The European Union is pushing social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and X, to take stronger action against prohibited content, such as hate speech and child exploitation material. However, the Trump administration appears to be resistant to this initiative. At the Mobile World Congress on Monday, Brendon Carr, a Republican appointed by Trump to lead the Federal Communications Commission, expressed his concerns about the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), stating that content moderation is not enshrined in the Constitution.

Carr referred to the DSA’s regulations as a form of censorship, arguing that they are “incompatible with America’s free speech tradition and the commitments these tech companies have made to diversity of opinions.” This statement is consistent with Carr’s previous advocacy for internet freedom, which has included reaching out to tech executives to gather their input on navigating the new rules, with the implied assurance that the Trump administration would support them if they chose to disregard the regulations. As Carr wrote to the company leaders, “If Europe wants to implement protectionist regulations that unfairly target U.S. tech companies, the Trump administration will defend the interests of American businesses.”

Since Trump took office, the federal government has been actively challenging the EU’s scrutiny of U.S.-based tech companies, and these companies have increasingly sought protection from Trump. Last month, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan requested that the EU’s antitrust chief, Teresa Ribera, clarify how she plans to enforce the DSA and other regulations, suggesting that they seem to target U.S. companies. Additionally, President Trump signed a memorandum stating that his administration would review any rules that attempt to “dictate how American companies interact with consumers in the European Union.”

As the DSA and other regulations are set to take full effect this year, Big Tech companies are already seeking shelter behind the Trump administration’s protection. Last month, Meta’s chief of global affairs, Joel Kaplan, warned that the company would not hesitate to appeal to President Trump if it continues to face penalties in the EU, claiming that the ongoing crackdowns against Big Tech constitute “discriminatory” action.

Instead of relying on the Trump administration’s support, Big Tech companies could consider alternative approaches. One option would be to comply with the EU’s regulations, which would likely reduce the number of fines they face. It’s worth noting that these companies have previously complied with censorship requests from other governments, such as when Meta and Google agreed to censor content at the request of the Vietnamese government, or when they complied with similar requests from the Turkish government.

Another potential strategy for Big Tech companies would be to address their monopolistic practices. As global facilitators of communication, they have a responsibility to comply with international laws. While they could choose to cease operations in regions with stringent regulations, this would likely result in significant losses in terms of data and profit. In reality, these companies are international corporations that happen to be headquartered in the U.S., and they often invoke “American values” only when it is convenient for their bottom line, rather than out of a genuine commitment to those values.