News Round-Up: US Counters EU Speech Controls, Pressures IEA To Drop Net-Zero, and Netherlands Taxes Paper Gains
Every week, the editorial team of Freedom Research compiles a round-up of news that caught our eye, or what felt like under-reported aspects of news deserving more attention.
Over the past week, the following topics attracted our attention:
Freedom.gov: US Counterstrike on EU Censorship
Trump Admin Pushes IEA to Ditch Net-Zero
Netherlands Forces Asset Sales To Pay Tax on Paper Gains
Macron Pushes for One Verified Account Per Person on Social Media
Bayer’s $7.25B Roundup Cancer Settlement
Freedom.gov: US Counterstrike on EU Censorship
Washington is creating a portal that will host content banned and deleted by European governments under the EU’s Digital Services Act or the UK’s Online Safety Bill, both known as the “censorship laws”, reports Reclaim The Net. Sources familiar with the US plan have confirmed its existence and described a discussed feature that would make the website’s traffic appear to originate only from the United States, which would help prevent users from being tracked on the site.
The US-based portal would remain outside the influence of EU authorities and would change the situation for anyone who wants to read what their government has banned. The project is led by US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah B. Rogers, who has hinted at a major backlash against the EU and UK censorship laws. According to the initial description, the US-created Freedom.gov appears to be a simple hosting site for content deleted in Europe. At the same time, it is clearly the US response to European censorship (see also here and here), highlighting a trend toward censorship in Europe.
The context for Freedom.gov is illustrated by French President Emmanuel Macron’s vision, described at last week’s Munich Security Conference. In this vision, every social media user would have only one account, controlled and linked to an official identity; social media would include age restrictions, and platforms would be subject to government regulations, with authorities allowed to block platforms for non-compliance. According to critics, Macron’s vision would mean the end of anonymity and freedom of speech on the internet across the European market.
The United Kingdom is also pursuing a similar path. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has confirmed that ministers are investigating whether to extend the scope of the Online Safety Bill and impose an age limit for VPNs. These tools are increasingly popular among Britons as a way to circumvent restrictions imposed by the Online Safety Bill. There are also plans for new powers allowing ministers to extend the bill’s scope without parliamentary approval. According to critics, age restrictions on VPNs would mean that personal data is collected precisely where people are trying to hide it. A privacy tool that requires identification is no longer a privacy tool.
European governments seem to be creating a system in which every opinion published on the web is linked to a verified identity, while authorities decide what is harmful and non-compliant platforms are fined or blocked. Critics say this European architecture is steadily expanding, one mandate after another or one “child protection“ justification after another – for children are being used as a cover for such initiatives around Europe. The pursuit is likely to continue until control is imposed on all of the tools that people use to read, talk, and organize anonymously.
Trump Admin Pushes IEA To Ditch Net-Zero
At a closed-door meeting in Paris, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright called on the International Energy Agency to abandon modelling net-zero emission scenarios. Wright believes it makes no sense to base modelling on the assumption that CO2 emissions can be reduced to zero. According to him, the goal is unrealistic and unachievable, and a net-zero world is a fantasy, Politico reports.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright presented the proposals and ideas at a closed meeting of ministers at the International Energy Agency in Paris this week. Just a
day earlier, he had threatened to withdraw the US from the agency altogether if
the latter did not abandon its green agenda and “left-wing fantasies,” and he repeated the warning at Thursday’s IEA meeting. However, this is not the US’s goal, he said, as there is “always a risk” that China could then take control of the agency.
The International Energy Agency is a key form of intergovernmental cooperation in climate and energy policy. Recently, the agency has faced increasing criticism from the US, mainly because of its support for the green and climate transition. In any case, abandoning the net-zero scenario would be a huge change for the IEA, as net-zero has been at the heart of its forecasts. These forecasts, in turn, have been key drivers of global policy decisions on the green transition and have justified billions of dollars in green energy investments.
According to those present, other ministers reacted cautiously to Wright’s speech, but noted that he was more diplomatic in private than in his public statements. The US Secretary of Energy cleverly separated politics from the organization, saying: “Let’s leave politics out of this, let’s focus on the real world [and] stop wasting our resources on scenarios that are zero percent likely.” Wright did not specifically target renewable energy itself, but rather criticized the goal of net-zero emissions.
European energy ministers rejected Wright’s pressure and did not agree to abandon the gradual phase-out of fossil fuels. On the contrary, they insisted that the focus must remain on renewable sources. Austrian Energy Minister Elisabeth Köstenzer said that Europe would not allow itself to be blackmailed by the United States, adding that renewable energy is necessary for economic growth and affordability. British Energy Minister Ed Miliband said that for most countries, the transition to clean energy is an unstoppable process. EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen also defended renewables, adding that they are not some distant future, but a reality already unfolding everywhere in the world.
Netherlands Forces Asset Sales To Pay Tax on Paper Gains
The Dutch House of Representatives recently voted in favour of a tax change to the third box of the actual income law (Wet werkelijk rendement box 3). The amendment subjects so-called paper income to taxation. From January 1, 2028, the state plans to tax the actual income from residents’ savings and investments (shares, crypto, etc.) at a rate of 36%. The law would replace the current system, which taxed expected income. Dutch courts have ruled that system unconstitutional, writes Investment Migration Insider.
Under the new rules, the tax would apply not only to actual income, such as interest, dividends and rent, but also to the increase in value of certain assets, such as stocks, bonds and cryptocurrencies, over the course of a year. This would apply even if the assets had not been sold. For example, a person who owns 500 shares with an acquisition cost of €50,000 on January 1, 2028, and whose share package increased in value to €100,000 as of January 1, 2029, must pay €16,704 in tax, for an unrealized gain of €50,000 (€100,000 − €50,000) was made on paper. The citizen has not sold any shares, but the state treats the €50,000 rise of value on paper as income. Some tax exemptions apply, such as €3,600 in the case of marriage, but €46,400 of “income” would still remain taxable. Therefore, the citizen must pay €16,704 in tax to the state (€46,400 × 36%). However, if, for example, the market falls before the payment deadline and the value of the shares falls to a new total value of €60,000, the tax amount will remain the same – €16,704 – as it was calculated based on the value on January 1.
The bill must still be approved by the Senate before it can enter into force.
The government has allowed different rules for real estate and start-up shares. For these assets, capital gains tax applies – tax is paid on the increase in value only when the asset is sold or disposed of. Regular income, such as rent or dividends, is taxed as before in the year received.
Several parties that supported the bill stated they do not favour taxing unrealized gains, but backed the law because the Dutch Supreme Court had ruled the previous system unconstitutional. In the debate, State Secretary for Taxation Eugène Heijnen acknowledged that the government would have preferred taxing investment income only upon realization, but this was not feasible by 2028; taxing unrealized profits prevents billions in budget shortfalls and is simpler to administer. Specifically, Supreme Court rulings in 2021 (and reaffirmed last year) found the old system – and even its temporary fixes – violated property rights and the ban on discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights, as it taxed expected returns that individuals had never actually earned. As a result, the Ministry of Finance estimated annual state revenue losses of approximately €2.3 billion, since taxpayers could demonstrate their actual income was lower than the assumed notional returns.
Critics of the draft law highlight a major flaw: citizens would have to pay tax on unrealized paper profits they have not received in cash, potentially forcing those without sufficient liquidity to sell assets, as shown in the earlier examples. The explanatory memorandum to the bill acknowledges this liquidity risk, which is why the government exempted real estate and start-up shares from annual market-value taxation and in such case, applies traditional capital gains tax upon sale. Critics also warn that the policy risks driving wealth out of the Netherlands, as high net-worth individuals may relocate to lower-tax EU jurisdictions with easier cross-border mobility, citing the precedent of companies leaving France after a similar measure in the late 1990s.
According to De Nederlandsche Bank, Dutch companies, institutions, and households had approximately €1.2 billion in indirect crypto investments in October 2025, up from €81 million at the end of 2020. As of Q3 2025, the financial sector held €113 million in direct crypto investments. These figures are only a small fraction (0.03%) of total Dutch securities.
Macron Pushes for One Verified Account Per Person on Social Media
In February, at the Munich Security Conference, French President Emmanuel Macron presented his vision of what European governments should be allowed to delete from the internet. He emphasized the need to regulate social media, introduce mandatory age and identity checks, and ensure that each user can only create one personalized account. Macron believes that algorithm transparency must meet government standards and that authorities must have the power to block platforms that ignore these requirements, according to Reclaim The Net.
Macron explained that freedom of speech on social media does not mean a lack of rules. He asked how can things prohibited in public spaces be allowed in the digital environment and be excused for the freedom of speech, and suggested that statements banned in newspapers, for example, should also be prohibited online. “How is it that the craziest and most harmful narratives can go unchecked in our digital space, while they will fall under the law if published in print?” he asked, demanding rules to govern freedom of speech.
According to Macron, it is insane to allow young people to use internet without government permission. That is why France is planning to block under-15s from social media. This requires users to verify their age online, which in turn requires identity checks.
Macron described unregulated free speech on the internet as a form of brainwashing. “Free speech would mean I will give the mind, the brain, and the heart of my teenagers to the algorithms of big guys,” he said. “I’m not totally sure I share their values, or Chinese algorithms, without any control. We are crazy.” He also described a system where each person has only one account on social media and added: “If this is an AI system, if this is a bot, or organized by a big organization, it should simply be forbidden.”
In his speech, the French president enthusiastically praised the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which gives EU authorities the right to require platforms to remove “false” content. He called for going even further: using the law to “excuse those who clearly decide not to respect our rules and regulations” and to “block all those who willfully interfere in our systems.” Macron also presented a list of categories he would like to restrict: “Racist statements, hate speech, anti-Semitic statements.”
In other words, Macron described a system where user identity is controlled and verified through a single account. In this setup, anonymity, pseudonymous comments, and even the ability to keep personal and professional lives separate would come to an end. Critics argue that a single, verified, and controlled identity system would give authorities another powerful tool to identify, monitor, and silence any user whose comments they do not like.
In summary, critics argue that those gathered in Munich talked about defending democracy while offering tools for identifying and punishing dissent. They invoked freedom of speech, while demanding the right to decide when and what words are free. The argument of protecting Europe was often accompanied by measures that take away Europeans’ ability to speak freely on the internet.
Bayer’s $7.25B Roundup Cancer Settlement
Bayer (formerly Monsanto, until 2018), the manufacturer of Roundup – the world’s best-selling weed killer – has faced thousands of U.S. lawsuits alleging that the main ingredient, glyphosate, is linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers. Recently, Bayer and lawyers representing cancer patients announced a proposed $7.25 billion (€6.1 billion) settlement. This nationwide agreement aims to resolve most of the approximately 65,000 pending lawsuits and cover future claims, according to Deutsche Welle.
Under the agreement, Bayer will pay a total of $7.25 billion (€6.1 billion) into a special fund over up to 21 years. Compensation for each individual will depend on factors such as how they used Roundup, their age at diagnosis, and the severity of their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
The agreement does not require Bayer to accept liability or admit guilt. It will take effect only if a minimum number of plaintiffs participate, and Bayer can withdraw if too many opt out. The proposal must next be approved by the St. Louis Circuit Court in Missouri, where Bayer filed it. Bayer CEO Bill Anderson stated, “Litigation uncertainty has plagued the company for years, and this settlement gives the company a road to closure.”
Shortly before the announcement, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in a case that could limit Bayer’s liability in Roundup lawsuits. While US federal law sets the national standard for pesticide approval, it does not override state claims. Thus, even though the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved glyphosate, individuals can still sue under state laws if they believe Bayer’s labelling is misleading. The federally approved Roundup label carries no cancer warning. Bayer plans to argue before the Supreme Court that federal law preempts additional state warnings. A favorable ruling could overturn several major appellate decisions and prevent future claims from those opting out of the settlement. However, the Supreme Court’s decision would not affect the current settlement proceedings.
The Roundup saga began in the mid-2010s, when studies and a report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen that could cause cancers like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with long-term use. This sparked a flood of lawsuits against Monsanto, with plaintiffs claiming their cancers resulted from years of using Roundup without adequate warnings. They cited Monsanto’s internal documents allegedly showing the company knew of glyphosate’s risks but downplayed them, breaching its duty to warn.
To date, courts have ruled on around 100,000 claims, forcing the company to pay roughly $11 billion (≈ €9.37 billion) in compensation. In most cases, judges/juries ruled in favour of plaintiffs, awarding substantial damages – for example, $2.25 billion (€1.92 billion, later reduced to $400 million – €341 million); $2.1 billion (€1.79 billion); $611 million (€521 million); and $332 million (€283 million). Bayer has secured only a few victories, such as in Illinois in 2025 and Philadelphia in 2024. About 65,000 cases remain pending, with more lawsuits still being filed.