Image Credit: Christopher Furlong / Staff / Getty 
Tensions between the United States and the UK are intensifying over Britain’s new internet speech law, with the Trump administration warning Prime Minister Keir Starmer against punishing American tech firms through foreign censorship disguised as regulation.
The Online Safety Act, now in force, gives the British government wide-reaching authority to fine social media companies for so-called “harmful” content, even when that content is legal speech, particularly when that speech is by American users on American platforms. Fines can run as high as $24 million or 10% of a company’s global revenue.
Officials close to President Donald Trump have made it clear that they see the British law as a direct interference with American constitutional rights. A senior figure in the US State Department told The Telegraph, “President Trump has made it clear that free speech is one of our most cherished freedoms as Americans…We will continue to monitor developments in the UK with great interest and concern.”
Since enforcement began, the UK’s media regulator Ofcom has reportedly sent formal notices to several US tech companies, instructing them to comply or face penalties. These letters have ignited backlash among American lawmakers, many of whom argue that Britain has crossed a line by trying to dictate speech rules to American businesses and citizens.
House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan accused the UK government of threatening core freedoms. “Ask Apple and they would view it as a $500 million attack,” he said. “As long as foreign legislators, judges, and regulators continue their attempts to silence US citizens, we will not stop fighting back.”
Jordan, along with other members of Congress, has taken his concerns directly to British ministers, raising objections with Science Secretary Peter Kyle. He also criticized efforts by Labour to associate political opponents of the bill, like Nigel Farage, with criminality, calling such tactics outrageous and dangerous.
The legislation claims to focus on shielding children from harmful content online. But opponents see that the real effect is forcing platforms to censor content that hasn’t broken any laws.
Platforms like Reddit, X, and more have already introduced new age verification systems to comply, with some describing the move as coerced digital surveillance.
During a recent visit to the UK, Trump warned Starmerpersonally not to touch his platform, Truth Social. “Well, I don’t think he’s going to censor my site, because I say only good things,” he quipped.
The US government has already been engaging British officials behind the scenes. Earlier this year, diplomats from the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour met UK civil servants in London to push back against what they saw as threats to open expression. Samuel Samson, a senior adviser, led the visit.
The administration’s concern has also been fueled by specific criminal cases involving speech. Lucy Connolly, a former childcarer, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for a post on social media after the killing of three girls in Southport.
Three Republican lawmakers recently traveled to Britain for a summit organized by Nigel Farage. Speaking to GB News, Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan said, “We’re concerned about free expression in the United Kingdom. We’re primarily concerned about the impacts your laws could have on American citizens.”
He argued that the right to speak is the bedrock upon which all other freedoms rest, and warned that foreign censorship efforts, such as the UK’s law and the EU’s Digital Services Act, risk damaging that foundation.
“We had a witness last year in Congress, a journalist from Canada who made a great statement. She said, ‘free expression is the hallmark of Western civilization…The alternative to that is frightening.’”
Scott Fitzgerald, a Republican from Wisconsin, said US companies are already facing significant legal battles over the implications of these foreign censorship laws. “You will see a continued fight step by step to make sure this doesn’t creep into America,” he said.
Jordan was especially scathing in his criticism of how governments handle speech-related issues. “You look at recent history, and it seems to me the biggest purveyor for misinformation is the government,” he said. “We don’t want harmful material getting to kids, but there’s a big difference between that and speech criticising the government, for goodness’ sake.”
The Labour government maintains that the Online Safety Act is a necessary safeguard for young internet users. But across the Atlantic, and increasingly at home, it is increasingly viewed as an authoritarian overstep and a threat to the very freedoms that are supposed to underpin democratic societies.
Driverless Cars For A Humanless World
