A second legislative proposal has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives aimed at preventing American courts from enforcing foreign laws that restrict speech protected by the First Amendment, including potential foreign age verification mandates. This new bill follows a similar measure introduced last month, both originating from Republican representatives in Ohio.

New Legislation Targets Foreign Censorship

On September 10, 2026, Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio introduced the Halting Overseas Mandates from Extraterritorially Reaching Onto National Territory (HOMEFRONT) Act of 2026. This bill is designed to prohibit U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign judgments, fines, orders, or demands issued by a foreign court or state that enforce a "foreign censorship law."

The HOMEFRONT Act follows the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion (GRANITE) Act, introduced last month by fellow Ohio Representative Michael Rulli. Both bills share the intent of shielding U.S. entities from foreign speech restrictions that would be protected under the First Amendment domestically.

The GRANITE Act defines "foreign censorship law" as any foreign state law that primarily restricts or penalizes expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association; targets such activities based on content, viewpoint, or speaker identity; and would conflict with First Amendment protections if recognized in the United States. The HOMEFRONT Act offers a similar definition, describing "foreign censorship law" as "a law of a foreign country that imposes liability for conduct that would be protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States if the conduct occurred in the United States." It further specifies that this includes laws imposing restrictions related to online safety and harmful content.

Davidson's office issued a press release specifically mentioning the U.K.'s Online Safety Act (OSA) and the U.K. media regulator Ofcom. The release stated that the OSA, which entered into force last year, purports to give Ofcom jurisdiction over online services globally, regardless of their U.K. base. The release cited Ofcom's issuance of 197 information requests to businesses with U.S. addresses as evidence of overbroad immunity granted to foreign governments by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Davidson was quoted as saying, "Foreign governments have no business policing the speech of American citizens. Foreign regulators are using fines and legal threats to pressure American companies into censoring speech protected by the First Amendment."

Ofcom recently imposed a fine of 700,000 pounds (approximately $986,000) against adult website XGroovy on September 4, 2026, for non-compliance with the Online Safety Act's provisions.

Implications for Age Verification Laws

Both the GRANITE Act and the HOMEFRONT Act raise questions about whether foreign age verification (AV) laws, such as those in the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the U.K.’s Online Safety Act (OSA), would be classified as foreign censorship laws. If so, these bills could potentially protect U.S.-based adult sites from domestic enforcement of such laws, including fines. However, foreign governments and agencies could still implement domestic measures like blocking U.S. sites within their own territories.

Neither bill explicitly includes or excludes age verification laws in their definitions of "foreign censorship." Queries to Rulli’s and Davidson’s offices regarding the bills' intent concerning AV laws have not received responses. Consequently, U.S. companies might argue that AV laws like the OSA and DSA fall under the definition of foreign censorship. Any such determination would likely involve a domestic court applying the standard established in the case of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that "the First Amendment leaves undisturbed States’ traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective. That power includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech." The court upheld the constitutionality of state AV laws provided they only "incidentally" burden the protected speech of adults. Foreign laws meeting this requirement could be exempted from classification as censorship under the proposed bills, a determination that would be made by reviewing courts on a case-by-case basis.

Industry attorney Corey Silverstein indicated that the argument for HOMEFRONT protection strengthens when a foreign law covers broader categories of lawful expression, uses an expansive definition of "harmful content," imposes burdensome or privacy-invasive verification requirements, or restricts adult access more substantially than the Texas law upheld in Paxton. Silverstein noted that the analysis would remain law-specific and fact-specific.

Attorney Lawrence Walters observed that most foreign regulatory frameworks affecting U.S. adult sites, such as the OSA and DSA, are not narrowly written enough to ensure they only incidentally burden protected speech. Walters stated that these frameworks "often rest on broader categories such as ‘harmful content,’ pornography definitions that reach constitutionally protected adult speech, extraterritorial information demands and compelled identity collection." He added that HOMEFRONT’s specific inclusion of "online safety," "harmful content," and "compelled disclosure of user information" makes it easier to argue that these regimes are precisely what the bill aims to cover.

Key Differences and Broader Context

Walters described the GRANITE Act and the HOMEFRONT Act as "close cousins, not twins," due to their differing language despite similar intent. He characterized HOMEFRONT as "the more aggressive and more explicit of the two on ‘online safety’-style regulation, including the kinds of extraterritorial AV and data-demand orders U.S. adult platforms have already received from foreign regulators." HOMEFRONT also extends further operationally, including provisions to bar U.S. government cooperation and extradition in covered cases.

Silverstein also noted that the HOMEFRONT Act goes further than GRANITE in several aspects. It places the burden on the party seeking enforcement, establishes separate due-process and Section 230 defenses, and authorizes injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and $25,000 in statutory damages. The HOMEFRONT Act would require a domestic court to affirm that a foreign court’s exercise of jurisdiction aligns with U.S. Constitution due-process requirements and would reaffirm Section 230 protections for interactive computer services in cases involving foreign jurisdiction.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects interactive computer services, including adult platforms, from liability for user-uploaded content, unless a site unlawfully promotes and facilitates prostitution or sex trafficking. Silverstein explained that even if a foreign judgment survives HOMEFRONT’s First Amendment analysis, a domestic court could not enforce it against an interactive computer service unless the party seeking enforcement proves the judgment is consistent with Section 230.

An exemption for interactive computer services complicated the enforcement of an Ohio age verification law last year when Pornhub asserted the law did not apply to it as an interactive computer service. The Ohio legislature is currently considering a bill to exclude adult content providers from that exemption.

For sites hosting user-generated adult content, Walters observed that the HOMEFRONT Act provides "significantly clearer protection" than GRANITE’s First Amendment definition alone. He clarified that it would not cover material created by the platform itself, nor would it automatically invalidate every foreign age verification law after Paxton. However, it would make it more difficult to use American courts to enforce extraterritorial publisher liability already forbidden by Section 230.

Other elected officials have also advocated for federal laws protecting U.S. companies from "foreign censorship." Republican Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri stated last year his intention to introduce similar legislation. At the state level, Wyoming considered its own version of the GRANITE Act earlier this year, which passed the state House but did not advance in the state Senate.

Trump administration officials have previously characterized European content laws as attacks on free speech. In February 2025, Vice President JD Vance stated at the Munich Security Conference that Europe's leaders were a threat to their continent for turning their backs on values like freedom of speech. The administration has also imposed visa restrictions on EU figures perceived as leading "efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose." This suggests potential administration support for either the GRANITE Act or the HOMEFRONT Act as they progress through the legislative process.

Both bills have been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Key Facts

  • Representative Warren Davidson introduced the HOMEFRONT Act of 2026 on September 10, 2026.
  • The HOMEFRONT Act aims to prevent U.S. courts from enforcing foreign censorship laws.
  • It is similar in intent to the GRANITE Act, introduced last month by Representative Michael Rulli.
  • Both bills define "foreign censorship law" to include restrictions on speech that would be First Amendment-protected in the U.S.
  • The HOMEFRONT Act specifically mentions "online safety" and "harmful content" in its definition of foreign censorship law.
  • Ofcom recently fined XGroovy $986,000 for non-compliance with the U.K.'s Online Safety Act.
  • The HOMEFRONT Act includes provisions for Section 230 defenses and statutory damages, going further than the GRANITE Act.