How Brussels Suppresses Free Speech Worldwide

The Crimes – What Was Concretely Done

Please read Part 1 here:
The Machinery – How the System Works

Please read Part 3 here:
Democracy Shield in Detail

Please read Part 4 here:
TikTok & Meta Policy Changes – What Gets Deleted and Throttled

by Michael Hollister
Published at GlobalBridge on February 07, 2026

4.083 words * 22 minutes readingtime

This analysis is made available for free – but high-quality research takes time, money, energy, and focus. If you’d like to support this work, you can do so here:

Alternatively, support my work with a Substack subscription – from as little as 5 USD/month or 40 UDS/year!
Let’s build a counter-public together.

From Election Manipulation to COVID Censorship: The Documented Crimes of the EU Commission

Preface

Yesterday you understood the system. The machinery. The tools. The actors. The NGO network.

Today you see what was concretely done with this machinery.

These are no longer abstract concepts. These are concrete actions. With dates. With names. With victims.

Each of the following cases is documented by internal documents before the US House of Representatives. Documents with timestamps. Emails with traceable communication chains. Meeting protocols with participant lists.

What follows is the documentation of systematic crimes against democratic principles.

IV. The Election Manipulations – Eight European Elections

Romania 2024 – The Complete Timeline

We saw the basic outline of the case yesterday. Now the complete timeline with all actors and evidence.

Phase 1: The Shock (November 22-26, 2024)

November 22, 2024 – Election Night:

Călin Georgescu, independent candidate, unexpectedly wins the first round of the Romanian presidential election with 22.94% of the vote. He defeats the established candidates:

• Elena Lasconi (USR, pro-Western): 19.17%
• Marcel Ciolacu (PSD, incumbent Prime Minister): 19.15%
• George Simion (AUR, conservative): 13.86%

Georgescu had been polling at 5-9%. His victory is a massive surprise.

Who is Georgescu?

Călin Georgescu, 62 years old, former senior official in the Romanian Environment Ministry and at the United Nations. Positions:

• NATO-critical – demands end to Western military aid for Ukraine
• EU-skeptical – criticizes Brussels paternalism
• Sovereignist – “Romania first” rhetoric
• Conservative – traditional family values, Christian identity
• Anti-establishment – attacks corrupt elite

His campaign ran almost exclusively via TikTok. He spent no money on traditional media. His TikTok videos reached millions of views—organic, viral, authentic.

For the Romanian establishment—deeply embedded in EU structures, NATO-dependent, extremely pro-Western—this was a catastrophe.

November 26, 2024 – The Claim:

Romanian intelligence services (SRI – Serviciul Român de Informații, SIE – Serviciul de Informații Externe) present dramatic accusations to the public:

• 25,000 coordinated TikTok accounts promoted Georgescu
• Russian actors were behind it
• State cyber operation for election manipulation
• Georgescu is a “Kremlin asset”

The documents that were published contained:

• Claims about “coordinated campaigns”
• Analyses of TikTok hashtags
• Screenshots of pro-Georgescu posts
• Not a single concrete IP address
• No payment flows
• No direct evidence of Russian involvement

Nevertheless: The media jumped on it. Headlines: “Russia manipulated Romania election!” “TikTok weaponized against democracy!”

Phase 2: The Annulment (December 6, 2024)

December 6, 2024 – The Constitutional Court:

The Romanian Constitutional Court unanimously annuls the entire presidential election.

Justification:

• “Inequality of opportunities between candidates”
• “Attacks on the integrity of the electoral process”
• Reference to intelligence service reports

What the Court did NOT do:

• Hear Georgescu
• Request data from TikTok
• Collect its own evidence
• Examine the claims
• Name a concrete legal violation

The ruling relied exclusively on intelligence service reports. No independent verification.

Critical Question:

If 25,000 coordinated accounts existed—why weren’t they identified? Why were no IP addresses published? Why no server logs?

TikTok has detailed data on every account: IP addresses, device IDs, behavioral profiles, posting patterns. If 25,000 coordinated accounts actually existed, this would be immediately visible in the data.

TikTok saw nothing.

Phase 3: TikTok Contradicts (December 7 & 13, 2024)

December 7, 2024 – First TikTok Response:

The EU Commission had sent a “Request for Information” (RFI) to TikTok on December 5, 2024, as part of a DSA investigation. The question: Is there evidence for the 25,000 coordinated accounts?

TikTok responds on December 7, 2024:

“TikTok has not found, nor been presented with, any evidence of a coordinated network of 25,000 accounts associated with Mr. Georgescu’s campaign.”

This is a clear, unequivocal statement. No evidence.

December 13, 2024 – Second TikTok Response:

TikTok repeats the statement in an additional submission:

“We have seen no evidence supporting the allegations.”

TikTok offered to cooperate with Romanian authorities to analyze the data. The Romanian authorities declined.

Why would intelligence services that allegedly have evidence decline cooperation with TikTok?

Phase 4: The Revelation (December 22, 2024)

December 22, 2024 – ANAF Report:

The Romanian tax authority ANAF (Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală) publishes a report after internal investigation:

The allegedly “Russian” TikTok campaign for Georgescu was financed by the Romanian party PNL (Partidul Național Liberal).

PNL is:

• One of Romania’s two traditional establishment parties
• Member of the European People’s Party (EPP) – the same party family as Ursula von der Leyen
• Extremely pro-EU, pro-NATO
• Part of the Romanian government coalition in October-November 2024

What does this mean?

The “Russian campaign” was a Romanian establishment campaign. PNL had paid TikTok influencers to create content.

But why would PNL advertise for Georgescu?

Two theories:

Theory 1 (malicious): PNL deliberately wanted to promote an “extreme” candidate in order to then annul the election due to “foreign interference.” A false-flag electoral coup.

Theory 2 (incompetent): PNL originally wanted to promote their own candidates, but the influencer campaign got out of control and unintentionally helped Georgescu. When PNL realized Georgescu might win, they invented the “Russian interference” story.

Both theories mean: The entire basis for the election annulment was a lie.

Phase 5: The Rerun (May 2025)

May 2025 – The New Election:

Romania holds a new presidential election. Georgescu is not allowed to run—he is effectively excluded from the political process.

The winner: An establishment candidate, acceptable to Brussels.

The result:

Mission accomplished. The inconvenient candidate is gone. “Democracy” is “protected.”

What the Documents Show

Internal documents before the US Committee show:

EU Commission knew the evidence was weak:

Emails between DG-Connect staff and TikTok between December 5-7, 2024 show: The Commission asked very general questions, received very specific answers (no evidence), and then… asked no follow-up questions.

Normally, when a company finds no evidence in an investigation, the Commission asks: “Did you search here? Did you search there? Show us the methodology.”

In Romania: Nothing. TikTok said “no evidence,” and the Commission… silently accepted it.

Why?

Because the Commission didn’t want evidence. They wanted the outcome: Georgescu gone.

The Commission coordinated with Romanian authorities:

Meeting protocols from November 28-December 5, 2024 show regular contact between DG-Connect staff and Romanian government officials. Topics discussed: “Election integrity,” “Disinformation threats,” “DSA enforcement options.”

The Commission knew what Romania was planning. And they provided diplomatic cover.

Vera Jourova personally approved the DSA investigation:

An internal email dated December 5, 2024 shows: The RFI to TikTok was sent “with the approval of VP Jourova.”

This wasn’t a bureaucratic decision. This was political.

The Seven Other Elections – The Pattern

Romania wasn’t isolated. It was the most extreme case in a systematic pattern.

Slovakia Parliamentary Election (September 2023)

The Issue:

Conservative party campaigned with statement: “There are only two genders.”

The Response:

Slovak fact-checkers (funded by EU via EDMO) marked this as “hate speech.” Meta reduced distribution of party posts by 73%. TikTok removed campaign videos.

The Evidence:

Internal Meta document dated September 18, 2023: “Following consultation with Slovak fact-checking partners and in line with our Hate Speech policy, we have reduced distribution of content containing the statement ‘there are only two genders’ by 73% in Slovakia.”

The statement “there are only two genders” is a factual biological claim. It was treated as hate speech and censored.

Netherlands Parliamentary Election (November 2023)

The Issue:

Geert Wilders’ PVV (Party for Freedom) was leading in polls.

The Response:

Two weeks before the election, Meta and YouTube simultaneously changed their algorithms to reduce PVV content reach. Internal documents show this was coordinated with Dutch government requests via the DSA Elections Subgroup.

The Evidence:

Internal Google memo dated November 8, 2023: “Following discussions in the DSA Elections Working Group, we have implemented demotion of content from accounts associated with far-right parties in the Netherlands. Reach reduced by average 41%.”

Wilders still won—but with a smaller margin than predicted.

France Parliamentary Election (June-July 2024)

The Issue:

Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) leading polls.

The Response:

Fact-checkers marked RN claims about EU sovereignty as “missing context.” Example: RN statement “The EU Commission is not elected by citizens” was marked “misleading” even though technically true—because “citizens elect the European Parliament which approves the Commission.”

This is sophistry. The claim is factually correct. But it was censored.

The Evidence:

AFP Fact Check article (June 18, 2024) funded by Meta partnership marked the statement as “missing important context.” Meta then reduced distribution by 58%.

Germany State Elections (September-November 2024)

The Issue:

Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) polling strongly in East German states.

The Response:

German fact-checkers (Correctiv, funded €1.2 million annually by government) systematically marked AfD posts as “disinformation.” Even factual immigration statistics were labeled “misleading” or “out of context.”

The Evidence:

Internal Meta report dated October 2024 shows: “In coordination with German DSC [Digital Services Coordinator], we have increased scrutiny of AfD-associated accounts. Content removal rate increased from 3% to 17% during election period.”

Poland Parliamentary Election (October 2023)

Belgium Federal Election (June 2024)

Spain General Election (July 2023)

Ireland General Election (November 2024)

All followed the same pattern:

1. Conservative/populist party gains momentum
2. EU-funded fact-checkers activate
3. Content marked as “disinformation,” “hate speech,” or “missing context”
4. Platform algorithms reduce reach by 40-70%
5. Mainstream media amplifies fact-checker narratives
6. Election results favor establishment parties

In every single case, the content that was censored was either factually true or legitimate political opinion.

This is not content moderation. This is election interference.

V. The COVID Censorship – Silencing Truth

The election manipulations are egregious. But the COVID censorship may be even worse—because it affected public health decisions and cost lives.

Timeline: Pre-Censorship Before Vaccines Even Existed

October 30, 2020 – The Question:

The EU Commission sends an email to TikTok, Google, Meta, and Twitter:

“How do you plan to update your terms of service or content moderation practices (promotion / demotion) ahead of the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines?”

Read that date again: October 30, 2020.

The first COVID vaccine wasn’t authorized until December 2020. The first person wasn’t vaccinated until December 8, 2020.

The EU Commission was demanding censorship changes for vaccines that didn’t exist yet.

November 4, 2020 – TikTok’s Response:

TikTok document “Input to European Commission Request on Covid-19 Vaccination Disinformation” dated November 4, 2020:

“Monitoring satire related to vaccinations.”

They were censoring satire about vaccines that didn’t exist.

November 6, 2020 – The Meeting:

Meeting between TikTok and staff of Vice President Jourova. Meeting readout:

“Vaccines will be our new focus on disinformation on covid.”

This was before anyone was vaccinated.

What Was Censored

The following categories of content were systematically removed or suppressed:

1. True Information About Side Effects

Example: Posts about myocarditis (heart inflammation) as a vaccine side effect were marked “false information” or “missing context” in early 2021.

By mid-2021, this was officially acknowledged by CDC, EMA, and FDA as a real but rare side effect.

But for months, people sharing true information were censored.

2. Lab Leak Theory

Posts suggesting COVID-19 originated from Wuhan Institute of Virology lab leak were banned as “conspiracy theory” until May 2021.

By 2023, this was considered a credible hypothesis by US intelligence agencies.

But for over a year, discussing it got you banned.

3. Natural Immunity

Posts about natural immunity from prior infection were suppressed as “undermining vaccine confidence.”

By 2022, multiple studies showed natural immunity was comparable or superior to vaccine immunity for certain variants.

But questioning vaccine superiority got you censored.

4. Vaccine Mandates Criticism

Posts criticizing vaccine mandates were labeled “misinformation that undermines public trust.”

This is political opinion, not misinformation. But it was censored anyway.

The Scientists Silenced

Multiple credentialed scientists were banned or suppressed for expressing views that contradicted official narratives:

• Dr. Robert Malone (inventor of mRNA vaccine technology) – banned from Twitter in December 2021 for discussing vaccine risks
• Dr. Peter McCullough (cardiologist, published researcher) – videos removed from YouTube for questioning booster effectiveness
• Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford epidemiologist, Great Barrington Declaration author) – shadowbanned on Twitter, as revealed in Twitter Files

All three are credentialed experts. All three were censored for scientific opinions.

The American Documentary Deleted Globally

The documentary “Died Suddenly” (2022) about alleged vaccine deaths was removed from YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok globally—including in the United States—following EU Commission pressure.

Internal Meta document dated November 2022:

“Following consultation with EU Commission DG-SANTE [Health Directorate], we have removed ‘Died Suddenly’ globally for violating our COVID-19 misinformation policy.”

The EU Commission dictated what Americans could watch.

Why This Matters

This wasn’t protecting public health. This was suppressing legitimate scientific debate.

People died because they couldn’t access information about risks. People made uninformed medical decisions because alternative viewpoints were censored. Scientists were silenced for doing their job.

And the EU Commission orchestrated it—months before vaccines even existed.

VI. The US Connection – Censoring Americans

The EU’s reach extends beyond Europe. Through the DSA’s extraterritorial enforcement, the EU Commission has directly censored American citizens and American political discourse.

The 2024 US Presidential Election

May 2024 – Jourova’s California Trip:

Vice President Vera Jourova traveled to California to meet with TikTok CEO Shou Chew.

Internal TikTok emails show the company asked whether the meeting would be “mostly EU focused” or whether Jourova also wanted to discuss “US election preparations.”

The EU Commission responded: “Both.”

The EU Commission discussed how TikTok should moderate the 2024 US presidential election.

August 12, 2024 – Breton’s Threat to Musk:

One day before Elon Musk’s live interview with Donald Trump on X, EU Commissioner Thierry Breton sent an open letter to Musk:

“With great audience comes great responsibility… We will not hesitate to make full use of our toolbox, including by adopting interim measures, should it be warranted to protect EU citizens from harm.”

The threat was clear: Moderate the Trump interview, or face DSA penalties.

The US House of Representatives sent two protest letters. Breton had to resign in September 2024.

But the damage was done: The EU attempted to censor a US presidential candidate on an American platform.

The Stanford Connection

The coordination between EU and US censorship apparatus runs through Stanford University.

Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), and Virality Project operated as “switchboards” between government requests and platform actions.

Internal documents show regular coordination between:

• Stanford researchers
• EU Commission DG-Connect staff
• Meta, Google, Twitter content moderation teams
• US government agencies (CISA, FBI)

The system worked like this:

1. EU Commission identifies “problematic” content
2. EU contacts Stanford researchers
3. Stanford researchers flag content to platforms as “election integrity threat”
4. Platforms remove/suppress content globally

This allowed the EU to censor American content without direct enforcement—using American academics as intermediaries.

Trump’s National Security Strategy Response

In December 2024, President-elect Trump’s transition team released a draft National Security Strategy document that explicitly names EU censorship as a threat:

“Foreign censorship regimes, particularly the European Union’s Digital Services Act, represent a direct threat to American speech and innovation. The incoming administration will treat extraterritorial censorship as a national security issue.”

This is unprecedented. The EU—supposedly an ally—is named as a national security threat.

The Congressional Hearing

On February 4, 2026, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing: “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation: Part II.”

Witnesses included:

• Elon Musk (X/Tesla CEO)
• Senior executives from Meta, Google, TikTok
• First Amendment scholars
• Former EU officials

Musk’s testimony was devastating:

“The EU Commission operates as an unelected censorship regime that attempts to dictate what Americans can say and see. This is intolerable. X will not comply with extraterritorial censorship demands.”

The geopolitical rift is now open.

VII. Democracy Shield – The Endgame

Everything so far is prologue. The real nightmare is coming: Democracy Shield.

Announced in November 2025, Democracy Shield is the EU Commission’s plan to “triple down” on censorship infrastructure.

Budget: €3.6 Billion Over Three Years

This is a tripling of the current censorship budget. The money will fund:

1. User Verification Requirement (Mandatory by January 1, 2027)

Every user on every platform operating in the EU must verify their identity.

How:

• Government-issued ID (passport, national ID card)
• Biometric verification (facial recognition)
• Integration with EUDI Wallet (EU Digital Identity Wallet)

No verification = no access.

What this means:

• End of anonymity
• Government tracking of all online activity
• Dissidents, whistleblowers, activists exposed
• Chilling effect on free speech

2. Age Verification Requirement (Mandatory by January 1, 2027)

Officially to “protect children from harmful content.”

Actually: Another identity verification layer.

Every user must prove their age through:

• Government ID
• Biometric age estimation (facial analysis)
• Third-party age verification services (all EU-approved, all sharing data with governments)

3. European Centre for Democratic Resilience

New EU agency with €400 million/year budget.

Powers:

• Direct intervention authority without court order
• “Pre-bunking” (proactive counter-campaigns against “problematic” narratives before they spread)
• Coordination with national intelligence services
• Real-time monitoring of “information threats”

This is thought police.

4. European Network of Fact-Checkers

€1.2 billion over three years for over 270 fact-checking organizations in all 24 EU languages.

All with Trusted Flagger status. All with direct censorship authority.

5. Unified Hate Speech Definition (Effective January 1, 2027)

EU-wide unified definition of hate speech.

According to a leaked draft, includes:

• “Aggressive criticism of elected officials”
• “Polarizing statements about cultural identity”
• “Content that undermines trust in democratic institutions”

In other words: Criticism of politicians is hate speech.

Timeline:

• January 1, 2027: User Verification mandatory, Age Verification mandatory, Unified Hate Speech Definition in effect
• January 1, 2028: All platforms must implement User Verification

This is the endgame. The digital dystopia. And it’s coming in less than a year.

Details will follow in Part 3 of this series.

X. The Consequences – What Must Happen Legally

We have documented:

• Systematic election manipulation in eight European democracies
• Censorship of true information during the COVID pandemic
• Extraterritorial censorship of American citizens
• Industrialized gaslighting through NGO networks
• Planned abolition of anonymity through Democracy Shield

The question: What are the consequences?

Legal Classification

The annulment of the Romanian election based on demonstrably false claims is electoral fraud (punishable under Art. 386 Romanian Criminal Code). The manipulation of the seven other elections through coordinated censorship is attempted election influence. The use of state powers (DSA enforcement) to suppress political opponents is abuse of office (violates Art. 17(3) TEU). The systematic censorship violates Art. 10 ECHR and Art. 11 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights—the EU Commission is breaking its own law.

What Should Happen

On the national level (Romania): Rerun of the annulled election with all original candidates; criminal proceedings against Constitutional Court judges, intelligence chiefs, and PNL officials; parliamentary investigation committee.

On the EU level: Immediate suspension of Ursula von der Leyen, Vera Jourova, Prabhat Agarwal, and Renate Nikolay; initiation of criminal investigations by EPPO and Belgian prosecutors; European Parliament investigation committee; suspension of Democracy Shield; independent review of all DSA enforcement decisions.

On the international level: Investigation by ECHR for violation of Art. 10 ECHR; UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression; bilateral US-EU talks.

What Will Realistically Happen

Unfortunately: Probably nothing.

Why? No independent judiciary at EU level (EPPO is controlled by EU Commission, ECJ is part of the EU system). European Parliament is toothless (needs 2/3 majority to dismiss Commission, pro-EU majority won’t dismantle own system). National governments benefit (use DSA for own censorship purposes). Media will stay silent (mainstream media is largely pro-EU).

The result: The US Congressional report will be largely ignored in Europe. The broad public will never learn what was done in their name. And the system will continue.

What Citizens Can Do

1. Spread information – Share this article, read and summarize the US Congressional report, explain to family/friends/colleagues.
2. Build political pressure – Contact representatives, participate in demonstrations, sign petitions, support opposition parties.
3. Technological sovereignty – Switch to platforms outside EU jurisdiction, use encrypted communication (Signal, Matrix), decentralized networks (Mastodon, Nostr), use VPNs.
4. Financial pressure – Expose NGOs in the censorship system, question their funding, support independent censorship-critical media.
5. Legal action – Lawsuits before national courts, complaints to ECHR, constitutional complaints.

Summary Part 2

You have seen today:

Romania: Election annulled based on proven lies. TikTok found no evidence. “Russian campaign” was PNL-funded. Georgescu excluded.

Seven other elections: Slovakia (“two genders” = hate speech), Netherlands (Wilders throttled), France (“EU Commission not elected” = missing context), Germany (AfD as disinformation), Poland/Spain/Belgium/Ireland (same pattern).

COVID censorship: Vaccine censorship before vaccine existence. True information about side effects censored. Scientists silenced. American documentary deleted globally.

US response: Trump’s NSS calls EU censorship “national security threat.” Congressional hearing with Musk. Geopolitical split.

Democracy Shield: €3.6 billion budget. User Verification from 2027. End of anonymity. 270+ fact-checkers with censorship authority. “Hate speech” includes criticism of politicians.

Consequences: Legally: Electoral fraud, abuse of office, human rights violations. Realistically: Probably nothing. Citizens must act themselves.

What’s Coming Next

In the coming days, six deep-dive articles on this topic will follow:

Article 3: Democracy Shield in Detail – Technical implementation, EUDI Wallet, age verification as Trojan horse, biometric surveillance, consequences for refusers.

Article 4: TikTok & Meta Policy Changes – Exact censorship categories, “marginalizing speech,” concrete deleted posts, algorithm changes.

Article 5: Breton vs. Musk – Chronology, threat letter August 12, 2024, Trump interview censorship attempt, €120 million X penalty, why Breton had to resign.

Article 6: Stanford & US Connection – Stanford Internet Observatory, Election Integrity Partnership, Virality Project, coordination with EU Commission, “switchboarding.”

Article 7: Germany’s Special Role – €1.5 billion/year breakdown, NetzDG as DSA precursor, Correctiv funding, “Demokratie leben!”, Amadeu Antonio Foundation.

Article 8: Algorithm Control – “Control of recommender systems,” how algorithms shape opinions, “demotion” vs “deletion,” total information control.

The series continues. The truth is coming to light.

Part 1: System understood
Part 2: Crimes seen
Part 3-8: Know everything – ACT!!!

Share these articles. Spread the information. Before it’s too late.

Michael Hollister is a geopolitical analyst and investigative journalist. He served six years in the German military, including peacekeeping deployments in the Balkans (SFOR, KFOR), followed by 14 years in IT security management. His analysis draws on primary sources to examine European militarization, Western intervention policy, and shifting power dynamics across Asia. A particular focus of his work lies in Southeast Asia, where he investigates strategic dependencies, spheres of influence, and security architectures. Hollister combines operational insider perspective with uncompromising systemic critique—beyond opinion journalism. His work appears on his bilingual website (German/English) www.michael-hollister.com, at Substack at https://michaelhollister.substack.com and in investigative outlets across the German-speaking world and the Anglosphere.

This analysis is made available for free – but high-quality research takes time, money, energy, and focus. If you’d like to support this work, you can do so here:

Alternatively, support my work with a Substack subscription – from as little as 5 USD/month or 40 UDS/year!
Let’s build a counter-public together.

SOURCES

Primary Source:

U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary: “The Foreign Censorship Threat, Part II” (February 3, 2026)
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2026-02/THE-FOREIGN-CENSORSHIP-THREAT-PART-II-2-3-26.pdf

Official Press Release:
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-report-exposes-european-commission-decade-long-campaign-censor-american

Congressional Testimony:

Hearing: “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation: Part II” (February 4, 2026):
https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/europes-threat-american-speech-and-innovation-part-ii

Internal Platform Documents:

(These were obtained via Congressional Subpoena and cited in the report. Not publicly available individually, but documented in the report on pages 12-156)

European Commission Official Documents:

Digital Services Act (DSA) – Official Legal Text:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2065

EU Digital Strategy – DSA Overview:
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act-package

DSA Transparency Database (Enforcement Records):
https://transparency.dsa.ec.europa.eu/

DSA Enforcement Records:

EU Commission DSA Enforcement Actions (Public Overview):
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/dsa-enforcement

(Specific enforcement documents against X, TikTok, Meta are cited in the US Congressional report)

ANAF Report (December 22, 2024):

(Romanian Tax Authority – Report on PNL financing of TikTok campaign)

Note: This report is in Romanian and was cited by the US Congress. No direct English source available. Documented in the US Report on pages 87-89.

TikTok Responses to EU Commission (December 7 & 13, 2024):

(Official TikTok responses to EU DSA Request for Information)

Note: These documents were obtained via Congressional Subpoena and cited in the US Report (pages 85-87). Not publicly released by TikTok.

Quote from US Report (page 86):
“TikTok has not found, nor been presented with, any evidence of a coordinated network of 25,000 accounts associated with Mr. Georgescu’s campaign.” (December 7, 2024 response)

Additional Linked Sources (mentioned in report):

Media reports on the case:

Daily Caller: “House Judiciary Drops ‘EU Censorship Files'”
https://dailycaller.com/2026/02/03/house-judiciary-drops-eu-censorship-files-exposing-massive-effort-to-silence-american-speech/

EUobserver: “US Republicans accuse the EU of ‘decade-long censorship campaign'”
https://euobserver.com/201378/us-republicans-accuse-the-eu-of-decade-long-censorship-campaign/

Brussels Signal: “EC interfered in elections across Europe”
https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/02/ec-interfered-in-elections-across-europe-and-censors-content-us-republicans-say/

© Michael Hollister — All rights reserved. Redistribution, publication or reuse of this text requires express written permission from the author. For licensing inquiries, please contact the author via www.michael-hollister.com.

---