Trump Media and Rumble Declare Victory After Judge Rejects Brazilian Censorship Attempt
Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), the parent company of Truth Social, and Rumble, a video-sharing platform popular for its free speech stance, are celebrating a significant legal victory. A Florida judge has ruled that they are not obligated to comply with directives from a Brazilian Supreme Court justice attempting to censor political speech, marking what the companies are calling a win for free speech principles and digital sovereignty.
The legal battle arose after Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court allegedly issued orders aimed at suppressing political discourse on the platforms. TMTG and Rumble argued that these orders were a blatant overreach, attempting to exert authority over American companies operating primarily within the United States. They contended that Justice Moraes was attempting to impose a gag order that was outside the bounds of Brazilian law and violated the rights of American businesses.
To counter these alleged censorship efforts, TMTG and Rumble sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a U.S. court. They argued that Justice Moraes’s actions posed a direct threat to their ability to operate freely and uphold their commitment to free speech. The lawsuit specifically accused Justice Moraes of attempting to illegally censor American companies operating on American soil.
U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven delivered a decisive ruling, stating that TMTG and Rumble did not need to pursue a temporary restraining order because they were not legally required to comply with Justice Moraes’s directives in the first place. Judge Scriven’s decision rested on the fact that the Brazilian justice’s pronouncements and directives had not been properly served on the plaintiffs in accordance with international law.
Specifically, Judge Scriven noted that the directives were not served in compliance with the Hague Convention, to which both the United States and Brazil are signatories. The Hague Convention outlines the proper procedures for serving legal documents across international borders. Similarly, the judge found that the directives were not served pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the United States and Brazil, which governs cooperation in legal matters between the two countries.
Furthermore, Judge Scriven emphasized that there was no evidence that the Brazilian government or Justice Moraes had taken any steps to domesticate the orders or pronouncements in accordance with established legal protocols. Domesticating a foreign court order typically involves seeking recognition and enforcement of the order within the jurisdiction where it is to be applied.
Based on these legal deficiencies, Judge Scriven concluded that TMTG and Rumble were under no obligation to comply with the directives issued by Justice Moraes. She further declared that no individual or entity was authorized or obligated to assist in the enforcement of these directives against the plaintiffs or their interests within the United States.
In addition to the procedural shortcomings, Judge Scriven observed that there had been no known efforts by the Brazilian government, the U.S. government, or any other relevant actor to enforce Justice Moraes’s orders. This lack of enforcement action further underscored the lack of legal basis for compelling TMTG and Rumble to comply with the directives.
Rumble, in a statement released following the ruling, hailed Judge Scriven’s decision as a complete victory for free speech, digital sovereignty, and the right of American companies to operate without undue foreign judicial interference. The company asserted that the ruling confirmed its long-standing argument that Justice Moraes’s censorship orders have no legal force within the United States.
A Rumble spokesperson, Tim Murtaugh, emphasized the significance of the court’s explicit ruling that Justice Moraes’s directives were never properly served under U.S. or international law. This determination, according to Rumble, means that the company and Trump Media are not legally bound to comply with the censorship demands, and no U.S. entity is required to enforce them.
The initial lawsuit filed by TMTG and Rumble detailed the specific actions taken by Justice Moraes that triggered the legal challenge. According to the lawsuit, Justice Moraes ordered Rumble to block the account of a user identified as "Political Dissident A" or face the potential shutdown of Rumble’s operations in Brazil. TMTG and Rumble argued that the content posted by the user, which allegedly included spreading misinformation and criticizing the Brazilian Supreme Court, was perfectly legal under U.S. law, where Rumble operates.
Truth Social also asserted that it would be impacted by the enforcement of Justice Moraes’s directives because it relies, in part, on Rumble technology. This connection highlighted the potential ripple effects of the censorship efforts and the broader implications for the platforms’ ability to operate freely.
While Judge Scriven ruled in favor of TMTG and Rumble, she also noted that the matter was not yet ripe for judicial review. She clarified that the court stood ready to exercise its jurisdiction should any entity or individual attempt to enforce the directives within the United States without complying with applicable laws or treaties.
Rumble interpreted Judge Scriven’s statement as a clear indication that the court would intervene to protect American companies and free speech if anyone attempted to enforce the Brazilian orders on U.S. soil. The company viewed the ruling as a strong message to foreign governments that they cannot circumvent U.S. law to impose censorship on American platforms.
Rumble emphasized that the case was not solely about the interests of Rumble or Trump Media but rather about preventing foreign judges from silencing speech within the United States. The company pledged to continue its fight for free speech, characterizing Judge Scriven’s ruling as a major victory in that ongoing battle.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, Rumble’s U.S. counsel, Martin De Luca and Matthew Schwartz, reiterated that the court’s decision effectively denied the temporary restraining order because it deemed Justice Moraes’s orders invalid and unenforceable in the United States. They added that they could return to the court to seek a TRO if Justice Moraes takes any steps to enforce his orders on U.S. soil.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes declined a request for comment on the ruling.
The outcome of this legal battle is likely to have far-reaching implications for the ongoing debate over free speech, digital sovereignty, and the role of international law in regulating online platforms. The case raises important questions about the extent to which foreign courts can exert authority over American companies operating within the United States and the balance between protecting free speech and addressing concerns about misinformation and harmful content. The decision has been celebrated by many as a victory for free speech and a reaffirmation of the principle that American companies should not be subject to censorship by foreign governments.
