February 6, 2026
By Clare Melford
Last December 23rd, as much of the world was winding down for the holidays, an undersecretary in the U.S. State Department announced on X that I had been banned from the United States. A short time later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a press release clarifying this rather surprising turn of events. My visa, along with four other Europeans’, was being revoked, Rubio said, because our presence in his country “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” The statement described us as radical activists who coerce tech companies into censoring speech.
This characterisation of my work and the work of GDI is inaccurate and deliberately inflammatory, as I laid out in a Financial Times article. GDI has, for eight years now, tracked and reported instances of risky online content to advertisers and the public. We identify sources of foreign propaganda, along with polarising or misleading material, all over the world. We then make that data available to the advertisers who fund much of today’s internet and to researchers and the public for educational purposes.
The business model of the modern internet is one in which publishers capture the attention of the reader, then monetize that attention, often via advertising. But as we’ve seen over the last decade, the types of content that are most effective at capturing attention, especially via engagement-optimizing social media algorithms, are those that amplify conflict and pit in-groups against out-groups. These adversarial narratives, however, pose a greater risk for advertisers’ brands. Study after study has confirmed that brands perceived as supporting divisive content can suffer reputational damage and lost sales.
The result is a tension between the kind of content that benefits publishers and tech platforms, and the kind that is safe for advertisers to subsidize.
At GDI, we believe advertisers have free speech rights too. They should be able to choose where their adverts go and with what sort of content they associate, just as they did in the analogue age. A fully informed transaction between buyers and sellers is a key tenet of a free market. To that end, we offer independent assessments of where advertisers are unwittingly funding foreign propaganda or other harmful speech online. We also research all the other ways in which such adversarial content is monetised, whether that is through merchandising, cryptocurrencies, or donations. We publish this research to inform the public, researchers, and policymakers about how the modern internet is enabling the monetisation of hate and propaganda.
My organization exercises free speech in the free market — with the goal of improving transparency for everyone in that market. We don’t buy or sell ads. We do not dictate editorial decisions. We have no power to take down content. That the U.S. government has so misunderstood our mission and operations is disappointing.
Meanwhile, the stakes are only growing higher. We believe independent assessments of online content, such as those provided by GDI, will become even more important with the rise of generative artificial intelligence. AI companies developing new search engines and social media alternatives must earn and maintain public trust to build sustainable business models. A crucial element of this trust, for both the public and advertisers, will be quality measurements of the content used for training their models. Independent content quality assessments will – and must – become an essential feature of the emerging AI economy.
The visa ban leveled against me misunderstands these fundamental facts, and it’s my hope that this administration — or perhaps a future one — will recognize that error and correct it. Giving buyers and sellers greater choice in the free market is not censorship. It’s just good business. Publishing research which informs the public and policymakers where harmful content is being promoted for profit is GDI’s contribution to making the next generation of the internet safer for all, not only profitable for some.
The outpouring of support for GDI following the visa ban announcement has been overwhelming. From French President Emmanuel Macron to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, politicians from many countries and political parties have been voicing their condemnation of the visa bans. We at GDI are extremely grateful to all those who have spoken publicly and privately in support of me and the work of the organization.
Below are a few of their statements.
“France denounces the visa restriction decisions taken by the United States against Thierry Breton and four other European figures. These measures amount to intimidation and coercion against European digital sovereignty.” — Emmanuel Macron
“The European Commission strongly condemns the U.S. decision to impose travel restrictions on five European individuals, including former European Commissioner Thierry Breton. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Europe and a shared core value with the United States across the democratic world. If needed, we will respond swiftly and decisively to defend our regulatory autonomy against unjustified measures.” — European Commission
“Freedom of speech is the foundation of our strong and vibrant European democracy. We are proud of it. We will protect it.” — Ursula von der Leyen
“Executive Vice-President expressed her solidarity with GDI in view of the travel restriction issued toward their representative, and informed that the Commission asked US administration to reverse the decision.” — Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice-President Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy
“The entry bans imposed by the US, including those against the chairpersons of #HateAid is unacceptable. The Digital Services Act ensures that anything illegal offline is also illegal online.” — Johann Wadephul
“While every country has the right to set its own visa rules, we support the laws and institutions which are working to keep the internet free from the most harmful content” — UK government spokesperson to Reuters
“Amendment 3a. Reaffirms that the EU must remain sovereign in enforcing its laws, especially in the digital field; firmly condemns and calls for the cancellation of the travel bans imposed by the United States on civil society leaders Imran Ahmed, Clare Melford, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon, whose work contributes to a safer digital environment for all and holds digital platforms accountable.” — Motion for a resolution, European Parliament
_________________________________
(Photo by Alice Donovan Rouse)