On the British political side, Ed Daveyleader of the Liberal Democrats, publicly responded to Sarah Rogers by claiming that the White House line, set out in the strategic documents cited in the debate, is equivalent to «foreign interference» because it aims to «cultivate resistance» in European countries, triggering a back and forth on social media.
In the European Parliament, the MEP Dennis Radtke (CDU) contested the «pro free speech» reading of Trump supporters in Europe, asking where an opinion would be suppressed and denouncing a double standard with respect to China and Russia.
Among the five affected, the Center for Countering Digital Hate is currently without a direct public statement from its CEO Imran Ahmed.
But there are also those who support the made in USA choice. «Unlike Europe, incapable of defending itself and its citizens, the United States decides to set rules establishing who to let in and who not. We are proud to be the only party to have voted against the Digital Services Act wanted by a handful of Brussels bureaucrats and which is the antechamber of censorshipa real European gag law.” This is what we read in a note from Lega.
Of a completely different opinion Benedetto Della Vedovadeputy of +Europa, who entrusts his reaction to X. «The decision to deny an entry visa to the United States to former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, arrogantly claimed by Secretary of State Rubio, represents the confirmation of what has already been visible to the naked eye for some time, namely the path taken by Trump’s US towards a dull authoritarianism which fortunately we know is reversible. Hostility rather than cooperation between the two sides of the Atlantic is bad for everyone. To Breton, in addition to solidarity, we express gratitude for the work carried out in defense of European law on trade, digital and communication. Let’s go Europe!
