A British anti-disinformation campaigner facing a U.S. visa ban imposed by the Trump administration has launched a legal challenge and accused major technology companies of “sociopathic greed” for resisting accountability measures.

Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, said he believes he has been singled out for his work pushing for greater transparency and responsibility from social media and artificial intelligence platforms.

The U.S. State Department announced that Ahmed and four other European figures would be denied entry to the United States, asserting that they sought to “coerce” American technology platforms into censoring or suppressing viewpoints, a claim Ahmed disputes.

Ahmed, who lives lawfully in Washington, D.C. with his American wife and daughter, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against senior U.S. officials, including the secretary of state and the attorney general, arguing that the actions violate his constitutional rights and are an unlawful attempt to remove him from his home.

A judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing authorities from detaining or deporting Ahmed ahead of a forthcoming hearing, granting him temporary reprieve while the case proceeds.

In public remarks, Ahmed framed his advocacy as a defence against the “arrogance, indifference, and lack of humility” he attributes to powerful tech companies, saying they resist scrutiny and wield “big money” influence in Washington to protect their interests.

He noted that his organisation has collaborated on issues with policymakers across administrations and dismissed government claims that his efforts are aimed at censoring American speech.

The dispute has drawn attention on both sides of the Atlantic, prompting concerns among campaigners about potential impacts on efforts to regulate online hate speech, misinformation and harmful content.

British and European supporters of tech regulation have criticised the U.S. actions as an overreach that could impede democratic oversight of global platforms, while U.S. officials maintain they are defending free speech.

The case continues to evolve as advocates and legal experts weigh the broader implications for digital policy and the balance between regulation and free expression in an era of powerful technology firms.