SUMMARY
- Congressman Michael Rulli has introduced the federal GRANITE Act, which would prevent US courts from recognising or enforcing foreign censorship judgments, fines, orders or demands that conflict with the First Amendment.
- The bill would also allow Americans targeted by foreign censorship measures to seek a declaration in federal court that those measures are unenforceable, while creating an exception to foreign sovereign immunity for such cases.
- The legislation follows the UK regulator Ofcom’s escalating attempts to apply the Online Safety Act to American websites, including hundreds of demands sent to US companies and major fines imposed on 4chan.
- The proposal is the latest sign that Washington is treating European and other foreign speech regulations not merely as overseas policy disagreements, but as a direct threat to Americans’ constitutional rights.
Republican Congressman Michael Rulli of Ohio has introduced a federal bill designed to stop foreign governments and regulators from using American courts to enforce censorship orders against US citizens and companies.
The Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion Act, or GRANITE Act, was introduced on 27th August 2026 as H.R. 10174 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill would amend Title 28 of the US Code to block domestic courts from recognising or enforcing a foreign judgment, fine, order or demand that applies a foreign censorship law.
The legislation arrives after more than a year of mounting conflict between the United States and foreign regulators, above all Britain’s Ofcom, over attempts to apply overseas internet speech rules to American platforms, American infrastructure and speech that is lawful under the First Amendment
.Under the bill, a “foreign censorship law” would include a foreign law that restricts or penalises expression, targets expression based on its content, viewpoint or speaker identity, or compels disclosures that would reasonably chill expression, where recognising the law in the United States would conflict with First Amendment protections.
That wording is deliberately broader than a conventional ban on enforcing foreign court judgments. It also reaches administrative fines, orders and demands issued directly by foreign states or their agencies — the mechanism increasingly used by internet regulators without first obtaining a judgment from a court.
Rulli said the measure is intended to stop “foreign bureaucrats” deciding what Americans may say. “My bill makes clear that if a foreign government tries to punish an American for speech protected by the First Amendment, that judgment is dead on arrival in our courts,” he said. “The Constitution protects our right to speak freely. It does not bend to Brussels or London.”
US International Trade Administration Shaped EU Censorship Law Targeting American Companies
The bill contains both a shield and a mechanism for Americans to fight back. Its proposed Section 4106(a) would bar domestic courts from recognising or enforcing covered foreign censorship measures. Section 4106(b) would allow a US person who has been targeted by such a judgment, fine, order or demand to bring an action in federal district court seeking declaratory relief that the measure is unenforceable.
The federal proposal does not create a damages award or authorise the seizure of foreign assets. But it would make another important change: amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act so that a foreign government or regulator could not automatically rely on sovereign immunity to defeat a case brought under the new section. That point is particularly relevant to the dispute that helped generate the GRANITE proposal in the first place.
Britain’s Online Safety Act was written with explicit extraterritorial reach, allowing Ofcom to regulate services based outside the United Kingdom where they have links to British users. Foundation for Freedom Online has repeatedly documented how those powers have been used to pressure American platforms and to export Britain’s censorship and age-verification regime across the Atlantic.
The most prominent confrontation has involved 4chan. Ofcom opened an investigation into the US-based imageboard in June 2025 and later penalised it for refusing statutory information requests. In March 2026, the regulator imposed a further £500,000 in fixed penalties over alleged failures to conduct an illegal-content risk assessment and to introduce “highly effective age assurance,” with additional daily penalties threatened for continued non-compliance.
4chan and Lolcow LLC, which operates Kiwi Farms, had already sued Ofcom in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on 27th August 2025. The companies sought declaratory relief against the regulator’s attempt to apply the Online Safety Act to them in the United States.
Preston Byrne, counsel to the platforms and one of the architects of the GRANITE framework, has argued that Ofcom’s litigation position exposes a fundamental asymmetry: the regulator claims the power to send binding demands into the United States, but has also invoked the protections of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act when challenged in an American court.
The GRANITE Act is designed to close that gap. Byrne describes the federal bill as the first federal “foreign censorship shield” measure, modelled in part on the SPEECH Act of 2010, which prevents US courts from enforcing foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with American free-speech protections.
The scale of the underlying cross-border enforcement campaign is also larger than the handful of public disputes might suggest. A Freedom of Information response obtained earlier this year showed that Ofcom sent at least 197 notices to US companies between February 2025 and April 2026. According to reporting on the response, none of those notices were routed through the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty; they were instead sent directly to American companies, including by email or post.
Fines, Bans, Forced Newsfeed Changes: An Overview of UK Online Censorship
The result is a system in which a foreign regulator can make demands of an American company at minimal cost, while the recipient must decide whether to comply, leave the foreign market, redesign its service, restrict content globally or fund expensive litigation. Even where a foreign censorship order would ultimately prove unenforceable in the United States, the threat itself can still shape what Americans are permitted to say and what US companies are willing to host.
The dispute with Britain is only one part of a wider transatlantic struggle. In February, the House Judiciary Committee published an investigation into the European Commission’s use of the Digital Services Act and earlier “voluntary” codes, concluding that European pressure had caused major technology companies to change global moderation rules and suppress lawful American speech. FFO has previously detailed how European censorship rules can become global defaults because the largest platforms operate common systems across multiple markets.
The Trump administration has likewise made opposition to censorship a formal policy priority. On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring it US policy to secure Americans’ constitutionally protected speech and prevent federal officials or taxpayer resources from being used to abridge it. The administration has also signalled that foreign efforts to undermine Americans’ First Amendment rights can implicate US foreign policy and visa policy.
Rulli’s bill therefore represents a shift from criticism to legal defence. Rather than asking Britain, the European Union or other governments to narrow their censorship regimes, the GRANITE Act would tell American courts not to help enforce them when they collide with the First Amendment, and would give targeted Americans a route to obtain a ruling of unenforceability at home.
The bill remains at an early stage. As introduced, H.R. 10174 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and has not yet received a House vote. Earlier GRANITE-style measures have been pursued at state level: a Wyoming proposal passed the state House in February before stalling in the Senate, while the American Legislative Exchange Council adopted foreign-censorship shield language as model policy in July.
But the federal legislation is more consequential because it can directly amend federal sovereign-immunity law and establish a nationwide rule for US courts.
