questions. I want to know, did the previous administration censor American speech?

Chair, this is not what is happening in Minnesota is not normal.

Well, here's what Mark Zuckerberg said to the committee in August of 2024. Senior officials from the Biden administration...

Point of order. On what time is the Chairman asking this?

My time is the clock's ticking.

He hasn't gone yet.

Oh, okay.

Could we restore the time?

The gentleman yielded back and I'm 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?

Chair, I would love to be sitting here talking about online privacy, but I'm here talking about what's happening on the streets...

Did Mark Zuckerberg lie to the committee?

...in Minnesota.

Did Mark Zuckerberg lie to the committee? Did Mark Zuckerberg lie to the committee when he said that?

I am not here to speak about that.

I wish I was, but I'm here to speak about the most significant threat to free speech. 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 a tweet from RFK Jr. and it was about COVID. So 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. Leadership asked misinformation policy, a couple of teams on product policy to brainstorm some additional policy levers. So then it was broader. First, it was just specific tweets. Oh, we got to stop this tweet from influential people. Then it's a broader policy. And now we got foreign governments trying to impact American speech. And 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?

Yes, sir.

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. So 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. This is By the way, Mr. Linehan, when they arrested you, were there cameras there? I'm just curious.

No.

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 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 got to do our you know how did that go down?

I got that impression that they felt a bit embarrassed about it, yeah. I mean, I think basically the UK 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. You know, we can't get burglaries investigated and rapists put in prison, but we can get the police...

They can arrest a comedian who tweeted something in the United States who's not even a UK citizen. They can do that.

Yeah.

And the police are just like, oh dude, sorry about this, we got to we got to do it, right?

Yeah.

It's an absolute I guess it was the same with you, Doctor, is that right? I mean, did they say maybe I'm wrong, but that would be my guess.

Yes, my my process started over six years ago and there was a Pride parade in in Finland and my my church, the leadership of the church, decided to support that parade also financially. And it was just a shock to me and I was afraid that this would undermine people's trust on Bible and then it is not only about marriage or or sex but also about salvation of people. And that's why I wrote that Twitter update where I took a quote from the Bible and made a question to the to the leadership of the church. After that, some citizen made a criminal complaint about my Twitter update and police started to...

Did the police come to your house? Did the police come to your house and charge how did it work?

Police started to investigate the case. And I was then interrogated by police in a small police room, which was a very unreal situation because just some years before I I was a Minister of Interior. And then I was sitting there, the Bible was on the table and the police was asking me very theological questions.

If I could, I'm just about out of time, Doctor, but I just want to say this. Thank you for that. That's where it progresses to. Specific tweets, broad policy, foreign governments getting involved in American speech, and so so focused on it that they're willing to come after a member of parliament who simply posted a Bible verse. And they know it's wrong, as evidenced by the police who said like, dude, we're sorry, we just got to we got to do it. They know it's wrong. And 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 the ACLU can't even say, oh yeah, they did it. Mark Zuckerberg said it, we got all kinds of evidence of it, and it's so so pervasive they're even going after people, nice people like the Doctor who simply put a Bible verse online. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Chairman. Could I introduce for unanimous consent the Supreme Court's decision, Justice Barrett's opinion?

Sounds like you're doing that right now.

If that's all right. It's Murthy v. Missouri, rebutting everything that you just said about what happened in the last administration.

Without objection. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Price, you would agree that a free press is a hallmark of freedom of speech, would you not?

Yes.

And 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 that would be against principles of free speech, correct?

In responding to the, I believe, theoretical question, I would...

Well, it's actually not even a theoretical question. It it happened about a year ago, just days into this new administration, the Department of Defense kicked out news organizations that refused to agree to allow their stories to be pre-approved in order to have access to the government offices and those officials. I mean, that actually happened. And this committee has had no hearings on that, but yet it would call you over here. And you agree with me that that is an impediment towards free speech when the press does not have access to government officials. And you would you would agree with that, correct?

If what you just described...

Yes or no? Well, it's a little bit more complicated than that, sir. Okay, 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?

Yes, I mean, I believe in a free press as protected by the First Amendment.

Yeah, and this committee also has not had any hearings about this administration issuing a search warrant to obtain the communication devices and computers and records of a 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 yet 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. I mean, 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? I mean, this man is worth $700 billion and you all are over here talking about $150 million. And this 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. You know, we've said nothing about it. News organizations being sued by the billionaire Donald Trump for saying something that he disagrees with. That's when your top government official is suing news organizations, doesn't that create a an impediment to the exercise of the First Amendment, Mr. Price, yes or no?

Sir, you're very blessed to have a First Amendment. We wish we had that on our side of the Atlantic.

Well, shouldn't we be talking about those issues here in this committee rather than bringing you all, importing you all 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 and crushed and shattered? Isn't that ironic? Don't you find some irony in that?

I think it's all the things you described are ultimately under the right to appeal to court.

No, and just this past 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?

And you have a court system hopefully that will vindicate it. We don't have that, unfortunately.

Well, you know, the court system, we have a Supreme Court that is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the billionaire president. That poses 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.

As an Irishman, I certainly do. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. You going to have one of these every time?

I'm struggling to keep up with the onslaught here, but this will go quickly.

All right.

Might you see Twitter kept entire database of Republican requests to censor posts, that is February 8, 2023, Rolling Stone. Trump asked Twitter to take down derogatory tweet from Chrissy Teigen, whistleblower. Trump censorship and control campaign threatens press freedom, FCC Commissioner says. And finally, FBI raids home of Washington Post reporter in highly unusual and aggressive move, that's in the Guardian, January 14, 2026.

Without objection. Gentleman from California is recognized.

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?

I mean, I think that accountability is a constellation of things and we are seeing...

No, no. Look, look, look. 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. So 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?

I don't want to I'm going to answer the question, but 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. Accountability is a number of different...

Okay, okay. I hear your answer, but you said I hear your 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 a gentleman from Georgia isn't much money. I heard you and I hear you loud and clear. You think it's okay to obstruct justice here in America, to in fact use the First Amendment as a sword instead of a scalpel. And 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 protected status? Yes.

Representative, I...

No, 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, whether somebody who said 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. And instead of being here to testify for that, when the Chairman asks you a question, you go dumb. Shame on the ACLU. You didn't protect the First Amendment under the last four years and now you come here with the hypocrisy of all time to pretend that the ACLU hasn't become an arm of the Democratic Party. It hasn't become a...

No administration has gotten a free pass from the ACLU.

Yeah, yeah, well, the last one got a hell of a free pass. So I'm going to ask the other folks a question, which is a question I'm the Vice Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and 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, or I'm sorry, sanctioning, whatever it takes, even against our best friends in Europe, in order 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 weren't founded just on the question of rights here, we were founded on spreading democracy and freedom around the country. So yes or no to the greatest extent possible, should we in fact begin a process of doing what I know the Chairman 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'll go start with the Doctor.

Yes, I have to say that I'm very happy for your support to freedom of speech. And I noticed that you all have great respect to the First Amendment and I'm happy for the support that you give.

Mr. Price and then Mr. Linehan.

Yes, that would be a great I think that's a great idea. If they won't if like we we need freedom of speech, it's that important. And these are I know there's been efforts to dismiss the subject of the transition...

...but it's a very important issue. A lot of children have been hurt, thousands of children have been hurt, they have been they have received double mastectomies.

Mr. Price, briefly.

Yes, sir, I think it's a very wise idea and there are plenty of options I think in in that we could discuss.

Thank you, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from Washington is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a five-alarm fire here on the First Amendment rights in the United States and even your Republican witnesses have said that this is the model. You wish you had it, right, Mr. Price? And 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. But 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. And 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. So 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. And you don't have to just take my word for it, I have a video to play. Please play the video.

[Video plays.]

Those are just a small fraction of what is happening in the United States of America. So 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 front lines of Trump's assault on Americans' free speech rights. And the video we watched is so horrific and 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. And 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. So can you just describe how agents are surveilling people and the fear that even U.S. citizens face in being threatened at their homes?

Yes, and thank you for the question. I'll tell you about Sue Tintjer, who is our lead client in our lawsuit Tintjer 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 a 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, and at that site she was had parts of her clothes cut off, she had her purse cut off, and she had her wedding band cut off. This is not normal what is happening and I just want to make that very clear that this is not normal law enforcement.

And 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?

Not that I'm aware of.

Any city in the UK where federal agents point firearms at civilians exercising their legal right to observe them?

In recent years, not that I'm aware of.

Are you aware of any city in the EU where a federal agent has shot and killed a citizen and the leaders of that country justified the killing with no credible evidence before any investigation had occurred?

In recent moments, not that I'm aware of.

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.

Gentlelady yields back. Gentleman from Texas is recognized.

I thank the Chairman. Mr. Mayell, let me ask you a question. Kenneth Moreno Guzman, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, forcibly broke into the back door 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?

I mean, first off, I want to say that's tragic, it's horrific.

Yes or no? Should ICE carry out its function to remove that individual from the United States and get them to law enforcement for prosecution?

I just want to say every every victim deserves justice.

Hector Balderas-Hilar, 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?

This what I'm talking about is not normal law enforcement.

Should ICE remove should ICE yes or no, should ICE remove these individuals who are a danger to the American people? Yes or no?

I have I am here to speak about what's happened...

Yes or no, should ICE carry out its function in law enforcement to remove these people who are killing Americans? Yes or no?

ICE has the ability to to do its law enforcement activity. What I'm talking about is not...

So 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 illegal 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 him 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 all want to turn that that into some sort of cause celebre. Meanwhile, Mr. Price, in the United Kingdom, do you not have your own level of immigration problems?

Yes, sir.

Right now are there not significant impacts by a massive increase in the Islamic population in London and throughout the entire UK? And now is it not true that there are significant questions about whether the UK will adopt anti-Muslim hate speech provisions? For example, a draft definition that says anti-Muslim hostility is engaging in or encouraging criminal acts including acts of violence, vandalism, but here's the key part, that is harassment, intimidation, 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 not also going to interfere with free speech?

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.

So 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. Räsänen. First of all, 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 a radio debate, and a religious pamphlet published years earlier?

No, I don't think that it is right because I have not insulted anyone. My speech has been peaceful.

And at no point did you call for violence, coercion, or unlawful conduct.

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 grace. So I do not insult any minority.

Is it true that prosecutors reportedly compared portions of the Bible to extremist literature when they were going after you?

Yes, the prosecutor filed up charges because of my Twitter update where the main focus was on the Bible verses.

And was it the prosecution reportedly offered you a deal to recant your statements in exchange for avoiding prosecution? Is that accurate?

Already in the police investigation, the police gave me two weeks time to take away my my writings and and I said that I will stand up.

And my final point is, the trial court unanimously acquitted you, correct?

Pardon?

The trial court unanimously acquitted you, correct?

Yes, yes.

And the acquittal was later affirmed by an appellate court, but 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 for simply speaking about your faith, putting it in a pamphlet years before, that's what is occurring. Is that correct?

Yes.

Well, we thank you for that. I would like to insert into the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter that that I signed and sent to MP Räsänen 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 describe this that I jointly authored with Tony Perkins. I would like to increase also several... ...several letters that I could go through one by one, but for the sake of time, I would just like to insert them in group form that are signed by a host of our colleagues that were directed to MP Räsänen about her courage and her faith. Letters that we've sent since 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, encouraging her and others to stand up, and I'd like to insert those into the record without objection.

Without objection. Doctor, God bless you for your courage as well. I think the gentlelady from Washington has a UC.

I do. I have a couple of UCs here, Mr. Chairman. The first one is from the New York Times, I believe, about the way in which the Trump administration is smearing and humiliating citizens in order 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 Protester, the White House, and a Doctored Photo."

Without objection.

Second one is from CBS News titled, "ICE Agents Wrongfully Detained U.S. Citizen in Minneapolis for Looking Somali."

Without objection.

Next one is from the BBC, "New Jersey Mayor Arrested in Protest at Migrant Center."

Without objection. And I believe that's it. Thank you. Is it the gentlelady from Vermont or Ms. Scanlon? The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized.

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. So it's important that we refocus on the threats to civil rights and liberties that are occurring right here, right now, in America. And 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. And if you think it doesn't affect you, think again. Masked government agents are kidnapping people on the streets of American cities, citizens and non-citizens alike, breaking into their cars and homes, holding them at gunpoint, raiding homes without warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Government agents are surveilling, threatening, and assaulting Americans when they peacefully observe and protest these actions in violation of the First Amendment. They're detaining children and adults with no criminal records in nightmarish conditions in violation of every standard of human decency. And 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. And 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. So why isn't 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, and 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, etc.?

Thank you. 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. And 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. That judicial warrant is a critical component to ensuring accountability. So that is what 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.

And 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 that there's reasonable, that there's probable cause to suspect that they're going to find the person they're looking for there?

That's right. That's that layer of accountability that comes into showing that, you know, you're 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 illegally.

And 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 a 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?

Our constitutional rights and the rights of the Bill of Rights apply to us all.

And explicitly, the Fourth Amendment says "all persons." It doesn't say "citizens," does it?

That's correct.

Okay. I have, are you familiar with the opinion by the Texas judge in the case involving the boy in the blue bunny hat? Didn't the judge there say that using an administrative warrant is like the fox guarding the henhouse?

Okay. You can answer that real quick, Mr. Mayell.

We are really concerned, very concerned about the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. And I know that that's something that's dear to many people on this committee. And the use of an administrative warrant is a significant erosion if it's being used to go into homes to arrest.

Thank you. I have a UC.

Okay, go ahead.

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's dated January 28.

Without objection. Gentleman from Arizona is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayell, isn't it true that there are constraints on the use of First Amendment speech rights?

Yes, the First Amendment, there's constraints on it, right?

And it's also permissible for individuals to protest in America, right?

There are rights to protest in the United States of America.

And people can even, courts have found, I mean, these are yes or no, you don't need to... if you filibuster, which sometimes people like to do, we'll never get through this. But I'm 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, multiple courts, right?

Yes.

Yes. But there is a caveat to that right, isn't there? There's a list of constraints even there, right? So for instance, you cannot videotape police activity if there's a reasonable expectation of privacy by anyone there, right?

I'm not following that.

That's what the courts say.

I'm not following that. You have a right to videotape law enforcement when law enforcement is conducting its activity in public spaces.

In public spaces, right. But if there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, courts have said that you can't go beyond that. They've also said you can't interfere, obstruct police activities, right?

The First Amendment does not protect interference with law enforcement, obstruction.

Yeah, you don't need to repeat everything I say. You can either agree or disagree, that's fine. If there's 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?

The issue that is happening is when there is unlawful speech, when it's not protected...

That's what the courts have held.

...it does not give law enforcement the right to wildly pepper spray, it does not give them a right to deploy tear gas, it does not...

Okay, so you want to pontificate. We realize that you were brought here to pontificate the Democrats' deal instead of answering questions.

I was brought here to tell you what's happening on the ground in Minnesota. And it is happening and it is being recognized by Republicans and Democrats.

The time belongs to the gentleman from Arizona.

Yeah, I'm asking you questions, you answer them. You can agree or disagree, but these are very simple. I think you'll get them even because they're yes or no questions. The individual cannot videotape if it actually hinders or hinders public safety. Isn't that true?

You're not allowed to interfere with law enforcement.

If you are impeding public safety, courts have held you can't get there. Apparently I can't ask you questions because you're not going to answer truthfully. Here we go. Here's the deal.

I have answered that. You cannot interfere with law enforcement.

Here's the deal. It's my turn, I'd like to reclaim it.

Will the gentleman yield?

Here's 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? There are limits to protected speech. You can't enter private property. You can only do it on public property, correct? There are limits to protected speech. You cannot trespass either, right? You cannot violate someone's privacy rights. That is all true. That's true. Let's watch a video real quick here of what's going on in Minnesota. This is not peaceful protest.

[Video plays.]

What you have there in that first scene is not peaceful protest. That is not protected speech. And 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 something called administrative warrants, where you have a reasonable suspicion to believe someone's in this country illegally, you are allowed to make the stop, you're allowed to make the arrest, you're allowed to presume that way. Reasonable suspicion is the standard under INA Section 236. So when I look at this and I listen to you and I'm looking at, and I'm sorry you folks have come here, you've seen the real attack is coming from the left on speech rights in this country. And here's the beautiful part about it. Because they have conviction and they have so much passion, they think they're correct. They think it's true. But so much of what we've heard today is inaccurate, false, and wrong. And here's the bottom line. Conviction and passion does not make you correct. Sometimes it just makes you crazy. Yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Georgia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In part one of this hearing earlier, I asked our witness, Professor David Kaye, what this country would look like if the majority did not join the minority in checking First Amendment violations committed by the government. And we were warned that there would be dark days ahead. Well, sadly, we're 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 rein in her agents, to remind or even to inform them that it's unconstitutional to impede on First Amendment rights. We've seen countless videos and justified outrage after federal immigration enforcement agents shot and killed a 37-year-old woman, Renee Nicole Good, a mother, a poet, and a writer. Operation Metro Surge continued, and protesters continued to exercise their rights. Not even three weeks later, 37-year-old ICU nurse Alex Pretty was helping others and recording on his phone when officers surrounded him and proceeded to shoot him 11 times in the back. When protesters 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 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'd like to enter into the record this article from Fox News titled, "ICE Attorney: This Job Sucks."

Without objection.

Thank you. In which attorney Julie Lee states, and I quote, "The system sucks, this job sucks. I'm trying with every breath I have to get you what I need," end quote.

Without objection.

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're demanding accountability. And this continued threat to our First Amendment rights extends to voting and elections. In 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 aren't even going to school. If conditions persist, how could the government's response to citizens exercising their First Amendment rights impact our voter turnout and our upcoming elections?

Thank you for the question. I can say tell you right now that the feeling in Minnesota is one of disruption. Normal day-to-day activities, we're talking about work, groceries, going to school, have been disruptive significantly. And I think that if we continue to have this presence of this federal force, life will continue to be disrupted.

Thank you for that, and I contend to say that there are going to even be darker days in our future. And I yield.

Gentlelady yields. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've had a lot of discussion here today about DSA, DMA, and their effect on American free speech. And while these are very important issues, I also want to emphasize the danger of other EU overreaches that directly affect 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 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 investment in LNG exports where America leads the world, and threaten thousands of high-paying Texas jobs in drilling, refinery, and clean energy projects. CS3D could cost the Texas economy over $68 billion in one-time compliance costs and over $1 trillion in potential lost revenue. In my state's manufacturing sector alone, one-time compliance costs are forecast at $26 billion along with ongoing annual compliance costs. 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 lack the resources to comply. Exxon CEO rightly called the CS3D the worst legislation he has ever seen. And the ironic thing is, Europe is actually shooting itself in the foot by driving away innovation, accelerating deindustrialization, and chasing off key energy suppliers. I'm 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. Chairman, I have a UC request.

Without objection.

I'd like to enter 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."

Without objection.

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 on the rules like the CSRD and CS3D. Mr. Price, what additional steps can Congress take to shield American businesses from these extraterritorial ESG mandates?

Well, sir, the aggregation of more and more of these regulations in, as you say correctly, extractive industries but also in the tech space is part of a concerted effort by the European Union to make the world in its image, the so-called Brussels effect. You're correct that passing legislation here that would restrict the ability to enforce these decisions is a very wise step. I think ultimately, though, 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's not just simply the Digital Services Act, but all of these regulations and then expanding even further into the mandates you're describing are trying to effectively create a trade barrier regulatorily against the United States that's not explicitly a tariff barrier but has the same effect.

Thank you, Mr. Price, for being here. I yield the balance.

I appreciate it. Mr. Price, is government the biggest purveyor of misinformation?

I certainly think, sir, we have seen during the last number of years and particularly in COVID that to be very much the case, and the European Union as well.

Do you agree, Mr. Linehan?

Yes, often by reason of omission. It's 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. And the journalist on X who exposed it, Nick Sortor, you know, it's what they don't say that's often where they're dishonest.

Our government actually tried to set up, actually not tried, did set up a Disinformation Governance Board. A bunch of bureaucrats going to tell you what you can say, what you can tweet, what you can post, what you can read. Frightening. And that's the same... that dynamic is what we're concerned about. I bet even the guy from Minnesota ACLU, Mr. Mayell, would probably say that that's not a good idea to have a board tell you what you can say, some bureaucratic board tell you what's true and what isn't. And typically... well, I'm over time, so we'll get back to that. We're going to go to the gentlelady from Vermont.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses for being here. I wanted to just start by sort of level setting here. Where are we at right now in this country? It's not good. It's not good, and I can talk to my... the European guests here. My dad was born in Europe, came here after losing his father in the Holocaust, built a new life here, understands in the most deep way the importance of protecting our civil rights and civil liberties. And at a very young age, I was taught rights do not erode overnight. It happens little by little while you're not even sure that it's happening. Norms are upended, groups are scapegoated. And when I look, and I've spent time both in Minneapolis-Saint Paul and I've 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. And even before the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretty, we had documented over 170 American citizens who had been arrested and detained by ICE and Border Patrol, and it's gotten worse since then. And when we talk about Chongly Scott Tao, who was arrested, Patty O'Keefe, Alia Rahman, Sue Chincher, and we can go on and on. So we take this very seriously. And I understand that you care deeply about First Amendment rights, but the battle that we have right now, with all due respect, is not about what's happening in Europe, it's what's happening right here in our cities. And I'm 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 members in this committee about that. It's shocking. Now, as I said, I've been to both Minneapolis and I've been to Chicago, and I've seen the violations of our civil and constitution and honestly our humanitarian rights. And Mr. Mayell, I know I was able to meet with you there, and 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?

Yes, it does.

And does the First Amendment give people a right to tell their neighbors and others around them that ICE raids are happening?

You are allowed to alert other people and notify people of law enforcement activity and particularly aggressive law enforcement activity.

Does the First Amendment still apply to apps or social media posts?

The First Amendment applies to everyone, however they may choose to speak.

Because that's what we're here to talk about, right? So as my Republican colleagues have made clear today, they care deeply about First Amendment rights as it relates to online content. And 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. Number one, the first part is to censor what's online, force the companies to pull down the content showing what's really happening on American streets. And then part two is 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 the 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 a 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're 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. So the dangers are right here at home, and that's why we're speaking up in this committee. And I yield back.

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'll do that. We're going to go to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of you on the panel for being here to share today. We've heard a lot in your testimony, and Dr. Räsänen, I want to come to you. What Bible verse did you post that caused you to be criminally prosecuted?

Thank you. It was from the book of Romans, first chapter and verses 24 to 27.

Okay. And could you help me know why you chose that particular passage to post?

The Apostle Paul teaches in these verses about the marriage and about the same-sex relationships, and he defines them as sinful and shameful.

And what message were you trying to convey in that?

I wanted to make it clear that if the leadership of the church is supporting the Pride event, it is in contradiction with its basis, the Bible.

Okay. And after you posted the Bible verse, if I understand correctly, you were charged under Finland's war crimes and crimes against humanity law.

Yes, we have in that section, we have a law about agitation against minorities.

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. And as you've already heard from this panel today, God bless you. God bless you for coming here today to share your story. And 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 the storm was a church was stormed right there in Minneapolis and leaving families scattering and all kinds of threats that were felt that day and still dealing with that even now. I also want to state to you, Mr. Price, one of the things that brings Western countries together is our shared values. And 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 as 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 of 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 that Vice President's words had and what signal did they send to Europe?

I think 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 UK. 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. And they're not going to back down easily because as you can see with the approach they've taken to X, when a company commits itself to free speech, they have to stop that because of, as I say, I think it's they see it as an existential threat. And I'm ashamed to say as an Irishman, my own country is playing a central role in this because most of these large US platforms are headquartered in Dublin. And it's the Irish regulator that's cooperating closely with the European Commission in forcing this. And 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 and that if they escalate in this direction, it's going to cause significant additional problems.

Well, and I applaud our Vice President for his speech and I hope we can continue to remind our friends and allies of the value of free speech and expression. Unfortunately, we've heard in today's hearing we have a long way to go. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. We will just...

Mr. Chair, I have a yield back.

The gentlelady from Alabama is recognized.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to introduce for the record a letter from Reverend Jared Weber-Johnson of St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, which calls what is happening in Minnesota unlawful and unconstitutional as well as a blasphemy against God.

Without objection.

Mr. Chairman.

The gentlelady from Washington is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 Republicans' attitudes to ICE.

Without objection.

Mr. Raskin.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to enter to the record this Minnesota Star Tribune article from February 2nd titled, "Another Wave of Departures in Minnesota's US Attorney's Office as 14 Additional Attorneys Left This Year."

Without objection. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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're in the midst of an authoritarian crackdown on the First Amendment led by ICE and CBP agents who are murdering American citizens in peaceful protest while the President threatens to sue a comedian over a joke. That ain't funny. These attacks have escalated, but they're not new. Republicans have gutted funding for colleges and universities while trying to dictate the academic content and make it more right-wing. They've weaponized the immigrant system against Mahmoud Khalil, Romeus Ozturk, and others who dare to speak for Palestinian rights. They've literally banned the federal government from using words and phrases they're terrified of, like women, oh my God, diverse, holy cow, affordable housing, who would ponder that, clean water, you want to drink dirty, inequality, think of that, I thought all persons were created equal. And these attacks have not spared the Chicagoland region. Republicans have attacked Chicago and Illinois for our welcoming policies and illegally tried to withhold funding on decisions based on decisions by local officials. They've funded mass death squads that killed in my district, Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez, shot Mari-Mar Martinez, who was here in the US Senate yesterday, and spread violence and terror in our streets. And as our neighbors exercise 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 protesters, 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. But we're not backing down. We continue to non-violently protest and the courts have struck down the attacks on welcoming policies and the extreme use of force against protesters and journalists at Broadview. Mr. Mayell, thank you for being here today and for the work that you've 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?

Yes, I think 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. And that includes the targeting of protesters and observers and also the targeting of immigrants, the and the due process rights that are being violated in the process of of arrest and of apprehending immigrants. And that's 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.

And 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's at what's at the heart of it?

Well, 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're seeing as unlawful, unconstitutional, un-American activity on their streets. And 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.

Time of the gentleman is expired. Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it's worth noting just for the people watching this hearing that what's happening in Minnesota appears to be fairly unique to Minnesota. Local leftist law enforcement have abrogated their responsibilities to maintain order and rather they are encouraging attack on federal law enforcement. It's not happening in my state, it's not happening in South Carolina, Texas, Florida, even California. So what's happening in Minnesota is a unique circumstance that is aggravated by the left and the left only. And my colleague who preceded me is a suitable spokesman and an able spokesman for the Democratic Party. It's 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 10 consecutive years, hundreds of thousands of Americans have left Illinois because of high costs, high crime, in 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 and Americans have shown that with their movement. Dr. Räsänen, I want to start with you by thanking you for taking a stand. And you in many ways represent concern that Christians all over the world fear, that is growing hostility toward our faith from leftist governments. And 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?

Yes, I I posted it in...

But it was not part of a state action. It was a personal action, correct?

Yes, yes, my personal.

And then you issued a pamphlet in your personal capacity.

Yes, yes, it is here.

Yes. You did not incite, you did not advocate for violence. You did not advocate for the silencing. Is that correct?

No, absolutely not. And I said, for example, in this pamphlet that I believe that all people are equal and we have to respect all people.

And in regards to your litigation, your case, you won your case at the trial level, correct?

Yes.

How many times?

Two times.

Two times. Yes. And then the prosecutor appealed.

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.

And say what remedy is this prosecutor looking for? Do they want to put you in jail or do they want to fine you?

They they want to have they want to fine me, but what is the most dangerous, they want to ban, for example, this booklet and my Twitter post.

Well, ultimately they want to ban your belief in scripture. They want to ban your ability to cite the Bible, to believe in the Bible and to make it socially unacceptable to do so, correct?

Yes.

And 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. Property crime, sex crime, violent crime. They're increasing and they're going after you.

Yes, and at almost seven years now.

That's disgusting. And again, thank you for your faith, thank you for your bravery and know that we are behind you in full support.

Thank you.

Mr. Price, I want to talk to you. You said that speech was the chief threat to the European Union. [Video plays.] You can go ahead and answer that.

Yes, sir. Indeed, that is how they see it, unfortunately. [Video plays.] And what I would say is as far as the European Union is concerned and and we've seen this again and again from the President of the Commission, from senior European leaders, they regard misinformation, disinformation, these very nebulous vague terms, and hate speech as a threat to the democratic cohesion of it. And what I think is quite interesting and not to go too far into a history lesson, but all of 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 very almost no regulation on online speech. 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, and then as often happens in the European Union, everybody follows Germany. And since then, we've just added more and more layers of this. And now it's really starting to bite because they're trying to destroy, frankly, X.

And now they're going after X with lock, stock, and barrel. And you have one individual in Elon Musk whose whose companies exceed the GDP of most European countries. You'd think that they would welcome Elon Musk to try to incentivize some type of freedom, economic activity, economic expansion, but they're attacking him.

Yeah, the story of 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's going to be a real tragedy. And the only solution they have is don't talk about it, just ignore it. And that's why they've targeted X.

Thank you, sir.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.

Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman from Illinois is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, per UC, I want to submit the following articles for the record. "Elon Musk's Grok AI Chatbot Made Millions of Sexualized Images, New Estimates Show," New York Times, January 22nd. "Elon Musk's X Faces EU Inquiry Over Sexualized AI Images Generated by Grok," January 26th, New York Times. "Grok, Elon Musk's AI, is Generating Sexualized Images of Real People, Fueling Outrage," January 8, 2026.

Without objection. Gentleman from Florida is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Man, if you want to know how things are going on in in America, I mean, just look at my colleagues. I mean, they want to talk about Europe because things are going so well here. You know, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Noem is scheduled to appear here in in a month. And I'm 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. So if you want to invite her as a private citizen, no problem. You know, Leader Thune had asked was asked, does he have confidence in her? He said that's up to the President. Josh Hawley was asked would he vote for her again? He says thank God he doesn't have to. That's 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. And by the way, President Trump wasn't lost on me, skipped her in his cabinet meeting just a couple of days ago. She was the only secretary he didn't allow to talk. It's time to fire her. Why hasn't it happened? I know what I need to do. I need to remind the President who he used to be. I want to take you down memory lane. You know what we need? We need Apprentice Trump. Where where is that guy? Look, let me remind him who he used to be real quick. [Video plays.] Where where is that guy? What happened to him? I mean, 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 team. People loved it when you fired people, Mr. President. Sitting in the boardroom, Eric on one side, Junior on the left, it was much-watch TV. You made millions of dollars firing people for a living. But now someone convinced you firing people is weakness. That's 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 the into your little conference room, you have a cabinet meeting, right? Then you fire her right there on TV. Oh, the ratings would be through the roof. Think about the hat she would wear. I mean, it'll be majestic. Okay? Let me let me show you, Mr. President, what that might look like. [Video plays.] That's how that would look. Right? It would be 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's doing very well. But look, you take this doll out, probably made in China, you take the doll out, and look, it's got very nicely done, by the way, my if any of my Republican friends want to spend time with it later, I'll loan it to them. Look, so here's the doll. It says to fire people in 17 different ways. You go to the back, you push it. Batteries are a little old. See if I can find a little button. Well, anyway, it says you're fired. 17 different ways, Mr. President. Okay? So 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's weakness. I mean, if we can't get Apprentice Trump, can we at least get like Home Alone 2 Trump? Can he at least like show her the lobby and out the door? She's coming here in a month. Okay? It's not going to be a good hearing for her. It's going to be a disaster. You all are going to have to defend her, which you're not willing to do on TV. This will be very televised. I mean, why did the President not let her speak in the cabinet meeting? Why didn't 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's time for her to be fired. She is the weakest link of his team and it's enough. And 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.

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?

Yes, sir. Under German legislation, he's engaged in criminal insult to a politician.

Is that what happened to Jimmy Kimmel?

It's my time, Congressman.

And in a moreover, he might well have been violating electoral disinformation, which would mean that the EU's watchdog on electoral disinformation would be following. Luckily, he's in Florida, of course, and he can invoke the First Amendment.

But we still have Secretary Noem. This isn't disinformation. They made a doll. He fires people. I remind the gentleman from Florida this is not his time, that he had his time. I thank the gentleman. I don't know where to begin, but let me begin by we I don't know how to say this. I I really want to try to be a little friendlier to the other side here, but it's 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. But 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 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. And I it's always the politics of the day on the other side. It's always whatever's the hot issue, but nothing to do with the hearing is about. And 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's terrible. It's awful. And that's why we're having this hearing. And I thank you all for being here. Mr. Mayell, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but you're from the ACLU, you're a really smart guy. You know your stuff, right? You're pretty smart. I mean, if I ask you a question other they wanted you to talk about Minnesota because God forbid we talk about the real issue. But you should be able to answer issues of the loss of freedom, whether you're liberal, conservative, Republican, or Democrat, socialist, progressive, I don't care what you are. You should have that right to speak about what you believe. If you're a Christian, you should be able to have that right. If you're Islamic, you should be able to have that right. That's what this hearing's about. And most of all, Mr. Mayell, the hearing is about whether you are an American and you have that right. It's not just we didn't need another politician here talking about politics. We need somebody that's going to tell us what that freedom really means and what the First Amendment really means. Mr. Price, I'm going to ask you a few questions. I just need yeses or nos because I don't 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're part of globalism now. We're all the same. Yes or no?

Yes.

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, our people that cherish freedom in America. It affects us. Yes or no?

Yes, it does.

Under the Digital Services Act, platforms can be fined up to 6 percent of their global revenue for non-compliance. Yes or no?

Global turnover, yes, sir.

That how that boy, that's a real effective way to stop freedom and freedom of speech. That's what we're 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, and we'll talk about those issues then. But 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?

Yes, sir, they have that effect.

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're in another country. They're not liable to you at all. But you have to acquiesce to them. Yes or no?

Yes, we can't get them out of office either.

I know, it's 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 yawn and forget about it. It's 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?

Yes, sir.

Is it a direct attack on American sovereignty and shouldn't we do everything we can to stop it?

Absolutely.

That's the bottom line here, ladies and gentlemen. This is a big deal. I'm sorry for what you went through. God knows, I mean, to believe it doesn't matter if they agree with your faith. It's your faith and it's your right to represent that faith and you shouldn't go to jail and you shouldn't be fined and you shouldn't be embarrassed and you shouldn't be censored. Damn it, we're sick of it. And so 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, we go to the political...

Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman's time is expired by 49 seconds.

My time has expired, yes. And I think the real Chairman's going to take over now.

We have about 20 minutes. If you can all hang with us 20 minutes, that that'd be great. I think we're going to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin and then Ms. Hageman, the gentleman from South Carolina, and then Mr. Onder from Missouri. So gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.

Sure, thanks. I'm very glad we're having this hearing. I think it's a very scary hearing, not only because our platforms can be affected by laws abroad, but frequently what happens in the United States happen in I guess I'd say the decline in the United States right now that we see in our culture sometimes follows a decline in Europe. And when we hear what's going on in Europe today, we have to be really careful what's going to happen in this country. When I think that last time a presidential candidate ran, got 48 percent of the vote after after the administration she was in tried to set up a disinformation governance board. I mean, once once that was done, that party should have been in Timbuktu for a long time. But in any event, Mr. Price, could you give us some more just quick examples, and I'm going to yield to my Chairman, 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.

Yes, sir. Well, we my client here beside me, Päivi Räsänen, has given a very very good account of what's happened to her and we were myself and my colleague Paul Coleman were very honored to stand beside her in her Supreme Court hearing. But that's just only one part of it. In the United Kingdom where in London where I'm 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.

Anti-Christianity in Europe.

I think that is a very accurate way of describing it, yes. We've situations where people are being prosecuted for... ...quoting scripture when other people find it offensive, particularly people from the Islamic community, and they've made 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," and five police officers arrived to arrest, detain, and search her for breaching Scottish law in relation to that. There are many examples. I've given some statistics in my written testimony which outline the dire state of affairs. And I think it's 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.

Thank you. I'm going to yield to my great chairman.

Thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Price, why are they really going after X?

Sir, it's my view that they're going after X because X has decided to be a take a maximalist position of free speech, to have the most possible free speech, and that's inimical to their view, which is that we cannot have free speech.

I mean, the left loved Elon Musk until he spent what did he say? "I didn't spend $50 billion to buy Twitter, I spent $50 billion to save the First Amendment." So they loved him before he bought X and said, "I am going to honor the First Amendment and respect the First Amendment." Is that would you agree, Mr. Linehan?

Yes, and the effect of all these policies in Europe is I'll give you one example. In Dublin recently, there were riots. And I've never seen riots in Dublin in my life. You know, this is because people cannot speak honestly about the thing that matters most to them at the moment, which is unchecked immigration. You know, and that frustration and the kind of silencing of alternative voices is what's leading, I think, to things like riots. And I think long term, we could see societal collapse. I really do think that it's a possibility in some countries.

And last Congress, we had a journalist from Canada, Rupa Subramanya, came here, testified. She had covered the trucker crisis in Canada back during COVID. She had covered that and been censored for her as a journalist had been censored. And she sat right there and said the same thing you did. She said the hallmark of Western civilization is free debate, free expression. And to your point, if you don't have that, the alternative is scary, right? Because you can't settle then disputes don't get settled via debate, they get settled via some other some other way. And that's the scary thing. And that is what is so frustrating. Let I mean, the DOJ, the SEC, the FTC all go after Elon Musk here in the United States after he buys Twitter. And now we got Spain, the UK, Ireland, all going after him. France going after him, the EU. Never before when he was on the left and bent. But as soon as he comes out for free speech, free expression, here comes the government. Scary, scary world. And again, thank you all for I do have to run. I apologize. We're going to let someone else chair. We are down to the last 20 minutes. Before I recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, I want to say thank you all for coming. We appreciate it. And Doctor, thank you. Many people have said it, but the courage that you've shown and frankly, the courage Mr. Linehan has shown when you're attacked for speaking your mind, for God bless you. We really appreciate you all being here. Mr. Price and Mr. Mayell, we appreciate you. We will we will all have you all back at some point as well. With that, I'll recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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. But the threat isn't coming from Brussels. It's coming from inside the White House and the President's cabinet. We're seeing this administration send masked roving paramilitary forces to cities whose leaders have stood up to the President. We're 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. And if you're 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. Or 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. And it's 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, quote, "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 Good and Alex Pretty agitators and domestic terrorists. They've used rubber bullets, real bullets, tear gas, and military equipment against peaceful protesters. The administration is calling everyday Minnesotans who record ICE and CBP officers agitators. Mr. Mayell, does recording immigration enforcement agents make someone an agitator?

You have a First Amendment right to record and video law enforcement.

Does delivering meals to neighbors too scared to leave their home make someone an agitator?

Delivering meals is not unlawful activity.

Does standing outside a school pickup line to make sure your child's friend doesn't get abducted make someone a domestic terrorist?

My understanding of the definition of domestic terrorism does not match any of what we have seen.

Yet all of this is happening in your state.

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. And the rule of law is under siege.

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 town hall and 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. So 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. Chairman 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. Thank you very much, and I yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. Mr. Linehan, in your testimony, you describe how the UK police identify with what they refer to as non-crime hate incidents against citizens even if there's no actual violation of the law. Talk about Orwellian. Could you please briefly explain for us what a non-crime hate incident is?

It's essentially the British government's attempt to control people's speech without appearing to. Non-crime hate incidents, they don't I believe they appear on background checks, but it's very hard to find out what what they have what they are what they are saying about you. I was invited to the Conservative Party conference in the UK and my accreditation was was turned down. I still don't know why the Conservative Party overthrew it. But I have a feeling that my, you know, the kind of popular conception about me being a bigot and so on has found its way into into the police files.

So you're saying these allegations against British citizens are actually appear on your record like a criminal conviction, but there is no criminal conviction. Is that correct?

That's right.

All right. And this sounds to me like a form of a social credit score where the state uses taxpayer funds to collect information on its citizens as a mechanism for public shaming. Is that a fair description?

I would say so, yes.

So and then are these so-called non-crime 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?

Well, I'm not sure. I think as I said earlier, I think the UK police, their 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 being allowed to talk about it. For instance, the BBC for 10 years now has basically ignored the gender issue completely, which means that the the side of the story that is, you know, just a very kind of calm and compassionate laying out of things that feminists believe is just unspoken on the BBC. So yeah, so I actually I don't know much about the operation of non-crime hate incidents. But I believe because of what because of my arrest, they say they're not going to prosecute them anymore. They're not going to bring them investigate them. So I'm hoping that's true.

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 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 anti-free speech other world?

Sure. Yeah.

Well, and how did we come to this point? How did a European country claiming to be free and which 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 a very ugly censorious regime. How did that happen?

Because they won't fix the problems that are causing the you know, some people have been arrested for genuinely violent speech and they've gotten into trouble for that. But a lot of people are frustrated simply because they cannot speak about the things that matter to them. And when they do speak about the things that matter to them, they're labeled as bigots or racists. You know, so and and also I don't think I think it's the same here as well in the sense that it's not just the absence of people talking about it. It's it's it's mainstream legacy media directing people's attention elsewhere and simply not reporting on things. So I think 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.

I think 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. And I think that we're seeing that repeatedly in England, in Spain, in France, in other countries. We're seeing it here as well. We do have the First Amendment, freedom of speech. We have the right for freedom of speech. But 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.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Price, are the Online Safety Act and the Digital Services Act extraterritorial in scope?

They in effect are, yes.

But they're not designed that way originally, right?

Well, that's a very good question. I think there's enough ambiguity that that was the intention in my view. It's not precise.

At our last hearing, Mr. Farage, you were here, Mr. Farage discussed the emergence of a two-tiered system of justice and how censorship efforts in the EU and the UK 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?

It was given in fact that very phraseology as an example of something that would be in in some of the documents that this committee has revealed.

Right, that was in the European Commission's May 2025 workshop, right?

Yes, correct.

In your opinion, do you think that there is a migrant crisis in Europe?

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 action on it, not take it seriously. You saw in Spain recently over 500,000 migrants, their status was changed, they were 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. And 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. And that's precisely I mean, it's very interesting talking to Ranking Member Raskin about this. It's precisely the opposite of the tradition of this country historically, where you have the debate out in open here, whereas in Europe, you silence, you suppress, and you arrest. Now, the problem with the DSA is, as we've been describing, that takes the European approach to things and globalizes it and forces it on Americans.

Right. So I think that's kind of remarkable. So that 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, and you're kind of wondering what about us that that live here? And you were to speak out about that, 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?

That's made in in practice by national regulators, by local law enforcement. So 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 I mean, the UK 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 that issue. And 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.

So in effect, this is a subjective 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?

No, I don't. And as I said, most of the raft of digital regulation that we've seen come in came in on foot of the so-called rise of the right, the Brexit vote. And I that's very tightly connected. It's caused by that. It's correlated with it. And the reason being that they felt they had lost narrative control. And Graham's 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. And that's a threat to them.

Right, it's a free exchange of ideas, the modern 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 in or federal raids in Paris on X, right? That's the that's the next punitive step.

Yes, sir. That's where we see. Yeah, and I 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 anti-migration narratives or others as a systemic risk to the discourse inside the European Union and they have to stop it. And it's not just Europeans, and this is where this becomes global. If you're in Texas or South Carolina or New York and you're commenting on what's going on in Europe, saying, you know, the migration situation is a disaster, they don't want that speech to leak across into Europe. So 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 this civilizational divide.

Well, it's 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, and then North Korea. This sounds exactly like and then the suppression, the lengths that the North Koreans go to to make sure that things don't come into the country. This 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. With that, I yield. Mr. Chair.

The gentleman yields back. I want to recognize myself for five minutes. First, I want to personally thank you, Mr. Linehan, and you, Dr. Räsänen, 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're 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. And in response, the American Medical Association then acknowledged that it is time to stop performing these surgeries on children. That is why I've 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 transgender 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. And 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 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." And 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?

I think it's entirely possible that a prosecutor or regulator somewhere in Europe could see that as denigrating a specific identifiable group.

Yeah, and so so I I believe I'm Catholic. This accurately reflects Catholic doctrine on this subject. It's actually, you know, actually actually kind of a soft statement of it, in fact. The Catholic faith is shared by 1.4 billion people around the world. So potentially, the faith of 1.4 billion people around the the world is is hate speech.

Yes, potentially. We've we've seen examples. There's Päivi Räsänen sitting beside me of people being prosecuted for their religious beliefs.

So I would like to ask you, Doctor, you know, you were questioned by police about a message from the Book of Romans and the meaning of the word sin, and you were charged with a 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. And yet this text you quoted was considered to be hate speech. Do I understand your case correctly?

Yes. Yes, you understand.

So 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.

Yes, in fact, it is the Prosecutor General who who has said and who who has claimed that this is hate speech. This is against the law about agitation against minorities.

Yeah. Well, thank you. You know, this is to describe the current European censorship regime as Orwellian. I'll tell you, the the Big Brother had nothing on the European censorship industrial complex. You know, in 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 two and two make five and you would have to believe it. So 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. Chairman, I just have a few UC requests.

Without objection.

Thank you kindly. Elon Musk, King of Censorship, 10 times the free speech absolutist silenced Twitter users.

Without objection.

Gizmodo, Salon, Trump's war on comedy threatens the free speech for all Americans.

Without objection.

And ACLU.org, September 16, 2025, Trump is firing federal workers over beliefs he doesn't like.

Without objection.

And finally, Trump calls for termination of 60 Minutes in fresh attack on the U.S. media.

Without objection.

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. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned. [Gavel sounds.]