Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen has firmly rejected allegations from the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee that the European Commission engages in censorship and election interference, defending the Digital Services Act (DSA) as a transparency and accountability framework that protects freedom of expression. In a written answer to a parliamentary question from Polish ECR MEP Mariusz Kamiński, Virkkunen stated that the report's claims are 'unsubstantiated and unfounded,' and emphasised that the Commission cannot order platforms to remove specific content—such decisions rest solely with the providers.
Answer to parliamentary question
The question, submitted on 6 February 2026, cited a US House Judiciary Committee report alleging that the EU's DSA forces global tech platforms to censor lawful content and that the Commission pressured platforms to limit political debate during elections in six EU member states. Kamiński asked on what basis the Commission acted in Romania, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovakia, and France, and whether similar measures were taken during Polish elections in 2023–2025.
Virkkunen's defence of DSA
Virkkunen's answer clarified that the DSA does not prescribe what content is illegal—that is determined by national or other EU laws—and does not regulate electoral processes or political debate. She explained that Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs), independent national authorities, can organise election roundtables to facilitate information sharing, and the Commission may provide support only upon explicit request from the national DSC. Such roundtables were supported in Slovakia and the Netherlands (2023), Ireland, France and Romania (2024), and Romania, Netherlands and Ireland (2025). No such activities were organised for Polish elections in 2023, 2024 or 2025.
Policy orientation and follow-up
The answer contains no new policy proposals or numerical targets, instead reiterating existing DSA provisions and procedural safeguards. It signals the Commission's continued commitment to the DSA's transparency framework and its refusal to engage with what it considers unsubstantiated external criticism. No immediate institutional follow-up is expected, though the exchange highlights ongoing transatlantic tensions over content moderation and election integrity.