The Trump administration has issued travel bans that prohibit five European tech researchers, including one former EU Commissioner, from entering the United States. “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,” said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

That official is Thierry Breton, the former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Digital Services, who Sarah Rogers called the “mastermind” of the Digital Services Act. Rogers, the Under Secretary of State, said Breton threatened Elon Musk about ongoing formal proceedings for X’s noncompliance with “illegal content” and “disinformation” under the DSA just before his meeting with President Trump. The administration has also banned Imran Ahmed from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), who apparently called for American anti-vaxxers to be deplatformed. One of those people is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who’s now the US Secretary of Health.

Clare Melford from the UK-based Global Disinformation Index has also been banned. Her group monitors online platforms for hate speech. Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon from German organization HateAid, have been banned, as well. HateAid flags hate speech online for the EU under DSA rules.

As The New York Times notes, these travel bans emphasize the administration’s close relationship with internet and tech companies, which would benefit from having DSA rules loosened or abolished. The Global Disinformation Index called the travel bans “an authoritarian attack on free speech and an egregious act of government censorship.” Meanwhile, von Hodenberg and Ballon said the bans mark a new escalation. “The US government is clearly questioning European sovereignty,” they said. 

The Federal Communications Commission has added foreign-made drones and their critical components to the agency’s “Covered List,” making them prohibited to import into the US. In a public notice published by the FCC, it said several national security agencies have determined that umanned aircraft systems (UAS) and their critical components produced in foreign countries pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. 

“UAS and UAS critical components must be produced in the United States,” the agency said. “UAS are inherently dual-use: they are both commercial platforms and potentially military or paramilitary sensors and weapons. UAS and UAS critical components, including data transmission devices, communications systems, flight controllers, ground control stations, controllers, navigation systems, batteries, smart batteries, and motors produced in a foreign country could enable persistent surveillance, data exfiltration, and destructive operations over U.S. territory, including over World Cup and Olympic venues and other mass gathering events.”

FCC Chair Brendan Carr clarified on X that the ban does not affect old drones. People can continue using the devices they’ve already purchased, and retailers can keep selling models that have already been approved by the agency. The new rule only applies to upcoming models. He also said that the Department of War or the Department of Homeland Security can allow specific new models, a certain class of drones or particular components to be sold in the US. 

The FCC didn’t name any manufacturers in particular, but one of the most well-known brands that will be affected by the ban is Chinese company DJI, which told Engadget that it was disappointed by the agency’s decision. “While DJI was not singled out, no information has been released regarding what information was used by the Executive Branch in reaching its determination,” a spokesperson said. DJI has long been in the US government’s crosshairs and has been trying to prove that its products aren’t a national security threat.

“DJI products are among the safest and most secure on the market, supported by years of reviews conducted by US government agencies and independent third parties,” they added. “Concerns about DJI’s data security have not been grounded in evidence and instead reflect protectionism, contrary to the principles of an open market.”