A bill that seeks to protect US citizens and companies from foreign governments' online censorship orders has gained its first cosponsor in the House of Representatives.
The GRANITE Act (H.R. 10174), Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion, was introduced by Rep. Michael Rulli (R-OH) on August 27, while the first cosponsor of the House version is Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who added his name on October 15.
The legislation is designed as a shield against foreign governments' censorship, and a sword that would allow US persons targeted by such orders to fight back in US courts.
The GRANITE Act would add a new section 4106(a) to title 28, which would read, "a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment, or a fine, order, or demand issued by a foreign court or a foreign state, enforcing a foreign censorship law."
It covers fines, orders, and demands, not just court judgments, which is important because many regulators around the world act without the involvement of any court.
This part of the bill is the "shield" that would prevent US courts from recognizing and enforcing such foreign orders.
The "sword" is in new section 4106(b): a US person against whom such a judgment is entered, or who is "served or purportedly served," may sue in a US district court "seeking declaratory relief that such judgment, fine, order, or demand is unenforceable."
However, this declaratory relief does not include any damages or a US court ordering the seizure of foreign assets.
Another important point is that there would be no sovereign immunity (the legal shield that stops foreign governments being sued in US courts for most actions) in these cases – the bill proposes a new exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, section 1605(a).
A "foreign censorship law" is defined in the proposed bill as one that "has the primary purpose or substantial effect of restricting or penalizing expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association," or "targets expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association based on its content, viewpoint, or speaker identity," or "compels disclosure that would reasonably chill that expression" – and that "would conflict with the protections of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution if recognized in the United States."
Rulli previously said, "My bill makes clear that if a foreign government tries to punish an American for speech protected by the First Amendment, that judgment is dead on arrival in our courts."
He also said, "The constitution protects our right to speak freely. It does not bend to Brussels or London."
Attorney Preston Byrne, who helped draft the GRANITE proposals, previously explained the background for the legislative effort: the UK's regulator Ofcom has been very active in issuing notices to US companies – at least 197 between February 2025 and April 2026. Only four US companies have publicly refused to comply, and all of them are his clients, the attorney said.
4chan then sued Ofcom in a federal court in Washington, but the UK regulator sought dismissal of the case, invoking the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Byrne remarked that "Ofcom wants to have its cake and eat it" – the regulator wants to be able to censor content in the US, but also have immunity from being sued there.
He also said that "most companies rolled over without a fight" when they received the orders.
The attorney backs the bill, saying, "I support Rep. Rulli's GRANITE Act without reservation." The bill, he said, "gives American lawyers the tools that we need to win."
He explained why this is necessary: "The threat alone, even a threat that would be very difficult to enforce, is enough to chill speech and restrict the American marketplace of ideas."
The House bill is not the only one – there is also a Senate version, S. 5478, introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on September 23, with the same provisions.
There have been efforts to pass state-level GRANITE Acts, the first one being Wyoming's HB 70, which was introduced in early 2026 and has stalled in the state Senate after passing the House. The New Hampshire legislature will consider a proposal filed on September 1 by Rep. Calvin Beaulier, who said, "Our courts will not recognize any unconstitutional foreign gag orders or fines."
The federal SPEECH Act of 2010 already prevents US courts from recognizing foreign defamation judgments, and the new bill would sit beside it in chapter 181 of title 28.
The bill is not designed to stop a foreign government from issuing such orders, nor can it stop a platform from complying with those orders and restricting speech even in the US – but it does stop US courts from being used to enforce those orders.
The threat to free speech and the open internet is often described in terms of a foreign court judgment, but the reality is that the "threat" is more likely to come in the form of an email sent by a foreign regulator to a US company, with a demand to censor or else.
Currently, many companies comply with such demands, but if they knew that ignoring them would give them the right to sue in a US court and get a declaratory judgment in their favor, they might be more inclined to resist.
Although the GRANITE Act is a defensive tool, it is necessary, because the US Constitution, and the First Amendment, are not self-executing.
