Senator Questions Whether eSafety Crackdown Could Strain US-Australia Ties

One Nation Senator Tyron Whitten posed the questions during the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee hearing.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant addresses the National Press Club in Canberra, Australia, on June 24, 2025. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

A One Nation senator has asked Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant on whether her actions could harm U.S.-Australia ties.

Western Australian Senator Tyron Whitten put the question to Inman-Grant during a Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee hearing, which comes as U.S. Congresspersons raised concerns about the eSafety Commissioners actions in monitoring Big Tech firms.

In late December, U.S. lawmakers described her efforts to enforce Australia’s Online Safety Act as a “extraterritorial” and requested Inman-Grant, a dual U.S.-Australian citizen, voluntarily testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

The eSafety Commissioner implements several measures aimed at curbing online harms to young Australians.

They include the world-first comprehensive under-16 social media ban, which came into effect on Dec. 10, 2025, and includes U.S. giants like Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and X.

Other measures include several online safety codes where Big Tech firms will voluntarily limit access to content that features pornography, violence, suicide, self-harm, and eating disorders.

‘Are you Concerned About Harming Australian-US Relations?’

On Feb. 11, Senator Whitten posed the question, “Are you concerned about harming Australian-U.S. relations?” to Grant.

“Five emails in correspondence produced to the committee show even before the law’s effective date, eSafety directed American platforms to release public-facing compliance commitments based on eSafety’s template six and demanded meetings with platforms that did not immediately comply,” Whitten said during the hearing.

“Documents show that eSafety asked American companies how they planned to mitigate potential circumvention of the (under-16s ban) via VPNs.

“In 2024, you used concerns about VPNs which may conceal a user’s country of origin as a pretext to demand global takedowns of social media content.

“The documents obtained by the committee suggest that you may be using this playbook again.”

In 2024, Inman-Grant sought to enforce parts of Australia’s Online Safety Act by requiring platforms like X to hide certain violent material globally, arguing that geo-blocking Australian audiences wasn’t enough due to the VPN workaround.

U.S. lawmakers argued that Australia’s request was overreach, while tech giants like X argued geo-blocking within Australia was enough.

Whitten said Inman-Grant’s actions had “clearly alarmed and upset Congress.”

“Are you concerned about harming Australian-U.S. relations?” he asked.

Inman-Grant Says eSafety Enforcing Australian Domestic Law

Inman-Grant told Whitten, Australia wasn’t the only nation to have been accused of overreach by U.S. tech firms, pointing to European and Irish regulators.

As for claims of harassment, Inman-Grant said “there isn’t anything to substantiate that claim.”

“I guess what I would say is my job—I was appointed by the minister of communications—is to implement the provisions of the Online Safety Act,” she told the hearing.

“That means you have to regulate the companies that are in scope, some of whom are domiciled in the United States, some of whom are not.”

Inman-Grant said her office also treated relationships cordially, noting their relationship with firms like Kik in Australia, China’s Laminate and TikTok, and France’s Yubo.

On the subject of VPNs, which can allow users to hide their IPs and pose as a user from another country, Inman-Grant said she believed there was confusion around the government’s intentions.

Inman-Grant said geo-blocking wasn’t an effective tool for managing a social media ban because around 20 percent of Australians use VPNs.

“All we were saying was the companies themselves ... they’re responsible for circumvention,” she said.

“It’s really about preventing the spoofing and the weaponisation of their age assurance systems.”

Asked whether she was concerned that being a dual Australian-U.S. citizen could lead to her being forced back to address the U.S. Congress, Inman-Grant said she would be seeking out her own legal advice.

“I think they’re more focused on illegal immigrants at the moment right now, but sure that would be cause for concern,” she said.

“I think it would be highly unusual for me executing my job ... the will and the laws of Australia ... as passed by the parliament.”

In a general statement during the hearing, Inman-Grant said a report released last month showed eight of the world’s tech giants continually failed to prevent their platforms being “weaponised by predators” when it came to online child exploitation and extortion.