Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers on dismantling the "Censorship Industrial Complex"

The State Department's new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy wants to pick a fight with Europe over free speech, and she's using Silicon Valley as her weapon. Sarah B. Rogers argues that European regulatory frameworks like the Digital Services Act represent a direct assault on American constitutional values, forcing US tech platforms to censor speech that would be perfectly legal in America.

Rogers frames this as a sovereignty issue with global implications. "These are websites that exist on American soil, host large quantities of American users, and often times discuss American political topics. But because users are permitted to discuss them in a way that offends UK law, there's the imposition of a UK fine," she explains. This isn't theoretical. European regulators are already fining American platforms for hosting content that violates European speech codes, even when that content involves American political discourse protected by the First Amendment.

The collision course was inevitable. "With the rise of the internet and all communication becoming transnational, we see these new technocratic regulatory frameworks in Europe bumping up against the commitments to free speech in The United States," Rogers observes. What's changed under Trump is America's willingness to push back rather than accommodate European sensibilities.

Rogers credits the political shift for breaking what she calls the "censorship track" that dominated the Biden years. She points to documented pressure campaigns where the previous administration pushed social media companies to remove content deemed problematic. "If it weren't for that, I think we'd still be on a censorship track. If it was up to Zuckerberg, he would have continued to do it under Kamala. He did it no problem under Biden. He's a weathervane," Rogers argues, suggesting that tech executives simply respond to whoever holds power.

This diagnosis reveals the administration's strategy. Rather than treating platform moderation as a private business decision, Rogers views it as fundamentally political. Tech companies moderate not based on their own values but in response to government pressure and regulatory threats. Change the political environment, and you change the moderation policies.

The Trump administration's solution is aggressive non-compliance with European digital governance. Rogers advocates for what amounts to digital protectionism: American platforms should operate under American rules, regardless of where their users live. "Build your own Facebook, build your own Instagram, build your own Twitter slash x, TikTok, whatever you'd like to build, and you can have whatever standards you like on your platforms. We're saying, hey, these are our platforms," she declares.

This represents a fundamental shift from the globalized internet model toward digital nationalism. Instead of platforms adapting their policies to satisfy the most restrictive jurisdiction, Rogers wants American companies to assert First Amendment principles globally. The implicit message to European regulators: if you don't like American speech norms, build your own internet.

Rogers brings a litigator's combativeness to what was traditionally a conciliatory role. "I was a litigator and it was my job to fight. And now I'm a diplomat, so it is my job to be diplomatic," she acknowledges, but her approach suggests the fighting instincts remain intact. Public diplomacy, she explains, focuses on "the relationship between the American government and foreign publics" rather than government-to-government relations.

The stakes extend beyond tech policy. Rogers is essentially arguing that European digital governance represents cultural imperialism, forcing American platforms to adopt European values about acceptable speech. This creates a precedent where the most restrictive jurisdiction sets global standards, effectively neutering the First Amendment's global influence.

Whether this confrontational approach succeeds depends on American tech companies' willingness to resist European regulatory pressure, even at the cost of market access. Rogers seems confident that political cover from Washington will stiffen Silicon Valley's spine. But tech executives face a different calculation: lose European revenue or comply with European rules.

The real test comes when European regulators escalate beyond fines to blocking American platforms entirely. Rogers appears ready for that fight, betting that European citizens will pressure their governments to back down rather than lose access to American digital services. "I think that a lot of ordinary Europeans are not comfortable with comedians getting dragged out of the airport," she suggests, implying that European speech restrictions have already gone too far for popular taste.

Watch for how aggressively American platforms resist European content moderation demands over the next year. If Rogers is right about executive pressure driving previous compliance, we should see a dramatic shift toward First Amendment absolutism on American platforms, regardless of European threats. If she's wrong, and commercial interests ultimately override political protection, her digital sovereignty project will collapse before it begins.

The broader question is whether the internet can survive as a unified global medium when major powers assert incompatible speech norms. Rogers is betting America can force the issue through digital dominance. Europe will likely test that theory soon enough.