Is freedom of expression at risk in the EU?

Sir Michael Leigh, a former EU official in charge of EU enlargement, teaches at Johns Hopkins University (SAIS) in Bologna.

Freedom of expression is a hallmark of the European Union. It’s one of the key criteria that applicants for membership must meet and is constantly monitored by European institutions. However, media freedom is currently under pressure from two main sources: the erosion of fundamental liberties in certain member states and rapid technological change.

Attacks by the American Vice-President on freedom of expression in Europe may seem ludicrous, especially when compared to authoritarian moves in the United States during the first four months of 2025. But rightful indignation against such criticism should not distract Europeans from the challenge of preserving their own rights and freedoms.

These freedoms are under assault in several of the EU’s not-so-new member states, some of whose leaders reject liberal democracy and express sympathy with countries hostile to the EU. State-funded advertising, the concentration of media ownership, conflicts of interest, and the intimidation of journalists are among the threats to freedom of expression in several EU countries. Outside interference exacerbates these problems, with Russia and China financing disinformation campaigns and supporting extremist movements.

Even in countries that claim to uphold “European values,” deference to authority and state control of media regulatory bodies can curb freedom of expression and promote self-censorship. Airtime and commentary often favor the government of the day, while opposition spokespeople are given less attention. In some EU countries where extremist movements are on the rise, traditionally outspoken media have become more cautious. Elsewhere the concentration of ownership across the press, radio and television endangers the free play of ideas.

The shifting media landscape complicates the task of safeguarding fundamental freedoms. Mainstream media have their biases, but they are easily tracked and most allow for critical comment. The editorial process sifts reports for accuracy and objectivity. However, Europeans now obtain their information from a plethora of podcasts, internet-only news outlets, influencers, and fringe media. These are more easily manipulated and used covertly by governments or hostile powers to influence opinion and election outcomes.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former Danish Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General, is among those who have warned about AI-enabled disinformation, the use of deep fakes, and election interference. Rogue foreign actors now find it easier to infiltrate the news agenda in Europe. The rise of a “cognitive elite,” combining hard-right politics and state-of-the-art technology, poses a new threat that risks spilling over from Silicon Valley to Europe.

The EU has responded to such threats by stepping up monitoring and adopting legislation intended to rein in tech giants. The EU’s Media Freedom Act, which takes effect in August this year, updates EU rules and sets up mechanisms intended to strengthen journalistic independence. The Commission’s regular rule of law reports and monitoring of media freedom maintain pressure on erring member states. These efforts are backed by the European Parliament and, on a wider scale, by the Council of Europe.

The EU’s Digital Services Act is a brave attempt to create a safer online environment. The parallel Digital Markets Act aims to prevent undue market dominance, while the EU’s AI Act seeks to regulate this burgeoning technology comprehensively. However, it’s hard for such laws, which are years in the making, to keep up with technological change. Public authorities struggle to strike the right balance between preventing hate speech and ensuring freedom of expression. The Trump administration rejects EU efforts to regulate online services provided by US-based tech companies and to tax their profits earned in Europe.

In principle, the EU has the most leverage in countries applying for EU membership. It finances projects and reports on the rule of law in the Western Balkans and in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. Yet freedom of expression has deteriorated in a number of these countries. The European Court of Auditors (ECA) has been critical of EU efforts in applicant countries due to a lack of political will and poorly conceived projects. The ECA also described disinformation in the EU as a problem that has been “tackled not tamed,” citing a piecemeal approach and poor coordination among EU institutions as among the problems.

EU support for freedom of expression ultimately depends on national authorities. However, the European Commission has expressed concern about “insufficient safeguards against undue political influence over the nomination process or in the functioning” of media regulators in a number of EU countries.

EU leaders should not underestimate their leverage in preserving fundamental freedoms or be intimidated by threats from hostile powers. They have a range of tools to use against countries that willfully obstruct freedom of expression. Geopolitical tensions should not become the pretext for retreating into transactional, opportunistic policies. A significant part of the EU’s influence in the world derives from the wish of others to emulate its political and economic system. To maintain the attractiveness of its model, the EU must begin by ensuring that its founding principles are respected at home.