(UPDATE, 20 NOVEMBER 2025 – This blog post has been converted into an actual bill and been filed for numbering in the State of Wyoming. New Hampshire to follow soon.)
(UPDATE, 4 DECEMBER 2025 – The United States Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Sarah Rogers, has told GB News that UK censorship of Americans has crossed a “red line” and that a version of the GRANITE Act, presumably derived from the Wyoming bill, is on the verge of introduction in the U.S. House of Representatives. I can also personally confirm a derivative of the Wyoming GRANITE Act continues to move forward in New Hampshire and filing is expected in weeks.)
(UPDATE, 11 DECEMBER 2025 – I explain in this post that I think a federal GRANITE is likely to deter European and other foreign aggression against American citizens, as well as how the 4chan litigation was partially designed to illustrate the structural problems with sovereign immunity in American law that need to be fixed if Americans are going to have any credible ability to fight back against foreign censors, that only Congress can fix. New Hampshire has gone dormant.)
(UPDATE, 15 JANUARY 2026 – the bill is in final form and on the verge of introduction. We are going to do our best to get it enacted by the end of Q1.)
(UPDATE, 27 JANUARY 2026 – I call on Congress to enact a federal shield statute in this op-ed in the US edition of the Spectator.)
(UPDATE, 28 JANUARY 2026 – U.S. State Department officials confirm that a federal shield statute like GRANITE will be introduced in the U.S. House and Senate “shortly.”)
(UPDATE, 30 JANUARY 2026 – the Wyoming GRANITE Act has been formally introduced, 104 days after the concept first appeared on this blog. The GRANITE Act is the first foreign censorship shield law introduced in American history.)
(UPDATE, 5 FEBRUARY 2026 – House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Congressman Jim Jordan, has confirmed to journalist Mike Shellenberger that Congress is considering backing up the Wyoming GRANITE Act with federal action.)
(UPDATE, 5 FEBURARY 2026 – The New Hampshire GRANITE Act team has reassembled and is going to try to get a New Hampshire-adapted copy of the Wyoming bill introduced in the 2026 session by way of an amendment. The Wyoming and New Hampshire teams, which are essentially working as one unit for drafting purposes, now regard this as a race to enactment.)
(UPDATE, 10 FEBRUARY 2026 – The Wyoming GRANITE Act sailed through an introductory vote this morning, with the Wyoming House of Representatives voting 57-5 in favor of advancing the bill to the Judiciary Committee. Rep. Singh’s objective is to have the bill passed this session, on or before March 1st.)
(UPDATE, 13 FEBRUARY 2026 – The West Virginia GRANITE Act has been introduced in the West Virginia Senate.)
(UPDATE, 18 FEBRUARY 2026 – The Wyoming GRANITE Act has passed out of the Wyoming House Judiciary Committee, 6-2-1, and is headed to the House floor for debate, amendments, and a vote.)
(UPDATE, 20 FEBRUARY 2026 – the Wyoming GRANITE Act is through first reading in the House (passed 30-17) and the second reading (passed by unanimous consent). Third reading + roll call vote next week.)
(UPDATE, 23 FEBRUARY 2026 – The Wyoming GRANITE Act has passed in the Wyoming House of Representatives, 46-12.)
(UPDATE, 2 MARCH 2026 – The Wyoming GRANITE Act has passed out of the Wyoming Senate Appropriations Committee, 4-1, and is headed to the floor.)
(UPDATE, 3 MARCH 2026 – We ran out of time and Wyoming GRANITE did not make it over the line, together with eleven other bills passed by the House, the short Wyoming budget session. The topic will be considered by the Blockchain Committee as an interim topic over the course of this year and we will have another tilt at it in 2027 after socializing the bill more widely with the legislature. The fight now moves to New Hampshire and to Congress.)
—
Please find below the draft text of the GRANITE Act, a bill I have offered to New Hampshire legislators for consideration for enactment in that state. It could serve as a template for a U.S. fightback against global censorship, if adapted for federal use.
It doesn’t really require a ton of explanation.
The gist is simple: the only real defense a foreign censor has from injunctive relief in a U.S. court, as we saw with Ofcom’s recent fine letter to 4chan and the strategy employed by Trump Media and Technology Group’s attorneys in their case against Alexandre de Moraes in the Middle District of Florida, is sovereign immunity.
Foreign countries can bully the shit out of American citizens and companies because they know that U.S. law potentially protects them from consequences for doing so.
We should take that immunity away from them. Such a move would have teeth because these foreign countries’ economies would break down if they didn’t have access to the U.S. banking system. The UK, for example, has £47 billion custodied in North American banks in order to support its currency.
The GRANITE Act makes foreign censorship inbound to the U.S. a very simple cost/benefit exercise for these countries: you can try to censor an American citizen or corporation, but if you do, they can sue you, and you, Mr. Foreign Censor, are not judgment proof because your country needs access to the U.S. financial system to survive.
This also means that trial lawyers will be responsible for protecting Americans’ rights rather than the State Department/the Executive Branch. This will mean that instead of having to deal with nuisance demands from foreign bureaucrats, President Trump can move on to other, more important matters he has proven so very adept at, like bringing the peoples and nations of the world together in peace and harmony, and blame Congress and aggressive American trial lawyers if any foreigner complains about American rules.
I add: the statutory damages are set at a minimum of $10 million because the UK is threatening Americans with fines of $25 million or 10% of global turnover, whichever is greater. That is the scale of the abuse that American citizens currently have to tolerate from these foreign countries.
I have a feeling, if we create consequences for foreign censorship, inbound foreign censorship will stop.
So, I ask Congress: adapt this for federal use. Enact it. If you do this, you will end the foreign censorship problem in a day.
Model Bill – the GRANITE Act
Section 1. Short Title
This Act may be cited as the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion Act (the “GRANITE Act” or the “Act”).
Section 2. Legislative Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to safeguard the constitutional rights of New Hampshire residents against the extraterritorial application of foreign Internet censorship laws that would restrict speech or compel disclosure of information in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire.
Section 3. Jurisdiction and Venue
- The courts of this state shall have subject-matter jurisdiction over any action brought by a resident or domiciliary of New Hampshire, a New Hampshire corporation, or a person within the State of New Hampshire alleging that a foreign government, or any officer, employee, or instrumentality thereof, has:
- (a) issued or attempted to enforce any law, judgment, subpoena, or order purporting to regulate speech or conduct protected by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, in each case occurring wholly within the United States; or
- (b) sought to compel a New Hampshire resident or entity to comply with such foreign law, judgment, subpoena, or order purporting to regulate speech or conduct protected by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire.
- Personal jurisdiction shall be deemed established whenever the foreign actor directs or transmits any demand, notice, threat, or other communication into the state or to a resident of this state, whether by electronic means or otherwise.
Section 4. Cause of Action and Remedies
- Any resident or domiciliary of New Hampshire who has been, or any person who is physically present in New Hampshire at the time they were, or any New Hampshire corporation who has been victimized by, conduct described in Section 3 may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against any person or entity responsible for that conduct or any foreign state authorizing that conduct. Such persons or entities responsible for the conduct described in Section 3 shall be jointly and severally liable for that conduct.
- Upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the foreign government or its instrumentality acted to chill, restrict, or penalize constitutionally protected expression or association, or otherwise infringe on any right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, the plaintiff shall be entitled to:
- (a) the greater of:
- Treble actual damages; or
- statutory damages of not less than $10,000,000 (ten million U.S. dollars) or the equivalent dollar amount of the threatened fine on the date on which the fine was threatened, whichever is greater;
- (a) the greater of:
(b) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and
(c) Injunctive and declaratory relief as necessary to prevent further violations of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Section 5. Waiver of Sovereign Immunity
- A foreign state, foreign agency, or foreign instrumentality, or any person employed by such foreign state, foreign agency, or foreign instrumentality, that engages in conduct described in Section 3 shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.
- The doctrine of sovereign immunity shall be deemed waived for any act undertaken to enforce or threaten enforcement of a foreign law that is contrary to the public policy or constitutional guarantees of the United States or the State of New Hampshire.
Section 6. Non-Recognition of Foreign Judgments
No court of this state shall recognize, enforce, or give any effect to a foreign judgment, order, or administrative action that infringes rights protected by the United States or New Hampshire Constitutions.
Section 7. Construction
This Act shall be liberally construed to provide maximum protection for New Hampshire residents against the extraterritorial enforcement of foreign censorship laws. Nothing in this Act shall limit any other cause of action or remedy available under federal or state law.
