A book questioning the benefits of mass immigration is shooting to the top of the Amazon bestseller list after going viral when it was yanked from the site April 17.
All the leftists who shriek about book bans were notably silent when “The Camp of the Saints,” a 1973 dystopian novel written by French author Jean Raspail, became unavailable at the largest bookseller in the world. 
The work of fiction depicts the collapse of Western civilization after a horde of third-world migrants overtakes the country. The book’s publisher, Vauban Books, released a statement following the book being removed from Amazon on April 17.
An X post from Vauban Books on April 20 said, “On Friday, April 17th, Amazon US removed the paperback listing for our edition of Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints (at this writing, the book remains available for purchase in Kindle and audiobook formats).” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Our statement on Amazon&#8217;s suppression of The Camp of the Saints in the United States: <a href="https://t.co/JDTE5i4XbH">pic.twitter.com/JDTE5i4XbH</a>
— Vauban Books (@VaubanBooks) <a href="https://twitter.com/VaubanBooks/status/2046262858904641889?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 20, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“We have since been informed by Amazon that the book is in violation of the company’s ‘offensive content’ policy,” the statement continued. “Amazon has supplied no information as to which portions of the book are offensive nor to whom.”
Vauban Books also noted that the book had been selling well after first being listed on Amazon in July 2025. “In the eight months since, Amazon has sold roughly 20,000 paperback copies of it.”
“The Camp of the Saints” was also said to have been “extensively reviewed in the American and international press” and found that its reviewers &#8220;have been unanimous in their assessment of its abiding importance and relevance to contemporary debates.”
“While we cannot say for certain has taken this extraordinary step, it may be no coincidence that the listing was removed one day after New York Magazine published a critical article on Vice President Vance that referenced the book.”
Following public outcry, Amazon reportedly <a href="https://x.com/VaubanBooks/status/2046621879574688215">shared a response</a> with Vauban Books courtesy of their media contact, stating, “We’ve resolved an error that briefly affected the availability of a paperback listing of The Camp of the Saints, and the title is now restored.'&#8221; 
The publisher said that Amazon &#8220;appears to be in damage control mode,&#8221; and again confirmed that the book was originally taken off the website due to their &#8220;offensive content policy.&#8221;

Amazon

Amazon Yanks Anti-Immigration Novel, Accidentally Sends It Rocketing Up The Charts

anti-immigration

Books

Censorship

Conservatism

Entertainment

Fiction

Amazon Germany Services GmbH

The Return Of Wokeness? Amazon Banning Books Is Just The Start

Illegal Immigration

Leftists

Matt Walsh

Opinion

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
A patient recently stopped midsentence during a session. He was describing a routine disagreement at work — a minor conflict over scheduling and communication — when he suddenly froze, backtracked, and added an unnecessary disclaimer: “I know I’m saying this as a white guy…” The comment had nothing to do with race. But in his mind, race had already entered the room.
That moment reflects something I’m seeing more and more among successful adults, especially white professionals in elite settings. Ordinary conversations that should feel routine are now approached like potential danger zones. Before they even know whether what they’re about to say is remotely controversial, people are editing themselves, adding disclaimers, and mentally preparing for how they might need to explain or retreat. What they think is heightened social awareness is often something closer to chronic anxiety.
Race has become a psychological minefield. Therapeutic language and anxiety-driven habits have moved beyond the consulting room into everyday life, reshaping how people think, speak, and relate to one another.
The problem isn’t empathy, reflection, or a sincere desire to get it right. Those are healthy. The problem is when reflection turns into constant self-monitoring, when people overanalyze ordinary phrasing and start treating basic exchanges like potential liabilities. At that point, it’s no longer sensitivity. It’s anxiety.
In therapy, this is a familiar pattern. People rehearse conversations before they happen, over-monitor their wording in real time, and replay exchanges afterward searching for signs they crossed a line. In workplaces, schools, and social circles, race discourse now trains people into that same habit. The reality is, people aren’t becoming more honest. They’re becoming more afraid.
The clearest example shows up among white professionals who feel the need to preface even basic observations with disclaimers about identity or privilege. But it doesn’t stop there. Teachers start second-guessing harmless classroom discussions. Parents tense up talking about race in front of their children’s friends. Executives over-script routine feedback conversations. Friends replay things they said at dinner, wondering whether a phrase landed the wrong way. The pattern is the same: Ordinary speech starts to feel loaded before the conversation even begins. Silence becomes the coping mechanism.
That’s where this stops being just cultural and becomes psychological. Once people begin avoiding ordinary conversations because the fear of social consequences, avoidance itself becomes the habit. And once that habit takes hold, the anxiety only deepens.
What’s especially concerning to me as a therapist is how familiar the pattern is. Someone feels a spike of fear, adds a disclaimer, softens the phrase, or avoids the comment altogether, and immediately feels a sense of relief. That teaches the brain the wrong lesson: that the danger was real and that self-censorship is what prevented the fallout. So the next time a similar conversation comes up, the anxiety shows up faster and hits harder because the brain has started to associate silence and over-editing with safety.
Over time, people become so afraid of saying the wrong thing that ordinary conversation starts to feel risky. They check every sentence for possible offense, replay exchanges long after they’re over, and fall into habits such as disclaimers, over-prefacing, and moral throat-clearing, all meant to signal innocence before anyone has even accused them of anything. The irony is that the very habits meant to calm the fear only make race feel more dangerous to discuss honestly.
That is how a culture meant to encourage dialogue slowly trains people to avoid honest conversation.
Elite institutions have made this worse. In workplaces, schools, and media, people are trained to second-guess ordinary language and over-explain even basic observations. The result is a constant habit of second-guessing. People become so focused on how every word might land that real conversation disappears, and exchange gives way to performance. This doesn’t improve dialogue. It shuts it down.
Good therapy helps people tolerate discomfort, reality-test their fears, and speak honestly without assuming the worst. A healthy culture should do the same. It should make room for candid discussion, curiosity, and disagreement without teaching adults to treat ordinary language like danger.
What much of elite race discourse now produces instead is self-censorship, guilt, and a widening culture of silence. That may spare people short-term discomfort, but it’s also normalizing the same fear patterns we usually associate with anxiety. That is far from social progress. It’s a culture teaching healthy adults to think like anxious patients.
***
Jonathan Alpert is a psychotherapist in New York City and Washington, D.C., and author of the forthcoming book “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Therapy-Nation-America-Anxious-Divided/dp/1335000658" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Therapy Nation</a>.” Find him on X <a href="https://x.com/JonathanAlpert" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@JonathanAlpert</a>.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Why Saying The Wrong Thing Now Feels Like A Bigger Risk Than Staying Silent

Race

Upstream

It is easy to forget the dystopian excesses of the Covid era: business closures, shuttered schools, and mask and vaccine mandates. A new development in Missouri v. Biden, a Covid-era lawsuit, serves as an important reminder of how precarious our basic freedoms become in the face of a perceived disaster. For the past four years, a coalition of state attorneys general, courageous scientists, and First Amendment advocates waged a counterattack against the federal government’s efforts to strong-arm social media companies into silencing those espousing views contrary to the government-approved narrative. 
Last week, the plaintiffs and the federal defendants submitted a consent decree to the court for approval. The <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.477.1.pdf">proposed consent decree</a> is both a real win for free speech and a blueprint for further protections necessary to safeguard our First Amendment rights.
That need is underscored by another recent free speech victory by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-dept-reaches-censorship-settlement-with-daily-wire?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=7&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=Daily+Wire+Wins+Landmark+Free+Speech+Victory+In+Censorship+Lawsuit+Against+State+Department">The Daily Wire</a>, in which the State Department agreed to stop supporting efforts that targeted protected speech by American media outlets. That settlement also imposed ongoing compliance oversight, helping ensure the government cannot quietly return to the same tactics.
The core allegation in Missouri v. Biden was that senior officials across multiple federal agencies had engaged in an unprecedented campaign to coerce and pressure major social media platforms into censoring lawful speech. The plaintiffs argued that the Biden administration had effectively outsourced government censorship to private companies, leaning on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to suppress content related to Covid origins and treatments, the Hunter Biden laptop story, and election integrity.
<div id="attachment_869089" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-869089" class="size-large wp-image-869089" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/GettyImages-1915020320-864x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 10: Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, departs a House Oversight Committee meeting at Capitol Hill on January 10, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" />Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images</div>
For example, Rob Flaherty, the director of digital media in the Biden Administration, tried to coerce Meta into suppressing posts critical of the Covid vaccine on Facebook, accusing Meta of driving “vaccine hesitancy.” Flaherty even demanded that Meta explain what it would do to suppress anti-vaccine content on WhatsApp, a private messaging application. Flaherty made clear he was not speaking just for himself, but rather for, “the highest — and I mean the highest — levels of the White House.&#8221;
The case bounced between trial and appellate courts, including a stop at the Supreme Court, as judges evaluated the nuances of the thorny, at times novel, claims at issue in the case. With the change in presidential administrations, however, the federal government no longer was the adversary, though it was still the nominal defendant. 
On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an Executive Order entitled, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” which condemned the types of censorship the plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden had filed suit regarding. With a sympathetic administration in office, the plaintiffs were able to negotiate a consent decree rather than spend many more years embroiled in litigation.
The consent decree is focused on preventing the type of coercion, known as jawboning, that the federal government had used to do indirectly during Covid what it could not do directly: prevent Americans from speaking out in public about the major issues of the day. The parties agreed that the government would no longer take actions designed to bully social media companies into removing or suppressing content containing free speech. The consent decree further prohibits the government from directing or vetoing social media companies’ content moderation policies.
A critical limit in the consent decree, however, exposes the clear need for the government to take protective measures outside the confines of the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit. For technical legal reasons related to standing and jurisdiction, the consent decree is focused on the parties to the case. Rather than enjoin the federal government as a whole, the consent decree binds the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which engaged in some of the most blatant jawboning efforts during the Covid period. The consent decree further protects only the plaintiffs in the case, that is, the states and individuals who sued the government. (In a bit of poetic justice, two of the plaintiffs, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, withdrew from the case after accepting senior posts in the Trump administration.)
The Missouri v. Biden plaintiffs are not the only litigants who have prevailed in challenges to Biden-era free speech violations. As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-dept-reaches-censorship-settlement-with-daily-wire">reported</a>, this week, a federal judge issued a consent decree in a challenge to the Biden-era State Department’s practice of partnering with outside organizations to label various outlets — including this one and the Federalist — as disinformation. The State Department agreed that it would no longer engage in efforts to suppress, censor, demonetize, or downgrade the constitutionally protected speech of Americans and domestic news outlets. 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-dept-reaches-censorship-settlement-with-daily-wire?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=7&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=Daily+Wire+Wins+Landmark+Free+Speech+Victory+In+Censorship+Lawsuit+Against+State+Department"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-1070109 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/dw_vs._state_dept_16x9_720.png" alt="" width="720" height="405" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/dw_vs._state_dept_16x9_720.png 720w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/dw_vs._state_dept_16x9_720-300x169.png 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 720px) 100vw, 720px" /></a>
While these consent decrees are real victories for the plaintiffs who had the courage to take on the federal government in court, they will not stop a future administration from engaging in similar tactics that we saw during Covid, in the wake of the 2020 election, and throughout the Biden Administration. Americans as a whole deserve the robust protections the Missouri v. Biden plaintiffs earned in that litigation. 
Congressional action of any sort is admittedly a difficult feat. But there are few bedrock principles more important than those embodied in the First Amendment. If Congress wants to protect Americans’ free speech rights, the proposed consent decree in Missouri v. Biden is a useful roadmap. All federal agencies and officials, not just the select handful named in the proposed consent decree, should be prohibited from trying to control speech by telling social media companies what content is and is not allowed. And all Americans should be able to speak on social media with the assurance that the government cannot tell social media platforms to silence them.
The plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden and their attorneys should be praised for bringing a landmark lawsuit in the face of tremendous government overreach and achieving a real victory in the process. Congress should follow suit by extending those protections to everyone else.
* * *
Jesse Franklin-Murdock is the Miles Visiting Fellow at the Center for American Liberty, and he is a partner at Sweigart Murdock, LLP in San Francisco, where he specializes in First Amendment and defamation law, political law, and civil rights.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-BIDEN-ARRIVAL

After Daily Wire Legal Win, Americans Shouldn’t Wonder Who’s Silencing Them Online

Biden Administration

COVID

Daily Wire

Donald Trump

Hunter Biden

Joe Biden

Social Media Censorship

The Federalist

The White House turns green today as Ireland’s prime minister (Taoiseach) Micheál Martin arrives for his annual St. Patrick’s Day meeting with the president. Every March, Americans put aside political differences and raise a pint of Guinness to the ballads, jigs and reels, and the rolling hills of their common ancestral homeland. In Chicago, the river turns green. In New York, the city shuts down for the largest St. Patrick’s Day parade in the world. And in Boston – well, Boston is Irish all year round.
The last time the American media reported on Irishmen in Washington was only last month. Free speech expert Lorcán Price and comedian Graham Linehan <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-europe-plans-to-strangle-american-free-speech?author=Lorcan+Price&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=How+Europe+Plans+To+Strangle+American+Free+Speech">testified</a> before the House Judiciary Committee on the mass censorship regime sweeping Europe through its big tech hub in Dublin, Ireland. The American nostalgia of St. Patrick’s Day remembers a wholesome, Christian, culturally rich country that is now close to extinction. Ireland today is a left-wing, globalist hub and it offers a warning about the direction left-wing policies will lead the United States if the American Left regains control in Washington. Ireland’s fall from grace demonstrates how unelected bureaucracies and mass-immigration can reshape a nation.
<div id="attachment_1060857" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1060857" class="size-large wp-image-1060857" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2245192920-864x576.jpg" alt="DUBLIN, IRELAND - OCTOBER 31: The sun shines on a pint of Guninness that is being poured as people enjoy a drink in a bar in the city centre on October 31, 2025 in Dublin, Ireland. The city of Dublin, the capital of the Republic of Ireland, is located on Ireland’s east coast at the mouth of the River Liffey and is a popular destination for domestic tourists and with international visitors. (Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2245192920-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2245192920-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2245192920-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2245192920.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Matt Cardy/Getty Images</div>
While Elon Musk’s DOGE made some headway last year in exposing and trimming some of the worst excesses of America’s deep state, Ireland’s deep state is firmly embedded. There are <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/2024/10/19/why-so-many-charities-and-ngos/">32,000 NGOs</a> in Ireland — that’s one for every 155 people in the country. Despite the label “non-governmental,” this sector receives $7 billion (€6 billion) every year, not including additional funds from the European Union, USAID, and other governmental bodies around the world.
These organizations, for the most part, implement policies created by the European Union — another unelected bureaucracy — that are passed with little-to-no real scrutiny by the Irish parliament. In fact, according to an Irish member of European Parliament, <a href="https://gript.ie/fine-gael-mep-70-of-legislation-comes-from-europe/#:~:text=Many%20people%20in%20Ireland%20today,what's%20decided%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20said.">70% of Ireland’s legislation</a> is created in this way.
The American Left would love to see that level of unaccountable NGO rule in the United States. The House DOGE Subcommittee <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/release/doge-subcommittee-chairwoman-greene-opens-hearing-on-ngos-use-of-federal-funds-to-advance-radical-agenda">found last year</a> that the Biden-Harris EPA had directed $20 billion to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. This provided taxpayer funds to NGOs to implement the Green New Deal. If Republicans lose in 2026, we can expect Democrats to push even larger sums of taxpayer dollars through similar programs with little oversight.
In Ireland, the government openly advertises that it reserves special benefits for <a href="https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving-country/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/services-for-asylum-seekers-in-ireland/direct-provision/#:~:text=Direct%20provision%20is%20the%20name,protection%20and%20are%20waiting%20for:">illegal immigrants who come to its shores</a>. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Ireland announced it would take in every Ukrainian refugee that arrived at Dublin Airport, with no upper limit. The government still provides housing and a weekly stipend many times larger than any other European country, but refuses to run any background checks on these alleged refugees. Dr. Eoin Lenihan explains in his book, Vandalising Ireland, that between 2022 and 2023, 8,975 individuals arrived in Ireland to seek asylum with no valid identification. Only one was prosecuted.
In 2022, a 23-year-old Irish schoolteacher, Ashling Murphy, was brutally stabbed 11 times in the neck while out for a run. Her murderer, Jozef Puska, was unemployed and receiving funds from a social welfare program. As an EU citizen (Puska moved from Slovakia in 2013), he had an automatic right to live in Ireland, despite being unemployed. Puska was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment, but he remains in the country without a deportation order. Ashling’s boyfriend, Ryan Casey, was accused of “incitement to hatred” by the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg0ee65eqo">BBC</a> for raising concern about the unmitigated immigration regime that led to her murder. To date, the system has not been reformed to prevent similar tragedies.
<div id="attachment_1060839" style="width: 875px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1060839" class="size-large wp-image-1060839" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1237802580-865x576.jpg" alt="TULLAMORE, IRELAND - JANUARY 18: Pupils from Ashling Murphy's class hold photographs of her and red roses ahead of her funeral at St. Brigid’s Church, County Offaly on January 18, 2022 in Tullamore, Ireland. The murder of the beloved 23 year old school teacher has caused widespread anger and shock in Ireland, with tens of thousands of people attending vigils in recent days. (Photo by Charles McQuillan/Getty Images)" width="865" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1237802580-865x576.jpg 865w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1237802580-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1237802580-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1237802580.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 865px) 100vw, 865px" />Charles McQuillan/Getty Images</div>
The United States has seen similar tragedies as a result of the disastrous Biden-era immigration regime. Young girls like Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, and Kayla Hamilton bore the brunt of this policy. A new Democratic administration will certainly re-open the border and cause more pain and suffering, precisely because open borders — not the safety of young women — has become a defining policy priority of the Left.
Ireland’s Christian heritage has been politicized and defeated in a woke crusade. The last decade brought with it a wave of referendums that ripped Ireland’s conservative safeguards out of the constitution. Ireland voted in large numbers to create constitutional rights for same-sex “marriage” and abortion (with no restrictions). In 2024, the ruling parties put forward a vote to remove the word “woman” from the constitution and define “family” as any “durable relationship.” Only in a last-minute polling turnaround that indicated the Irish people are finally waking up to the destruction of their culture, did the government lose the vote. The star of that 2024 campaign, Maria Steen, was unceremoniously <a href="https://lawliberty.org/ireland-at-rock-bottom/">blocked from running for President</a> last year.
A nation’s politics necessarily impact its culture. The Irish culture Americans celebrate every March is deteriorating rapidly. The Gaelic language is confined to rural villages, and less than <a href="https://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2023pressreleases/pressstatementcensus2022resultsprofile8-theirishlanguageandeducation">2% of the population</a> speak it on a weekly basis. This year, the government perverted the celebration of the Irish Catholic St. Brigid by <a href="https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/ireland-is-playing-with-holy-fire/">casting her as a pagan goddess</a>. In the aftermath of the George Floyd debacle in Minnesota, Ireland eagerly joined the cancellation spree. Trinity College Dublin “denamed” (renamed) its Berkeley Library, previously named after a significant Irish-born philosopher, due to alleged ties to slavery.
While the United States has never passed a popular vote to create constitutional rights out of thin air, it repeatedly elects politicians who seek to protect made-up rights, misuse the law, and sell out their Christian faith. The last administration attempted to codify Roe v. Wade. It succeeded in codifying parts of Obergefell v. Hodges with bipartisan support in the “Respect for Marriage Act.” Thirty-four felony convictions nearly blocked Donald Trump from the ballot in 2024. In the United States, Christian faith is becoming increasingly politicized. Daily Wire’s Megan Basham has catalogued this bastardization of Christianity in the United States in her book, &#8220;Shepherds for Sale.&#8221; Renaming libraries and toppling statues has also become common under Democrat governance.
Ireland’s transformation did not happen overnight. It happened through bureaucrats, state-funded NGOs, and cultural elites who slowly replaced national identity with global ideology. Americans celebrating St. Patrick’s Day should remember: the country they toast tonight is not the one that exists today. Ireland shows what happens when elites, bureaucracies, and ideology override national identity. As Americans celebrate 250 years of independence, they should reflect on their own national identity as they head to the ballot box this year. After all, Ireland is the future the American Left wants.
* * *
Roger Berkeley works with mission-driven organizations to develop their political and communications strategies. Now based in Washington, DC, Berkeley has been politically active in his native Ireland since 2016, driving change on free speech and life issues.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Aerial view of St. Anne’s Church of Ireland in Ballyshannon, County Donegal, surrounded by cemetery and lush countryside, Traditional rural church architecture and Irish cultural landscape for editorial and travel use

Ireland Is The Future The American Left Wants

Europe

Globalization

illegal immigrants

Ireland

St. Patrick's Day

X announced Friday that it is challenging a $140 million fine imposed by the European Commission under what critics call the bloc&#8217;s digital “censorship” law. 
The social media company was hit with a fine in December 2025 for alleged non-compliance with the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a sweeping speech-regulation law that allows authorities to penalize companies for failing to remove so-called misinformation or other content deemed illegal. X filed an appeal on Monday in the E.U.&#8217;s General Court, arguing it was denied due process and faced a biased enforcement process. 
“This EU Decision resulted from an incomplete and superficial investigation, grave procedural errors, a tortured interpretation of the obligations under the DSA, and systematic breaches of rights of defence and basic due process requirements suggesting prosecutorial bias,” X’s Global Government Affairs team <a href="https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/2024803983093629298">said</a>. “X remains committed to user safety and transparency while defending our users&#8217; access to the only global town square.”
X&#8217;s move marks the first legal challenge to the Digital Services Act, which critics say enables political censorship and punishment of disfavored viewpoints. The law allows the European Commission to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies it claims are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation.
The act relies on non-governmental organizations that advise regulators on whether online content may be deemed illegal for violating E.U. standards. It places significant reporting and compliance burdens on tech companies. In certain cases, American tech companies may be fined up to 6% of their global revenue if they violate specific conditions. 
The legal challenge is being supported by Alliance Defending Freedom International, which has spoken out extensively against the Digital Services Act. 
“X is where millions of people go to freely express their views. This is a crackdown on X by authorities who view a free speech platform as a serious threat to their total control of online narratives,” said Adina Portaru, a senior European counsel for ADF International. “By targeting X, they are targeting the free speech of individuals across the world who simply want to share ideas online free from censorship.”
Portaru said the legal challenge confronts what she described as the enormous power the European Commission wields to define the content moderation rules, launch investigations, and levy fines.
“If the Commission’s concentration of power goes unchallenged, it will further cement a highly problematic standard for speech control across the EU and beyond,” she said. 
In October, ADF International led a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/for-thursday-exclusive-free-speech-advocates-challenge-eu-over-pan-european-censorship-regime">letter</a> signed by more than 100 free speech advocates urging the European Commission to reconsider the law. In a November review, the commission claimed that the act was content-neutral. 
X owner Elon Musk called the fine against his company “bullsh*t” and, one day after it was issued, <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1997279325876367719">said</a> the European Union should be &#8220;abolished.&#8221;
Both the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have voiced opposition to the law.
“Look, Europe has to be very careful,” Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/europe-has-to-be-very-careful-trump-issues-stern-warning-after-eu-fines-elon-musks-x">said</a> while commenting on the fine back in December. “They’re doing a lot of things. … Europe is going in some bad directions. It’s very bad for the people.”
Last week, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-would-give-american-victims-of-foreign-censorship-power-to-sue?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Bill+Would+Give+American+Victims+Of+Foreign+Censorship+Power+To+Sue">said</a> lawmakers are exploring legislation to protect American companies from penalties under foreign laws that regulate speech. The committee has released documents it says show the European Union pressured tech companies to create guidelines defining acceptable speech on topics ranging from mass migration to men competing in women’s sports.

SWITZERLAND-POLITICS-ECONOMY-DIPLOMACY

Elon Musk Escalates Fight With Europe Over ‘Speech Controls’

Courts

Elon Musk

European Union

Free Speech

World

Republican lawmakers will consider legislation that would allow American citizens to sue foreign entities that censor and violate their First Amendment rights.
House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Thursday that lawmakers were looking into proposals that would protect Americans from foreign censorship. The legislation would mirror proposals introduced in states like Wyoming that would protect Americans from being penalized for their opinions. 
“We are definitely looking at that,” Jordan responded when asked by journalist Michael Shellenberger if Congress would consider proposals similar to the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion (GRANITE) Act <a href="https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2026/HB0070">introduced</a> on February 5 in Wyoming. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
BREAKING: Congress is considering stripping sovereign immunity of EU censorship officials, prohibiting social media from enforcing censorship orders, and enabling private lawsuits against foreign entities, says <a href="https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Jim_Jordan</a> echoing remarks made by <a href="https://twitter.com/UnderSecPD?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@UnderSecPD</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/DarrellIssa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DarrellIssa</a> <a href="https://t.co/AKjfbBJql9">pic.twitter.com/AKjfbBJql9</a>
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) <a href="https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/2019456842997338152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 5, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Jordan added that lawmakers were trying to find a “remedy” for foreign censorship, saying that “we&#8217;re taking a good look at that and seeing if there&#8217;s something we can do” regarding the GRANITE Act. 
The GRANITE Act would create a cause of action against foreign states and international organizations that implement censorship laws that violate the free speech rights of Americans, according to a summary of the bill. It would also prevent the state from working with entities that implement foreign censorship. 
Both Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) have already suggested that the United States should take action to protect Americans from being prosecuted under foreign censorship laws. 
Jordan’s comments come after the House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/2018683758006665352">released</a> documents showing that tech companies were restricting the speech of Americans under Europe’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/for-thursday-exclusive-free-speech-advocates-challenge-eu-over-pan-european-censorship-regime">Digital Services Act</a> and other measures. 
The act empowers the European Commission to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies, which it says are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation. In certain circumstances, American tech companies may be fined up to 6% of their global revenue if they violate specific conditions of the act.
According to the House Judiciary Committee, the European Union pressured tech companies to create guidelines on what was acceptable speech on topics from mass migration to men participating in women’s sports on the basis of their transgender identity. 
Americans&#8217; speech online has not just been censored by foreign bureaucrats, but also by the State Department. 
In February 2024, The Daily Wire, along with The Federalist and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-texas-ag-ask-court-to-block-state-departments-domestic-misinformation-efforts">sued the State Department</a> over its Global Engagement Center’s relationship with anti-“misinformation” outfits like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI). The suit alleges that those outfits were focused on suppressing American conservative media, and the Global Engagement Center’s support of these groups violated the First Amendment.

Former US Special Counsel Jack Smith Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee

Bill Would Give American Victims Of Foreign Censorship Power To Sue

House May Empower Americans To Sue Foreign Entities That Censor Them

First Amendment

House Judiciary Committee

Jim Jordan

For most of its existence, Wikipedia has been hailed as a marvel of the digital age: a sprawling, collaborative encyclopedia written by anyone and corrected by everyone. An open marketplace of knowledge. A monument to the democratization of information.
But democracies — political or epistemic — rarely collapse in an instant. They erode from within. And what my team at the Media Research Center (MRC) has uncovered about how Wikipedia operates, and how carefully it conceals that machinery, should alarm anyone who believes a self-governing society depends on an open, honest information sphere.
<a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/free-speech/luis-cornelio/2025/11/17/how-wikipedia-infiltrated-colleges-train-next-generation">Our recent investigation</a> shows that Wikipedia and its educational partner, Wiki Education, have developed a vast, little-known system for shaping, and increasingly weaponizing, the content millions of Americans rely on every day. What we found is not simply concerning; it reveals the quiet architecture of an ideological project. It is also possible that, in attempting to hide its operations, Wikipedia has crossed legal lines that could carry serious consequences.
Wikipedia’s co-founder, Larry Sanger, has said openly that the platform no longer reflects its original mission of neutrality. It has become a curator of political narrative, amplifying the messaging of the left rather than serving as an impartial arbiter of knowledge.
<h2>The Blacklist(s)</h2>
Wikipedia is transparent about one thing: it blacklists right-leaning news outlets and conservative non-profits. But even this admission obscures more than it reveals. In reality, <a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/free-speech/luis-cornelio/2025/02/03/exclusive-wikipedia-effectively-blacklists-all-right">Wikipedia maintains three tiers of blacklists</a> — Blacklisted, Deprecated, and Generally Unreliable — each designed to exclude certain publishers from the encyclopedia’s information ecosystem.
The “Blacklisted” category is the most severe. Sources here are blocked entirely; links cannot even be submitted for review. This is Wikipedia’s “do not pass go” list. It includes outlets such as the Heritage Foundation, Breitbart News, and the Washington Examiner. Content from these organizations is not debated or fact-checked, it is simply turned away at the gate.
The second level, “Deprecated,” involves sources that are “generally prohibited.” Users attempting to cite to these sources receive warnings, before Wikipedia’s editors almost always reject the suggestions. LifeSiteNews, Newsmax, The Daily Caller, and Blaze Media fall here. The effect is the same as the first list, exclusion, just with a thin procedural layer.
The third category, “Generally Unreliable,” is essentially a blacklist with a tiny escape hatch. Wikipedia discourages use of these sources and directs contributors to “more reliable” outlets. The Daily Wire is stuck in this purgatory: technically citable, but heavily disfavored.
The disparities this system produces are staggering. The Daily Wire has been cited only 445 times across Wikipedia. The New York Times, by contrast, appears in more than 1.6 million citations — meaning Wikipedia cites the Times nearly 4,000 times for every single Daily Wire reference. Similar gaps exist with Newsweek, Politico, and The Washington Post, which are cited hundreds of times more frequently than their far more reliable conservative counterparts.
More broadly, <a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/free-speech/luis-cornelio/2025/02/03/exclusive-wikipedia-effectively-blacklists-all-right">MRC research shows</a> that Wikipedia cites to left-leaning outlets almost 20 times more often than to right-leaning outlets. <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/695762/trust-media-new-low.aspx">Trust in the media is at an all-time low</a>, specifically because of the bias injected into news stories. Wikipedia intentionally magnifies that bias, resulting in gross distortions of reality. We have documented Wikipedia’s smears against many political figures, including President Donald Trump, Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Charlie Kirk. 
When gatekeepers designate half the country’s media ecosystem — representing tens of millions of readers — as inherently “unreliable,” the result is not a pursuit of truth. It is a systematic silencing of outlets disfavored by the ideological left. The encyclopedia built on openness now thrives on exclusion.
<div id="attachment_1011409" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1011409" class="size-large wp-image-1011409" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-864x576.jpg" alt="skynesher. Getty Images. Male teacher giving a lecture from desktop PC during a class at computer lab." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />skynesher. Getty Images.</div>
<h2>The Student Army</h2>
Yet the core of the MRC’s latest findings lies not in the blacklist itself, but in the machinery feeding content into Wikipedia: Wiki Education, a California nonprofit created as a spin-off of the Wikimedia Foundation, operating with its funding, personnel, and blessing.
Wiki Education recruits college professors to assign Wikipedia editing as coursework. Since 2010, more than 145,000 students have participated, generating over 120 million words of content. On the surface, this could be a civic success story — young people helping build a shared public resource.
But the reality, based on the courses Wiki Education recruits and supports, is far more ideological. Classes such as Queering Religion, Critical Race Feminisms, Queer of Color Critique, Gender and Identity in STEM, and similarly activist-oriented seminars are not fringe exceptions; they are typical of the curriculum Wiki Education promotes.
These disciplines are not merely academic; they are frameworks for political activism. And the content they generate — guided by ideology rather than neutrality — flows directly into Wikipedia. The encyclopedia becomes the final destination for arguments crafted within contemporary left-wing academic theory.
<h2>The Taxpayer Foots The Bill</h2>
Even more astonishing is that this ideological pipeline is largely underwritten by taxpayers. Because Wiki Education embeds itself in public universities, it leverages state-funded faculty, classrooms, and infrastructure to funnel student labor into Wikipedia. Students believe they are learning digital literacy; in practice, many are producing politicized content for a global platform.
The pattern extends to Wiki Education’s leadership. Every traceable political donation from its senior staff and board flows to Democratic candidates, progressive PACs, and left-aligned advocacy groups. While not illegal, it reveals the institutional alignment shaping the organization’s priorities.
<h2>A Potential Legal Problem</h2>
This coordinated system — Wikipedia funding Wiki Education, Wiki Education training student editors, students supplying content that reinforces Wikipedia’s ideological filters — creates not only an informational problem but potentially a legal one.
When Wikipedia spun off Wiki Education in 2013, the structural ties between the two organizations remained unusually close. Yet Wikipedia has insisted in court filings, sworn under penalty of perjury, that it is merely an “interactive computer service,” not a “publisher.” It did so to seek the liability protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
If Wikipedia effectively controls Wiki Education as an alter ego — training, directing, and financing its editorial labor — then it may have misrepresented its true operations under oath. Filing false statements in court is a crime under state and federal law. Attorneys general in jurisdictions where Wikipedia has invoked Section 230, like the state of Florida, may have ample reason to investigate those claims. And while the U.S. Department of Justice has its hands full unwinding the malfeasance committed during the Biden administration, Attorney General Pam Bondi might be interested in this, too.
<h2>Why It Matters</h2>
Wikipedia is not just a reference site. It is infrastructure. It consistently dominates Google search results — Google itself being a company that aggressively manipulates search results to push its own ideology. And modern AI systems, including chatbots, draw heavily from Wikipedia’s content pipelines. When Wikipedia’s entries tilt, so does the entire information ecosystem.
Its blacklist system also has downstream economic effects. Being labeled “unreliable” reduces an outlet’s visibility, decreases traffic, and predictably harms ad revenue. The encyclopedia’s judgments ripple outward into media markets and public perception.
Given these stakes, Congress should investigate. So should the Federal Trade Commission. And attorneys general, especially in cases where Wikipedia has defended its corporate structure under oath, should scrutinize whether the organization misrepresented how it operates.
Wikipedia has every right to express ideological preferences. But it does not have the right to cloak them behind false claims of neutrality to donors, to engage in deceptive or anticompetitive practices, or to misrepresent its structure in legal proceedings.
Transparency requires accountability. And it is long past time for the public to understand what Wikipedia has become.
* * *
Dan Schneider is Vice President for Free Speech at the Media Research Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Wikipedia

From Open Encyclopedia To Ideological Weapon: Wikipedia’s Hidden War On Truth

American Universities

Democrats

Investigation

Media Bias

Media Research Center

Silicon Valley

Students

The European Commission “ignored” censorship concerns as it moved forward with the implementation of a sweeping digital platform law that free speech advocates say could impact everyone from Christian preachers to TikTokers.
On Monday, the European Commission <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/report-application-article-33-regulation-eu-20222065-dsa-and-interaction-regulation-other-legal" target="_blank" rel="noopener">released</a> its first-ever review of the Digital Services Act (DSA), a law that empowers it to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies that it says are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation or take down “illegal content.” Alliance Defending Freedom International, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/for-thursday-exclusive-free-speech-advocates-challenge-eu-over-pan-european-censorship-regime" target="_blank" rel="noopener">has warned</a> that the Digital Services Act could bring about a “global censorship regime,”  told The Daily Wire that it was disappointed with the commission’s report.
“I think the concerns on free speech are very substantive, and they need a robust response, and we feel that the European Commission has not actually conducted a robust review in the sense of actually inviting all voices and all partners to the table,” Dr. Adina Portaru, a senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom International, told The Daily Wire in a phone interview from London.
“The DSA can impact anyone, can impact content creators and influencers and preachers and political dissidents and any kind of content online can be regulated by the DSA through its architecture,” she added.
The act relies on cooperation from non-governmental organizations that advise lawmakers whether someone’s online writings would be considered illegal. There would also be a high burden for reporting violations on tech companies. In certain circumstances, American tech companies may be fined up to 6% of their global revenue if they violate specific conditions.
The Monday assessment from the European Commission asserts that the act is in accordance with the “fundamental rights” recognized in the commission’s charter and that the act is “content agnostic.”
“It does not define what should be considered illegal or harmful content, it only establishes procedural obligations and safeguards where such content appears online,” the assessment said.
Portaru said that the “content agnostic” claim was a smokescreen and that the definition of illegal content in the act was broad enough to have global implications.
“Illegal content is defined in such a loose way as anything that is not in accordance with EU law or any law of any member state at any time. It can be today or in one week, depending on how the national laws change,” she said.
The Alliance Defending Freedom International led a letter signed by over 100 free speech experts in October urging the European Commission to address their concerns with the act. Another 50 non-governmental organizations signed a letter in September expressing concerns about the act.
Instead of bringing them to the table, the commission claimed to have broad consensus around the act when it was actually interpreted unilaterally, Portaru said.
“The European Commission had the opportunity to step into this space and constructively engage with these concerns coming from the U.S, as well as Europeans,&#8221; she said. &#8220;It failed to do so.&#8221;
<div id="message-list_1763648784.748159" class="c-virtual_list__item" tabindex="0" role="listitem" aria-setsize="-1" data-qa="virtual-list-item" data-item-key="1763648784.748159">
<div class="c-message_kit__background c-message_kit__background--hovered p-message_pane_message__message c-message_kit__message" role="presentation" data-qa="message_container" data-qa-unprocessed="false" data-qa-placeholder="false">
<div class="c-message_kit__hover c-message_kit__hover--hovered" role="document" aria-roledescription="message" data-qa-hover="true">
<div class="c-message_kit__actions c-message_kit__actions--default">
<div class="c-message_kit__gutter">
<div class="c-message_kit__gutter__right" role="presentation" data-qa="message_content">
<div class="c-message_kit__blocks c-message_kit__blocks--rich_text">
<div class="c-message__message_blocks c-message__message_blocks--rich_text" data-qa="message-text">
<div class="p-block_kit_renderer" data-qa="block-kit-renderer">
<div class="p-block_kit_renderer__block_wrapper p-block_kit_renderer__block_wrapper--first">
<div class="p-rich_text_block" dir="auto">
<div class="p-rich_text_section">Asked about whether the commission was concerned about free speech, Portaru said &#8220;they just simply ignored it.&#8221;</div>
<div></div>
<div class="p-rich_text_section">The commission did respond to Alliance Defending Freedom International in a November 14 letter viewed by The Daily Wire that claimed it was committed to “upholding the right to freedom of expression and information” and asserting that the act was content neutral.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
“The DSA ensures that lawful content protected by the fundamental right of freedom of expression, is safeguarded by establishing due process and transparency online. The DSA clarifies what online platforms are required to do when they moderate content to prevent the arbitrary removal of lawful content,” the commission wrote.
In a statement to The Daily Wire, a spokesman for the European Commission claimed that concerns about censorship were “completely unfounded.”
“The aim of our digital legislation, including the DSA, is to ensure that the Internet is a safe place. One that protects our fundamental rights. One where illegal content like terrorism or child abuse have no place,” the spokesman said, adding that online platforms have a role to “assess and mitigate risks to the freedom of expression.”
The spokesman added that the act provided a mechanism for people to challenge if their content has been removed.
Despite the European Commission’s claims, American officials have raised concerns about how the Digital Services Act could impact the United States. The State Department told The Daily Wire that it was reviewing the report on the Digital Services Act with &#8220;great interest.&#8221;
&#8220;Current EU laws, like the Digital Services Act, exacerbate concerning member-state speech laws that use vague language such as “harmful content” to target disfavored political and religious speech and can impose onerous financial burdens on U.S. companies seeking to do business in European markets,&#8221; a State Department spokesman told The Daily Wire. &#8220;European regulations such as the DSA can have outsized extraterritorial effects and place a disproportionate burden on major American technology platforms.&#8221;
&#8220;The United States believes that protecting freedom of expression is critical, particularly for any democratic, self-governing nation – this includes protecting voices that challenge the status quo or criticize the government,&#8221; the spokesman added. 
In September, European Union Ambassador Andrew Puzder said that he would be making formal submissions to the commission for changes to the act.
“The Europeans believe that [the rules] are less restrictive and less targeted than the U.S. believes, and I think we’re going to need to sit down and go through these acts with some care,” he <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/b6d9fb9c-901e-42e3-9610-5a449247fd49" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> the Financial Times.
That followed reports in August that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/rubio-orders-us-diplomats-launch-lobbying-blitz-against-europes-tech-law-2025-08-07/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">directed</a> diplomats to lobby against the Digital Services Act.
&#8220;Posts should focus efforts to build host government and other stakeholder support to repeal and/or amend the DSA or related EU or national laws restricting expression online,&#8221; Rubio wrote in a cable obtained by Reuters.
Apart from broader censorship concerns, many European countries have already become notorious for restrictions placed on political and religious speech. For example, Finnish parliamentarian <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-bible-on-trial-christian-politician-goes-back-to-court-over-religious-beliefs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Päivi Räsänen</a> has faced a six-year-long legal battle for conveying her beliefs in Christian views of sexuality online. Pro-life advocates have been punished in Britain for silently praying and German citizens <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/02/21/world-news/germans-cant-insult-politicians-which-is-why-we-need-to-protect-free-speech-in-the-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">can</a> be punished for insulting politicians.

BELGIUM-EU-POLITICS

Europe Union ‘Ignored’ Free Speech Concerns, Plows Ahead With ‘Global Censorship Regime’

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Marco Rubio

State Department

Tech giant Microsoft yanked its promotion of NewsGuard, which claims to rate the trustworthiness of news websites but is known for targeting conservative outlets like The Daily Wire, months after telling Republican senator Ted Cruz that it had disavowed the site and would no longer recommend it. 
In February 2025, Microsoft publicly <a href="https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/2/sen-cruz-s-investigation-leads-microsoft-to-disavow-support-for-newsguard-s-biased-indoctrination-tool">distanced</a> itself from NewsGuard after Cruz demanded answers about why it was promoting the fact-checker on its website. NewsGuard has been criticized for its harsh ratings of conservative websites while seemingly giving legacy outlets a pass.
Microsoft, however, continued to recommend NewsGuard as a trusted “fact-checker” for students even after the firm was accused of colluding with advertisers to censor conservative viewpoints. Only in recent days has Microsoft scrubbed references to NewsGuard from its website, according to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250905060257/https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/customize-cce3cff5-3bac-4711-a22e-fb28baa8b467#id0edd=fact_check">archived webpages</a> reviewed by The Daily Wire.
NewsGuard’s removal comes after a <a href="https://thefairelectionfund.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/MicrosoftReport.pdf">report</a> from the Fair Election Fund flagged that Microsoft was <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250905060257/https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/customize-cce3cff5-3bac-4711-a22e-fb28baa8b467#id0edd=fact_check">incorporating</a> the company into its Search Coach tool. Search Coach is used in Microsoft’s education products, including Teams for Education, which provides “context and guidance for students to ask effective questions and discover reliable sources.”
In Search Coach, Microsoft referred to NewsGuard as an “objective” and “reputable” organization. Microsoft said that NewsGuard “is embedded in Search Coach to share evaluations of sites&#8217; reliability, has created a list of trustworthy fact checking sites,” according to an archived webpage from September 5, 2025. 
<div id="attachment_999159" style="width: 1481px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-999159" class="wp-image-999159 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-10.02.25-AM.png" alt="" width="1471" height="782" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-10.02.25-AM.png 1471w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-10.02.25-AM-300x159.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-10.02.25-AM-1024x544.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-10.02.25-AM-768x408.png 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1471px) 100vw, 1471px" />Microsoft/ Sept. 5</div>
The new page has removed references to NewsGuard, though it still recommends left-wing fact-checking outlets like Snopes and PolitiFact. Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment by deadline on why the references to NewsGuard were removed. The Texas Public Policy Foundation and Libs of TikTok both <a href="https://dallasexpress.com/opinion/opinion-microsoft-lied-to-sen-cruz-about-newsguard-continued-censorship-push/">called</a> in late October for Microsoft to completely cut ties to NewsGuard. 
&#8220;We consistently review our business partnerships and did not renew our contract with NewsGuard,&#8221; a Microsoft spokesman told The Daily Wire after publication.
NewsGuard is still listed as a sidebar option on the page, but it leads to an error when clicked on. 
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-999163" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-10-at-1.25.27-PM-scaled.png" alt="" width="2560" height="1302" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-10-at-1.25.27-PM-scaled.png 2560w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-10-at-1.25.27-PM-300x153.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-10-at-1.25.27-PM-1024x521.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-10-at-1.25.27-PM-768x391.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-10-at-1.25.27-PM-1536x781.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-10-at-1.25.27-PM-2048x1041.png 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /></div>
NewsGuard once <a href="https://www.newsguardtech.com/misinformation-monitor/february-2020/">described</a> The Daily Wire as “a site founded by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro that distorts facts to advance a partisan agenda,&#8221; and has consistently rated this website as unreliable. 
One of the other sites it compared The Daily Wire to was Politico, an outlet with a rap sheet that includes pushing the discredited claims from intelligence officers that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. The article <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276">remains published without correction</a>. 
The relationship between Microsoft and NewsGuard first came under scrutiny back in December 2024 when Cruz sent a <a href="https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/6801E8CD-60A1-421D-86A2-8B9104AE27EB">letter</a> to the tech giant asking why it was promoting and funding NewsGuard’s Media Literacy tool. That tool was supposed to help students spot so-called “misinformation.” 
“Given growing concerns about NewsGuard’s ideological bias and its efforts to manipulate young minds, I ask for transparency regarding Microsoft’s involvement in and financing of this Orwellian censorship project,” Cruz wrote. “Your company’s financial support for NewsGuard is especially troubling given Microsoft’s purported commitment to protecting free expression online.”
After Cruz sent his letter, Microsoft told the Texas Republican that its relationship with NewsGuard was limited to one donation. It also asked NewsGuard to remove the following line from its website: &#8220;NewsGuard&#8217;s Media Literacy Programs are made possible thanks to generous support from Microsoft.”
In March 2025, it was <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/04/after-disavowing-newsguard-microsoft-still-promotes-the-censorship-group/">reported</a> that Microsoft advised students to “observe any NewsGuard ratings that come up from your search” before selecting search results when conducting research. At the time, Microsoft removed some of its references to NewsGuard in Search Coach, but not all. 
“Notice that some of the top links don’t have 100/100 scores. Select the NewsGuard rating. What did they lose points for? How might this impact whether the site is credible?&#8221; the <a href="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/get-started-with-search-coach-1dd4334c-9a43-461d-9ddc-630c8f7e6714">Search Coach</a> website reads. &#8220;Why are the different components of a NewsGuard rating important?”
NewsGuard is <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/jun/6/news-rating-agencies-federal-scrutiny-colluding-shut-conservative/">currently</a> wrapped up in an investigation from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is probing whether news rating agencies colluded with advertisers to target conservatives. 
FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson said last year that NewsGuard labels could lead to top-dollar consequences for companies. 
“If a website gets a poor rating on NewsGuard’s ‘nutrition label,’ it can choke off the advertising dollars that are the lifeblood for many websites, including platforms on which millions of Americans every day speak their minds,” he said in December 2024.
That same line of questioning is being <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/congress-to-probe-media-rating-firm-newsguard-for-possible-taxpayer-funded-censorship?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Congress+To+Probe+Media+Rating+Firm+NewsGuard+For+Possible+Taxpayer-Funded+Censorship">investigated</a> by the House Oversight Committee, as advertisers often used lists from NewsGuard to avoid doing business with companies that supposedly push “misinformation.&#8221; NewsGuard has received funding from the Department of Defense and the State Department, which gave it an award for its work in fighting alleged COVID misinformation.
Many entities still point to NewsGuard and recommend it as a trusted source. For example, the Kalamazoo Public Library in Michigan <a href="https://www.kpl.gov/category/patron-support/resources/voting-info/">promotes</a> NewsGuard as providing a “browser extension that provides an easy way to evaluate websites.” Hawaii’s public library system <a href="https://www.newsguardtech.com/press/hawaii-public-libraries-join-newsguard-in-news-literacy-partnership/">announced</a> a “media literacy” partnership with NewsGuard so that its patrons “see credibility ratings of news sources they encounter while using library computers.”
The Denver Public Library actually <a href="https://archive.ph/rlYMI">lists</a> local newspapers and TV outlets with reliable ratings from NewsGuard on its website. 
<div id="attachment_999167" style="width: 2534px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-999167" class="size-full wp-image-999167" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.30.27-AM.png" alt="" width="2524" height="1059" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.30.27-AM.png 2524w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.30.27-AM-300x126.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.30.27-AM-1024x430.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.30.27-AM-768x322.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.30.27-AM-1536x644.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.30.27-AM-2048x859.png 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 2524px) 100vw, 2524px" />Denver Public Libraries.</div>
Back in 2018, the American Libraries Magazine <a href="https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2019/11/01/check-your-facts-tech-tools/">reported</a> that around 200 public libraries across the country had integrated NewsGuard into their computer systems. The magazine also reported that NewsGuard was supported by Microsoft. 
Grok, the AI tool platformed by X, will cite NewsGuard when asked whether The Daily Wire can be trusted. Meanwhile, NewsGuard has been critical of Grok and suggested it can be turned into a “misinformation superspreader.”
<div id="attachment_999169" style="width: 1774px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-999169" class="size-full wp-image-999169" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.43.13-AM.png" alt="" width="1764" height="657" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.43.13-AM.png 1764w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.43.13-AM-300x112.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.43.13-AM-1024x381.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.43.13-AM-768x286.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-11-at-11.43.13-AM-1536x572.png 1536w" sizes=" (max-width: 1764px) 100vw, 1764px" />Grok evaluation of Daily Wire.</div>
NewsGuard has also built a partnership with the American Federation of Teachers, a radical nationwide teachers&#8217; union that pushes leftist policies. The partnership was designed to &#8220;champion legitimate journalism and fact-based reporting&#8221; and help students discern &#8220;misinformation.&#8221;
This story was updated with comment from Microsoft.

MixCollage-11-Nov-2025-12-43-PM-2961

Microsoft Told Ted Cruz It Had Nothing To Do With NewsGuard. Then It Scrubbed Its Website.

Microsoft

NewsGuard

Ted Cruz

Charlie Kirk was a tireless champion of the First Amendment and the sacred right to free speech it protects. He led the charge for every American to speak freely, believe openly, and challenge authority without fear. In standing up to a ruthless faction that despised those freedoms, Charlie paid the ultimate price. He became a martyr for the first protection in the Bill of Rights.
To honor his courage and his life’s work, the Media Research Center (MRC) is proud to award the annual MRC Free Speech Award exclusively to Charlie Kirk.
In 2024, the MRC recognized 35 individuals and groups for their defense of free expression. There are again many worthy champions this year. But Charlie’s leadership, clarity, and sacrifice deserve singular recognition.
The MRC presents this award during Free Speech Week, a national celebration that reminds Americans what separates us from every other nation on earth. Without the right to speak freely, there can be no democracy, no Republic, no America. Yet we now live in a time when many citizens no longer believe in that right. Some even view the First Amendment as a danger to the nation itself.
Charlie saw that storm coming. He warned that the Left’s growing intolerance would not stop at censorship, but would escalate into the criminalization of “wrongthink.” He said, “Leftists in the Western world want to criminalize wrongthink&#8230; This can only end badly if we don’t stop it first.” Those words were not rhetoric. They were prophecy.
Charlie understood the connection between speech and civilization. He knew that free expression is not a privilege granted by government but a moral necessity that allows truth to prevail over power. He also recognized that the modern threat did not come from a single politician or newsroom, but from a coordinated network of tech companies, bureaucrats, and cultural elites seeking to control the flow of information.
Through MRC’s Free Speech America division, we exposed 57 censorship programs operating across 93 federal agencies during the Biden years. Some of those programs targeted Charlie and Turning Point USA directly. He fought back not with anger, but with reason and courage. He saw that Big Tech platforms such as Google, YouTube, Facebook, and X were no longer neutral conduits but ideological gatekeepers. He demanded that these corporations be treated as the publishers they had become, accountable for their choices and stripped of the immunity that shields their censorship.
Charlie was not motivated by partisanship. He was motivated by principle. As a man of faith, he saw free speech as an extension of free will — the God-given ability to think, speak, and act according to conscience. He knew that once a society loses the right to express truth, it soon loses the capacity to recognize it.
There are many who have continued this fight. President Donald Trump deserves special credit for reversing the Biden administration’s censorship directives and appointing officials who are restoring the First Amendment within government. Members of Congress, judges, and state leaders are carrying that same torch. But this year, one name stands above them all.
Charlie’s example must inspire our next steps. Congress should define the limits of Section 230 and end Big Tech’s abuse of it. The Trump administration should complete the work of dismantling every remaining censorship initiative. And states should act to protect consumers and elections from the tyranny of information control.
Charlie’s voice may be gone, but his conviction endures. The cause he gave his life for remains the cornerstone of the American experiment. It will only end if we fail to defend it.
Let’s not disappoint him.
* * *
David Bozell is president of the Media Research Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

Presidential Candidate Donald Trump Addresses Turning Point USA Summit

Why MRC’s Free Speech Award Belongs To Charlie Kirk Alone

Awards

Charlie Kirk

A sweeping law implemented across Europe will severely curtail freedom of expression across the West, a group of over 100 free speech experts told the European Union on Thursday. 
Led by the Alliance Defending Freedom International, a diverse coalition of politicians, academics, and journalists <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/open-letter-dsa">warned</a> European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that the Digital Services Act (DSA) encourages and enables restrictions on political speech. The DSA empowers the European Commission to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies, which it says are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation. It is set to be reviewed in November. 
“Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democratic societies. It is through the exchange of ideas — including controversial ones — that societies evolve, and public officials remain accountable,” the coalition wrote in a <a href="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/DSA-Free-Speech-Letter-to-EC_ADFI.pdf">letter</a> exclusively obtained by The Daily Wire. “Yet across the European Union and beyond, we are witnessing a shrinking of civic space. Each week brings new reports of individuals facing censorship or punitive measures for speech that challenges prevailing orthodoxy.”
The letter cited the case of Finnish Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen, who has been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/finnish-court-dismisses-hate-crime-charges-against-politician-on-trial-over-christian-beliefs">prosecuted</a> for sharing her Christian views of marriage and sexuality on social media. It also pointed to Adam Smith-Connor, a veteran who has been prosecuted for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/british-army-vet-faces-charges-after-thoughtcrime-of-praying-near-u-k-abortion-clinic">silently praying</a> outside of an abortion facility. 
<div id="attachment_981733" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-981733" class="size-full wp-image-981733" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360.jpg" alt="Chairwoman Päivi Räsänen of the Christian Democrats campaigns in Helsinki, Finland on April 18, 2015 ahead of the parliamentary elections to take place on Sunday, April 19, 2015. Finns go to the polls on Sunday in legislative elections widely expected to oust the country's left-right coalition amid growing discontent over a floundering economy undergoing a painful restructuring. AFP PHOTO / LEHTIKUVA / RONI REKOMAA *** FINLAND OUT *** (Photo credit should read " width="1024" height="683" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-768x512.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Päivi Räsänen/ Credit: Roni Rekomaa,Roni Rekomaa/AFP via Getty Images.</div>
“The DSA introduces sweeping mechanisms that empower both institutions and private actors to flag content they believe to be ‘illegal’ — a term broadly defined as any content not compliant with EU or national laws,” the coalition wrote. 
The DSA relies on cooperation from non-governmental organizations that advise lawmakers whether someone’s online writings would be considered illegal. There would also be a high burden for reporting violations on tech companies. In certain circumstances, American tech companies may be fined up to 6% of their global revenue if they violate specific conditions. 
Signers of the letter included prominent thinkers like Hoover Institution research fellow Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Kansas governor and ambassador for religious freedom Sam Brownback, Alliance Defending Freedom President Kristen Waggoner, Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon, journalist Michael Shellenberger, politicians from Brazil and Chile, and several members of the European Parliament. In total, 113 free speech advocates signed on. 
The signatories warned that the DSA not only helps governments crack down on child exploitation and terrorism incitement, but also allows one country to spread its strident restrictions on speech across the entire European Union. 
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-19184">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a> 
The law imposes “a pan-European censorship infrastructure with loosely defined boundaries and the potential to suppress legitimate democratic discourse,” the authors wrote. 
“The wide definition of illegal content allows the most speech-restrictive provisions of one single EU country to be imposed as a standard across the entire Union, and potentially worldwide, effectively importing the lowest common denominator of expression,” they added. 
They demanded that the European Union initiate a formal review of the DSA, examining its impact on free speech, disclosing the involvement of non-governmental organizations in reviewing speech and how they were selected, and ensuring that the law complies with the current European Union charter. 
In January, the House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/31/document-2025_1_42.pdf">sent</a> a letter to the European Commission stating that the DSA may conflict with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/congress-faces-pressure-as-europes-censorship-regime-threatens-american-free-speech">hearing</a> on censorship last month, the committee heard from free speech advocates warning about the potential dangers of the DSA.
“Why should this matter for Americans? Why should you be concerned? Because of the worldwide reach of European law,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nigel-farage-spars-with-dems-as-he-warns-about-authoritarian-crackdown-on-free-speech">said</a> Alliance Defending Freedom International lawyer Lorcán Price. “The so-called Brussels effect changes regulation in every area that the European Union chooses to regulate, and now they’ve entered the business of regulating speech.”

Italian Tech Week 2025

EXCLUSIVE: Free Speech Advocates Challenge EU Over ‘Pan-European Censorship’ Regime

Menu