It was early evening in Berlin, just a day before Christmas Eve, when Josephine Ballon got an unexpected email from US Customs and Border Protection. The status of her ability to travel to the United States had changed\u2014she\u2019d no longer be able to enter the country.\u00a0<\/p>\n
At first, she couldn\u2019t find any information online as to why, though she had her suspicions. She was one of the directors of HateAid<\/a>, a small German nonprofit founded to support the victims of online harassment and violence. As the organization has become a strong advocate of EU tech regulations, it has increasingly found itself attacked in campaigns from right-wing politicians and provocateurs who claim that it engages in censorship.\u00a0<\/p>\n It was only later that she saw what US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had posted<\/a> on X:<\/p>\n For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.<\/p>\n Today, @StateDept<\/a> will take steps to\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) December 23, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n Rubio was promoting a conspiracy theory about what he has called the \u201ccensorship-industrial complex,\u201d which alleges widespread collusion between the US government, tech companies, and civil society organizations to silence conservative voices\u2014the very conspiracy theory HateAid has recently been caught up in.\u00a0<\/p>\n Then Undersecretary of State Sarah B. Rogers posted<\/a> on X the names of the individuals targeted by travel bans. The list included Ballon, as well as her HateAid co-director, Anna Lena von Hodenberg. Also named were three others<\/a> doing similar or related work: former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who had helped author Europe\u2019s Digital Services Act (DSA); Imran Ahmed of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which documents hate speech on social media platforms; and Clare Melford of the Global Disinformation Index, which provides risk ratings warning advertisers about placing ads on websites promoting hate speech and disinformation.\u00a0<\/p>\n It was an escalation in the Trump administration\u2019s war on digital rights\u2014fought in the name of free speech. But EU officials, freedom of speech experts, and the five individuals targeted all flatly reject the accusations of censorship. Ballon, von Hodenberg, and some of their clients tell me that their work is fundamentally about making people feel safer online. And their experiences over the past few weeks show just how politicized and besieged their work in online safety has become. They almost certainly won\u2019t be the last people targeted in this way.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ballon was the one to tell von Hodenberg that both their names were on the list. \u201cWe kind of felt a chill in our bones,\u201d von Hodenberg told me when I caught up with the pair in early January.\u00a0<\/p>\n But she added that they also quickly realized, \u201cOkay, it\u2019s the old playbook to silence us.\u201d So they got to work\u2014starting with challenging the narrative the US government was pushing about them.<\/p>\n Within a few hours, Ballon and von Hodenberg had issued a strongly worded statement refuting the allegations: \u201cWe will not be intimidated by a government that uses accusations of censorship to silence those who stand up for human rights and freedom of expression,\u201d they wrote. \u201cWe demand a clear signal from the German government and the European Commission that this is unacceptable. Otherwise, no civil society organisation, no politician, no researcher, and certainly no individual will dare to denounce abuses by US tech companies in the future.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Those signals came swiftly. On X, Johann Wadephul, the German foreign minister, called the entry bans \u201cnot acceptable,\u201d adding that \u201cthe DSA was democratically adopted by the EU, for the EU\u2014it does not have extraterritorial effect.\u201d Also on X, French president Emmanuel Macron wrote that \u201cthese measures amount to intimidation and coercion aimed at undermining European digital sovereignty.\u201d The European Commission issued a statement<\/a> that it \u201cstrongly condemns\u201d the Trump administration\u2019s actions and reaffirmed its \u201csovereign right to regulate economic activity in line with our democratic values.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Ahmed, Melford, Breton<\/a>, and their respective organizations<\/a> also made their own statements denouncing the entry bans. Ahmed, the only one of the five based in the United States, also successfully filed suit<\/a> to preempt any attempts to detain him, which the State Department had indicated it would consider doing.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n But alongside the statements of solidarity, Ballon and von Hodenberg said, they also received more practical advice: Assume the travel ban was just the start and that more consequences could be coming. Service providers might preemptively revoke access to their online accounts; banks might restrict their access to money or the global payment system; they might see malicious attempts to get hold of their personal data or that of their clients. Perhaps, allies told them, they should even consider moving their money into friends\u2019 accounts or keeping cash on hand so that they could pay their team\u2019s salaries\u2014and buy their families\u2019 groceries.\u00a0<\/p>\n These warnings felt particularly urgent given that just days before, the Trump administration had sanctioned<\/a> two International Criminal Court judges for \u201cillegitimate targeting of Israel.\u201d As a result, they had lost<\/a> access to many American tech platforms, including Microsoft, Amazon, and Gmail.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIf Microsoft does that to someone who is a lot more important than we are,\u201d Ballon told me, \u201cthey will not even blink to shut down the email accounts from some random human rights organization in Germany.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe have now this dark cloud over us that any minute, something can happen,\u201d von Hodenberg added. \u201cWe\u2019re running against time to take the appropriate measures.\u201d<\/p>\n Founded in 2018 to support people experiencing digital violence, HateAid has since evolved to defend digital rights more broadly. It provides ways for people to report illegal online content and offers victims advice, digital security, emotional support, and help with evidence preservation. It also educates German police, prosecutors, and politicians about how to handle online hate crimes.\u00a0<\/p>\n Once the group is contacted for help, and if its lawyers determine that the type of harassment has likely violated the law, the organization connects victims with legal counsel who can help them file civil and criminal lawsuits against perpetrators, and if necessary, helps finance the cases. (HateAid itself does not file cases against individuals.) Ballon and von Hodenberg estimate that HateAid has worked with around 7,500 victims and helped them file 700 criminal cases and 300 civil cases, mostly against individual offenders.<\/p>\n For 23-year-old German law student and outspoken political activist Theresia Crone, HateAid\u2019s support has meant that she has been able to regain some sense of agency in her life, both on and offline. She had reached out after she discovered entire online forums dedicated to making deepfakes of her. Without HateAid, she told me, \u201cI would have had to either put my faith into the police and the public prosecutor to prosecute this properly, or I would have had to foot the bill of an attorney myself\u201d\u2014a huge financial burden for \u201ca student with basically no fixed income.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n In addition, working alone would have been retraumatizing: \u201cI would have had to document everything by myself,\u201d she said\u2014meaning \u201cI would have had to see all of these pictures again and again.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe internet is a lawless place,\u201d Ballon told me when we first spoke, back in mid-December, a few weeks before the travel ban was announced. In a conference room at the HateAid office in Berlin, she said there are many cases that \u201ccannot even be prosecuted, because no perpetrator is identified.\u201d That\u2019s why the nonprofit also advocates for better laws and regulations governing technology companies in Germany and across the European Union.\u00a0<\/p>\n On occasion, they have also engaged in strategic litigation against the platforms themselves. In 2023, for example, HateAid and the European Union of Jewish Students sued X for failing to enforce its terms of service against posts that were antisemitic or that denied the Holocaust, which is illegal in Germany.\u00a0<\/p>\n This almost certainly put the organization in the crosshairs of X owner Elon Musk; it also made HateAid a frequent target of Germany\u2019s far right party, the Alliance for Democracy, which Musk has called \u201cthe only hope for Germany.\u201d (X did not respond to a request to comment on this lawsuit.)<\/p>\n For better and worse, HateAid\u2019s profile grew further when it took on another critical job in online safety. In June 2024, it was named as a trusted flagger organization under the Digital Services Act, a 2022 EU law that requires social media companies to remove certain content (including hate speech and violence) that violates national laws, and to provide more transparency to the public, in part by allowing more appeals on platforms\u2019 moderation decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n Trusted flaggers are entities designated by individual EU countries to point out illegal content, and they are a key part of DSA enforcement. While anyone can report such content, trusted flaggers\u2019 reports are prioritized and legally require a response from the platforms.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Trump administration has loudly argued that the trusted flagger program and the DSA more broadly are examples of censorship that disproportionately affect voices on the right and American technology companies, <\/strong>like X.\u00a0<\/p>\n When we first spoke in December, Ballon said these claims of censorship simply don\u2019t hold water: \u201cWe don\u2019t delete content, and we also don\u2019t, like, flag content publicly for everyone to see and to shame people. The only thing that we do: We use the same notification channels that everyone can use, and the only thing that is in the Digital Services Act is that platforms should prioritize our reporting.\u201d Then it is on the platforms to decide what to do.\u00a0<\/p>\n Nevertheless, the idea that HateAid and like-minded organizations are censoring the right has become a powerful conspiracy theory with real-world consequences. (Last year, MIT Technology Review<\/em> covered<\/a> the closure of a small State Department office following allegations that it had conducted \u201ccensorship,\u201d as well as an unusual attempt by State leadership to access internal records<\/a> related to supposed censorship\u2014including information about two of the people who have now been banned, Medford and Ahmed, and both of their organizations.)\u00a0<\/p>\n HateAid saw a fresh wave of harassment starting last February, when 60 Minutes<\/em> aired a documentary on hate speech laws in Germany; it featured a quote from Ballon that \u201cfree speech needs boundaries,\u201d which, she added, \u201care part of our constitution.\u201d The interview happened to air just days before Vice President JD Vance attended the Munich Security Conference; there he warned that \u201cacross Europe, free speech \u2026 is in retreat.\u201d This, Ballon told me, led to heightened hostility toward her and her organization.\u00a0<\/p>\n Fast-forward to July, when a report by Republicans<\/a> in the US House of Representatives claimed that the DSA \u201ccompels censorship and infringes on American free speech.\u201d HateAid was explicitly named in the report.\u00a0<\/p>\n All of this has made its work \u201cmore dangerous,\u201d Ballon told me in December. Before the 60 Minutes <\/em>interview, \u201cmaybe one and a half years ago, as an organization, there were attacks against us, but mostly against our clients, because they were the activists, the journalists, the politicians at the forefront. But now \u2026 we see them becoming more personal.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n As a result, over the last year, HateAid has taken more steps to protect its reputation and get ahead of the damaging narratives. Ballon has reported the hate speech targeted at her\u2014\u201cMore [complaints] than in all the years I did this job before,\u201d she said\u2014as well as defamation lawsuits on behalf of HateAid.\u00a0<\/p>\n All these tensions finally came to a head in December. At the start of the month, the European Commission fined<\/a> X $140 million for DSA violations. This set off yet another round of recriminations about supposed censorship of the right, with Trump calling<\/a> the fine \u201ca nasty one\u201d and warning: \u201cEurope has to be very careful.\u201d<\/p>\n Just a few weeks later, the day before Christmas Eve, retaliation against individuals finally arrived.\u00a0<\/p>\n Digital rights groups are pushing back against the Trump administration\u2019s narrow view of what constitutes free speech and censorship.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat we see from this administration is a conception of freedom of expression that is not a human-rights-based conception where this is an inalienable, indelible right that\u2019s held by every person,\u201d says David Greene, the civil liberties director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a US-based digital rights group. Rather, he sees an \u201cexpectation that\u2026 [if] anybody else\u2019s speech is challenged, there\u2019s a good reason for it, but it should never happen to them.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Since Trump won his second term, social media platforms have walked back their commitments to trust and safety. Meta, for example, ended fact-checking on Facebook and adopted much of the administration\u2019s censorship language, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg telling<\/a> the podcaster Joe Rogan that it would \u201cwork with President Trump to push back on governments around the world\u201d if they are seen as \u201cgoing after American companies and pushing to censor more.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Helping navigate \u201ca lawless place\u201d<\/h3>\n
HateAid gets caught in Trump World\u2019s dragnet<\/h3>\n
Who gets to define\u2014and experience\u2014free speech<\/h3>\n
\n