U.S. to deny visas to foreign censorship enforcers under new Rubio-led policy

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a new U.S. policy to deny visas to foreign officials who pressure American tech firms to censor content. The move is the latest in a series of actions aimed at dismantling what the administration calls the “global censorship-industrial complex.”

Key Details:

Visa bans will apply to foreign officials and their families involved in censorship targeting U.S. citizens, companies, or residents.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes of Brazil and EU Digital Services Act (DSA) officials could be among those affected.
The policy follows the shutdown of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center and a broader crackdown on foreign speech controls.

Around the world, governments are threatening & censoring US social media platforms for legal speech. Now, @SecRubio @StateDept says it will deny visas to foreign nationals engaged in censorship against Americans, US tech companies, and people posting from inside the US. pic.twitter.com/24g0EdHLyx

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) May 28, 2025

Diving Deeper:

The United States will begin denying entry visas to foreign officials who attempt to censor American citizens or pressure U.S. tech companies to suppress free speech. The policy, unveiled by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, marks the most aggressive push yet by the Trump administration to confront what it calls “global censorship collusion.”

The new policy, enabled under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, applies not just to the offending officials but also to their immediate families. It targets those responsible for direct censorship, those who engage in lawfare to silence political dissent, and those who try to export censorship mandates into American digital platforms.

While State Department officials were careful not to name specific individuals, the measure could impact Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes—widely criticized for ordering the censorship of political opponents—and senior officials in the European Union overseeing the controversial Digital Services Act. The DSA has drawn backlash from U.S. leaders for its sweeping influence over American-based companies like Google, Meta, and X.

Rubio, who has led a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy priorities since assuming office at Foggy Bottom, previously shut down the State Department’s Global Engagement Center. That office had funneled taxpayer money to NGOs like the UK-based Global Disinformation Index, which was implicated in censorship pressure campaigns linked to U.S. intelligence entities.

Just last week, the State Department hinted at potential Magnitsky Act sanctions against Moraes, whose aggressive speech controls in Brazil have become a global case study in judicial overreach. The Justice Committee in Congress also approved legislation aimed at banning him from entering the United States.

As part of the administration’s strategic realignment, Acting Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie has been tasked with leading efforts to protect American free speech interests abroad. “Obviously, we don’t love the idea of the Europeans censoring their own citizens,” Beattie told The Wall Street Journal, “but the principal concern is these spillover effects affecting content-moderation policies and a variety of free-speech concerns within the United States.”

The administration’s stance is that U.S. free speech is not just a domestic issue but a strategic priority. A recent State Department communication said the U.S. “is committed to shutting down the global censorship-industrial complex.”

Under the new visa policy, sanctions could also apply to officials who threaten arrests or asset seizures against tech companies, or demand that U.S.-based firms alter content moderation policies in line with foreign censorship laws. It further covers foreign actors who try to punish U.S. residents for online speech, or order tech platforms to withhold payments to users in retaliation for political or social commentary.

The announcement is backed by the America First Policy Directive, an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January, which declared that the protection of American citizens and their rights must remain a central objective of U.S. foreign policy.

The administration has made clear that it sees free speech not only as a constitutional right but also as a geopolitical asset. Vice President J.D. Vance, speaking at the Munich Security Conference in February, warned against the rise of censorship regimes in Europe targeting populist movements like that of Marine Le Pen in France.

(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, Pool)

Up Next

Big grocers rigged bread prices and most walked away free

Don't Miss

Elon Musk’s Time At DOGE Comes To End

Duane Rolheiser

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Intel official accused of leaking classified info to foreign country to sabotage Trump

Business / 2 days ago

U.S. to deny visas to foreign censorship enforcers under new Rubio-led policy

International / 3 weeks ago

Cardinals elect Robert Francis Prevost, first American pope to lead Catholic church

Automotive

EV fantasy losing charge on taxpayer time

Published on May 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The vision of an all-electric transportation sector, shared by policymakers from various governments in Canada, may be fading fast.

The latest failure to charge is a recent announcement by Honda, which will postpone a $15 billion electric vehicle (EV) project in Ontario for two years, citing market demand—or lack thereof. Adding insult to injury, Honda will move some of its EV production to the United States, partially in response to the Trump Tariff Wars. But any focus on tariffs is misdirection to conceal reality; failures in the electrification agenda have appeared for years, long before Trump’s tariffs.

In 2023, the Quebec government pledged $2.9 billion in financing to secure a deal with Swedish EV manufacturer NorthVolt. Ottawa committed $1.34 billion to build the plant and another $3 billion worth of incentives. So far, per the CBC, the Quebec government “ invested $270 million in the project and the provincial pension investor, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), has also invested $200 million.” In 2024, NorthVolt declared bankruptcy in Sweden, throwing the Canadian plans into limbo.

Last month, the same Quebec government announced it will not rescue the Lion Electric company from its fiscal woes, which became obvious in December 2024 when the company filed for creditor protection (again, long before the tariff war). According to the Financial Post, “Lion thrived during the electric vehicle boom, reaching a market capitalization of US$4.2 billion in 2021 and growing to 1,400 employees the next year. Then the market for electric vehicles went through a tough period, and it became far more difficult for manufacturers to raise capital.” The Quebec government had already lost $177 million on investments in Lion, while the federal government lost $30 million, by the time the company filed for creditor protection.

Last year, Ford Motor Co. delayed production of an electric SUV at its Oakville, Ont., plant and Umicore halted spending on a $2.8 billion battery materials plant in eastern Ontario. In April 2025, General Motors announced it will soon close the CAMI electric van assembly plant in Ontario, with plans to reopen in the fall at half capacity, to “align production schedules with current demand.” And GM temporarily laid off hundreds of workers at its Ingersoll, Ontario, plant that produces an electric delivery vehicle because it isn’t selling as well as hoped.

There are still more examples of EV fizzle—again, all pre-tariff war. Government “investments” to Stellantis and LG Energy Solution and Ford Motor Company have fallen flat and dissolved, been paused or remain in limbo. And projects for Canada’s EV supply chain remain years away from production. “Of the four multibillion-dollar battery cell manufacturing plants announced for Canada,” wrote automotive reporter Gabriel Friedman, “only one—a joint venture known as NextStar Energy Inc. between South Korea’s LG Energy Solution Ltd. and European automaker Stellantis NV—progressed into even the construction phase.”

What’s the moral of the story?

Once again, the fevered dreams of government planners who seek to pick winning technologies in a major economic sector have proven to be just that, fevered dreams. In 2025, some 125 years since consumers first had a choice of electric vehicles or internal combustion vehicles (ICE), the ICE vehicles are still winning in economically-free markets. Without massive government subsidies to EVs, in fact, there would be no contest at all. It’d be ICE by a landslide.

In the face of this reality, the new Carney government should terminate any programs that try to force EV technologies into the marketplace, and rescind plans to have all new light-duty vehicle sales be EVs by 2035. It’s just not going to happen, and planning for a fantasy is not sound government policy nor sound use of taxpayer money. Governments in Ontario, Quebec and any other province looking to spend big on EVs should also rethink their plans forthwith.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Business

Switzerland has nearly 65% more doctors and much shorter wait times than Canada, despite spending roughly same amount on health care

Published on May 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Yanick Labrie

Switzerland’s universal health-care system delivers significantly better results than Canada’s in terms of wait times, access to health professionals like doctors and nurses, and patient satisfaction finds a new study published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian policy think-tank.

“Despite its massive price tag, Canada’s health-care system lags behind many other countries with universal health care,” said Yanick Labrie, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and author of Building Responsive and Adaptive Health-Care Systems in Canada: Lessons from Switzerland.

The study highlights how Switzerland’s universal health-care system consistently outperforms Canada on most metrics tracked by the OECD.

In 2022, the latest year of available data, despite Canada (11.5 per cent of GDP) and Switzerland (11.9 per cent) spending close to the same amount on health care, Switzerland had 4.6 doctors per thousand people compared to 2.8 in Canada. In other words, Switzerland had 64.3 per cent more doctors than Canada (on a per-thousand people basis).

Switzerland also had 4.4 hospital beds per thousand people compared to 2.5 for Canada—Switzerland (8th) outranked Canada (36th) on this metric out of 38 OECD countries with universal health care.

Likewise, 85.3 per cent of Swiss people surveyed by the CWF (Commonwealth Fund) reported being able to obtain a consultation with a specialist within 2 months. By comparison, only 48.3 per cent of Canadians experienced a similar wait time. Beyond medical resources and workforce, patient satisfaction diverges sharply between the two countries, as 94 per cent of Swiss patients report being satisfied with their health-care system compared to just 56 per cent in Canada.

“Switzerland shows that a universal health care system can reconcile efficiency and equity – all while being more accessible and responsive to patients’ needs and preferences,” Labrie said.

“Policymakers in Canada who hope to improve Canada’s broken health-care system should look to more successful universal health-care countries like Switzerland.”

Building Responsive and Adaptive Health Care Systems in Canada: Lessons from Switzerland

Canada’s health-care system is increasingly unable to meet patient needs, with wait times reaching record lengths—over 30 weeks for planned care in 2024—despite significantly rising public spending and growing dissatisfaction among patients and providers nationwide.
Swiss health care outperforms Canada in nearly all OECD performance indicators: more doctors and nurses per capita, better access to care, shorter wait times, lower unmet needs, and higher patient satisfaction (94% vs. Canada’s 56%).
Switzerland ensures universal coverage through 44 competing private, not-for-profit insurers. Citizens are required to enroll but have the freedom to choose insurers and tailor coverage to their needs and preferences, promoting both access and autonomy.
Swiss basic insurance coverage is broader than Canada’s, including outpatient care, mental health, prescribed medications, home care, and long-term care—with modest, capped cost-sharing, and exemptions for vulnerable groups, including children, low-income individuals, and the chronically ill.
Patient cost participation (deductibles/co-payments) exists, but the system includes robust financial protection: 27.5% of the population receives direct subsidies, ensuring affordability and equity.
Risk equalization mechanisms prevent risk selection and guarantee insurer fairness, promoting solidarity across demographic and health groups.
Decentralized governance enhances responsiveness; cantons manage service planning, ensuring care adapts to local realities and population needs.
Managed competition drives innovation and efficiency: over 75% of the Swiss now choose alternative models (e.g., HMOs, telemedicine, gatekeeping).
The Swiss model proves that a universal, pluralistic, and competitive system can reconcile efficiency, equity, access, and patient satisfaction—offering powerful insights for Canada’s stalled health reform agenda.