US fury at Australia’s eSafety Commissioner over ‘censorship regime’
A dramatic showdown looms between Australia’s internet watchdog and US Congress over claims our content laws are creating a “censorship regime” beyond our borders.
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has been summoned before US congress to give evidence on the Online Safety Act and the implications of “foreign censorship regimes”.
In a letter written by chairman of the US House judiciary committee Jim Jordan - a staunch ally of US President, Donald Trump - Ms Inman Grant was labelled a “zealot for global take-downs” and was called to give testimony before the committee within two weeks.
“As a primary enforcer of Australia’s OSA and noted zealot for global take-downs, you are
uniquely positioned to provide information about the law’s free speech implications – both in the US and abroad,” the letter read.
“Your expansive interpretation and enforcement of Australia’s OSA – including your claim of extraterritorial jurisdiction to censor speech outside of Australia – directly threatens American speech.”
It is not confirmed whether Ms Inman Grant will agree to the request but if she does, will likely appear via video link.
The letter also said Ms Inman Grant “colluded” with “pro-censorship entities” during a recent trip to the US, where she gave an address at Stanford University in California — a key ideological target of the Trump administration.
“According to documents obtained by the committee, you recently gave the ‘keynote’ at a non-public event at Stanford University on September 25, 2025,” the letter reads.
“Other attendees and panellists included officials from some of the entities with the worst track records of extraterritorial censorship, including the European Union and Brazil.
“These close ties with Stanford are troubling given the university’s past efforts to facilitate US government censorship of lawful American speech.”
The committee also cited eSafety’s 2024 court battle against Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, as an example of what it called Ms Inman Grant’s zealotry.
The regulator lost its bid to force the company to remove or hide about 65 instances of footage showing the stabbing attack on Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel in Western Sydney last April.
“Your commission sought to compel X to remove content globally, arguing that its geo-blocking of the content was insufficient because Australians could use VPNs to access the content,” the letter said.
VPNs, or virtual private networks, are a widely-used technology which allows internet users to mask their location and in some cases evade local online content restrictions.
“Other censorship regimes, like the one in Brazil, have used similar justifications when ordering global take-downs of content and threatening fines for VPN use,” the letter continued.
“Global content take-down orders are concerning because they … set the precedent that other governments may do the same.”
A spokesperson for Ms Inman Grant told ABC whether or not she agreed to testify would be determined “in the context of eSafety’s current priorities”.
“I’m answerable to the communications minister here and to the Australian parliament, and not to the US Congress,” Ms Inman Grant said.
More Coverage
Originally published as US fury at Australia’s eSafety Commissioner over ‘censorship regime’
Bombshell on notorious Aussie pedo
