Were the Maltese EU Elections a Fraud? Evidence of EU Media Interference and Censorship
Recent disclosures released by the House Judiciary Committee now provide documentary evidence that the European Union has been actively pressuring social media companies to censor content that runs counter to its political agenda. These documents show that EU institutions interfered in at least eight European elections, including the Dutch elections of 2023 and 2025, by holding meetings with major social media platforms and urging them to suppress political speech in the days immediately preceding voting.
We now know that in the lead-up to the 2023 Dutch elections, the European Commission designated the then Dutch Interior Minister, Hugo de Jonge, as a “trusted flagger” under the Digital Services Act (DSA). This status granted him the authority to submit priority censorship requests.
In practical terms, this meant that, before the Dutch elections, the Interior Ministry could fast-track requests to remove or suppress political content, including populist rhetoric, criticism of the EU, political satire, memes, and commentary on migration policy. In effect, anything that fell outside the approved narrative was liable to be censored.
The categories of speech targeted included:
- “Populist rhetoric”
- “Anti-government or anti-EU content”
- “Anti-elite discourse”
- “Political satire”
- “Anti-migrant or Islamophobic content”
- “Anti-refugee or anti-immigration sentiment”
- “Anti-LGBTQI content”
- “Meme subcultures”
In other words, any content perceived as conservative, right-wing, or critical of mass migration policies was vulnerable to suppression.
Another election in which anti-EU candidates appeared to be affected by such censorship was Romania’s presidential election. The Romanian system involves two rounds of voting. An anti-EU candidate, Georgescu, led the first round and was expected to win the second. This outcome would have posed a serious challenge to EU institutions. The EU subsequently claimed that Georgescu’s TikTok campaign had been funded and orchestrated by Russian actors and that his popularity stemmed from this alleged interference.
On this basis, the elections were annulled, Georgescu was barred from participating, and the vote was rerun with new candidates. The rerun resulted in the victory of a pro-EU candidate. It later emerged that Russian actors did not run the controversial TikTok campaign, but Romanian political opponents did—apparently as an attempt to frame Georgescu. The annulment of the elections and their rerunning under these conditions were illegal. All this was carried out with the assistance of judges who did not serve justice but served unaccountable bureaucratic power.
What is now emerging is that censorship extended beyond European elections and even targeted political content originating in the United States. The EU appears to have been monitoring and suppressing U.S. political discourse well before Donald Trump’s election. Trump himself now appears to have been among the victims of this decade-long campaign of global censorship, which posed a direct threat to freedom of expression worldwide. In this sense, the EU was increasingly behaving like an authoritarian regime rather than a democratic union.
One must therefore ask whether EU institutions directly interfered in the European Parliament elections. These institutions present themselves as champions of democracy. In this context, democracy appears hollow. At the same time, EU representatives regularly criticise leaders such as Trump or Putin for authoritarian behaviour, while themselves acting in a manner reminiscent of theocratic or autocratic regimes.
I participated in the European Union elections and will not comment on my electoral results. Still, I must state that I was a victim of media censorship, including censorship on social media platforms, because this website consistently criticised those policies. It is now clear why it was censored and why multiple judicial proceedings were initiated against it. I personally experienced these forms of censorship, along with additional obstacles imposed by the electoral commission.
The only major platform reportedly refusing to comply with these censorship requests was X. Elon Musk’s platform declined to grant its consent. This helps explain the hostility of EU bureaucrats towards Musk. The same platform is now facing a €120 million fine under the Digital Services Act and has reportedly had its offices searched in France. This should alarm anyone who still believes in democratic governance.
These are matters over which governments should resign, and institutions should collapse. Democracy, as practiced by the EU, is effectively dead. Thanks to Trump, EU institutions are now themselves entering a state of political crisis.
Musk has since described the EU as an association of tyrants—and in light of these revelations, that assessment appears increasingly accurate.
What follows are documents obtained and released by the House Judiciary Committee that demonstrate how EU institutions have pressured social media platforms to censor lawful political speech and interfere in democratic elections across Europe.
