US congressman Jim Jordan is the man of the hour in anti-EU tech sentiment, grabbing headlines for binge-writing subpoenas and vilifying EU efforts at tech regulation.

But how did we get here? And what caused Jordan’s staunch opposition to anything EU tech?

Jordan got his political start in 1995 as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives. He then switched to the Ohio State Senate before ultimately landing in the US House of Representatives, where he has been a member since 2007.

Ever the arch-conservative, Jordan founded the House Freedom Caucus, the farthest right bloc within the chamber, in 2015. Characterised by its anti-compromise outlook and stalwart allegiance to Trump, the Freedom Caucus champions limited government spending and hardline immigration policies.

Outside of the caucus, Jordan has relentlessly flaunted his fidelity to Trump. He voted against certifying Joe Biden’s election victory in 2021 and was found guilty by the 6 January investigation committee of being “a significant player in President Trump’s efforts” to overturn the 2020 election.

If Jordan’s combative approach to politics has an origin story, it likely starts with his career as an undefeated wrestler in his youth.

His career as a wrestling superstar was put centre-stage when some considered him as a candidate for Speaker of the House, the leader of the lower chamber and third in line to the presidency, in 2023. 

Allegations began circulating of Jordan’s involvement in a sexual abuse scandal at Ohio State University, which unfolded while Jordan was an assistant coach for their wrestling team.

Several former wrestlers accused Jordan of knowing about physician Richard Strauss’ alleged abuse, but doing nothing to halt it. Jordan denied that any students reported abuse to him.

The great American “censoring”

The wrestler turned pugnacious policy-maker began attracting attention this year for his fervent letter writing to senior European officials. These letters further Jordan’s devotion to the American censorship cause  one he fights tirelessly for the sake of his conservative counterparts.

In January this year, Jordan sent a letter to the EU’s tech commissioner Henna Virkkunen, stressing that EU regulation has increasingly pushed Big Tech to censor American free speech, specifically conservative viewpoints. He claimed that the EU’s Digital Services Act has systemic processes in place to remove “misleading or deceptive content” even when content is “not illegal.”

The European Digital Media Observatory, a project devoted to combatting disinformation, immediately dismissed this claim. It reiterated that removal of content was never mentioned in the DSA as a solution to the risk of disinformation; only illegal content warrants a removal.

A month later, Jordan wrote a second letter to competition commissioner Teresa Ribera with concern that the Digital Markets Act (DMA) unfairly targets American companies, as six of the seven companies subjected to higher antitrust scrutiny were America-based.

He uses this to accuse the EU of pursuing a secret goal “to remedy Europe’s economic downturn by weaponising the DMA against American companies.”

Subpoena Spree

Drawing on his authority as chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Jordan most recently wrote letters to the CEOs of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Rumble, TikTok, and X, legally ordering them to provide evidence that they would confront the problem of “foreign governments trying to silence American free speech – in the United States.”

Jordan focused on the “new threats” to freedom of expression in America that he claims are furthered by the EU’s DSA.

A similar letter was sent to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, citing the subpoena requests and stating the House’s expectation for regular updates on content moderation in the coming weeks and months.

The letter continued harpooning the DSA’s restriction on the American right to “speak freely online,” calling on the fact that most social media platforms maintain a single set of global policies, with the most restrictive setting a de facto standard. 

Why is Jim Jordan?

Jordan’s unwavering adherence to the uber-conservative platform he has constructed provides some explanation for his contempt for EU tech regulation – particularly ones he sees as stunting industry innovation.

The “America First” perspective first popularised by Trump has since spread across the Republican party, and Jordan is among its fiercest champions. 

Something like the DMA, which seeks to rein in the largest global tech companies, does not directly benefit the goals of conservative America, so it does not fly.

Conservatives like Jordan have also taken up a position as free speech warriors. They feel that conservative speech – even if it often includes a fair amount of mis- and disinformation – is being unjustly suppressed and must be defended.

The DSA, with its intention of supplying structure for online platforms to deal with misleading information, therefore is coming in direct conflict with his position.

[OM]