US States Want To Ban VPNs, But Citizens Are Already Fighting Back

Republican lawmakers in Michigan have proposed a pervasive internet content ban while disallowing popular tools to access it. Dubbed the Anticorruption of Public Morals Act (link downloads a PDF to your device), the bill lumps depictions of transgender individuals, pornography, ASMR, and various forms of graphic imagery as "corrupting" public morals, proposing major fines and jail time for posters and platforms hosting said content. Beyond its dehumanizing categorization of transgender people, the bill outlaws "circumvention tools" like virtual private networks, proxy servers, and encrypted tunneling. Virtual private networks (VPN) disguise a user's IP address through an encrypted tunnel to a remote server, making it appear as if the user is connecting through a different network.

The ban is part of a larger censorship movement in America and abroad. Legislators have introduced nationwide obscenity bans, while half of the U.S. has passed age-verification requirements. For activists, the Michigan ban is about more than moderating content. Globally, VPNs play an essential role in protecting citizens' right to access and share information, particularly in authoritarian countries with major content bans and firewalls. Nepalese activists used the technology to circumvent social media bans and organize a revolution in September 2025. Historically, authoritarian regimes like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China have restricted VPNs to enforce stringent censorship laws, though the success of such efforts is widely mixed.

Activists have responded with a global campaign to stop the legislation. Led by the organization Fight for the Future, the VPN Day of Action saw thousands of users sign an open letter demanding lawmakers defend access to VPNs. While it's unlikely that the Michigan law will go into effect, observers stress it as a major milestone in a nationwide struggle over informational freedoms.

Michigan House Bill 4938 could spark a paradigm shift in U.S. censorship laws, as it seeks not to only restrict content but also disrupt access to privacy tools like VPNs. The first of its kind in the U.S., the ban would put Michigan alongside authoritarian regimes like Iran, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Russia, and China in its restriction of VPN access.  Such laws might become increasingly popular in Western countries, however, as lawmakers in the United Kingdom have discussed limiting access to the technology after age-verification bans caused VPN downloads to spike in 2025. In fact, a 2023 study by VPN provider Surfshark found that roughly half of global internet users are subject to VPN restrictions.

If passed, the law would be one of the most important technology bans in U.S. history, carrying major political, privacy, and security consequences. Despite not making users totally anonymous, VPNs are a critical piece of the privacy puzzle. Recent history is replete with evidence of VPNs helping preserve such critical freedoms, from spurring revolutions in Nepal to enabling Chinese teenagers to play video games.

However, VPNs are more than a workaround for state censorship and serve as an important privacy tool. In a cybersecurity world in which private citizens, businesses, and public infrastructure are increasingly the targets of hacking groups, cybercriminals, and nation-states, the ban could jeopardize the online security of constituents.  Some observers believe banning VPNs fundamentally misunderstands the technology, ignoring its various uses while dismantling citizens' toolbox for protecting themselves and their information from both government overreach and cybercriminals.

Following the ban's introduction on September 11, 2025, the NGO Fight for the Future launched a petition calling for global lawmakers to protect users' access to VPNs. Orchestrated in conjunction with several VPN lobby groups, the campaign has garnered north of 15 thousand signees. While Michigan's VPN ban is unlikely to become law, observers caution that its impact may vastly outweigh its immediate legislative lifespan.

According to Fight for the Future's campaign and communications director Lia Holland, the danger of such a proposal isn't just whether it goes into effect, but how it changes the discussion on censorship more broadly. Holland notes in an interview with the Detroit Free Press that the introduction of a VPN ban could move the spectrum of policies discussed in popular politics, opening the door for more restrictive bans by bringing radical ideas into mainstream discussion. Advocates note that the ban exists within a broader trend of media, internet, and academic censorship. Since 2023, 25 states have passed age verification laws, a policy touted as protecting underage users but one that critics say endangers user privacy while introducing legislative gateways to more stringent censorship. 

Some websites, like Bluesky, have been forced to block users in several states to avoid liability under these restrictions. The Take it Down Act, which was signed into effect in May 2025 to prevent non-consensual pornography, is another recent example of legislation that organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation warn creates the legal framework for broad censorship. Within the context of the Trump administration's various censorship efforts, advocates have begun to rally against the dangerous precedents these policies create, hoping to preserve the internet as a free and open public resource.