Chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee and close ally of President Trump calls Lisa Nandy's media proposals a threat to free speech

Max Thompson, Campaigns Officer

16 July 2026

In yet another flare-up in the transatlantic free speech battle, a senior US Congressman has criticised the Government's proposal to prioritise the promotion of "trustworthy" public broadcasters like the BBC and subsequently demote others, branding it a threat to free speech.

Jim Jordan, the Republican chairman of the influential US House Judiciary Committee and a close ally of President Donald Trump, has penned a letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, warning that the proposals stemming from her department, DCMS, "would serve as a major threat" to online speech and "infringe on the rights of American companies."

Last month, Lisa Nandy came to the House of Commons to announce the publication of a government green paper, Watch This Space, which will force social media platforms to promote public broadcasters, such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. The stated intention of these proposals is apparently to ensure that the public have increased access to "trustworthy" and high-quality news.

But it would be foolish to take these proposals at face value. Shortly after the green paper was published, Lucy Powell, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and a close ally of our next Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, announced plans to impose stricter regulations on social media companies that will essentially silence and police open political debate during elections. This was all but confirmed when the Representation of the People Bill – the legislative vehicle that Powell has identified as most appropriate to enact her censorious plan – had its final stages in the House of Commons delayed until September to allow the new Burnham Government to rewrite aspects of it.

In his letter to Ms Nandy on Tuesday, Mr Jordan said:

Several of DCMS's (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) proposals would hurt the free, competitive marketplace of ideas, and instead prioritise state-sanctioned media outlets with the goal of influencing the scope and direction of public discourse.

Many of DCMS's proposed reforms would serve as a major threat to online speech and expression and infringe on the rights of American companies and their users. We write to express our serious concerns with these proposed reforms and to request a briefing on DCMS's ongoing consideration and prospective implementation of any such reforms.

Our American allies have also voiced concern that these proposals set out by the UK Government would unfairly target US businesses – primarily the major technology firms and social media platforms.

The Government appears to have grown fearful that public broadcasters and traditional news outlets are being undermined by the growth of algorithm-promoted content, predominantly on Elon Musk's X. Lisa Nandy – despite being the minister responsible for the media – dramatically flounced off X two weeks ago, citing the spread of misinformation and disinformation, as well as the increase in abuse on the platform. This is an abdication of her ministerial responsibility to engage in debate and counter the spread of actual misinformation.

Ofcom, the media regulator, has shown that three quarters of young people aged between sixteen and twenty-four predominantly consume news via social media. On top of that, more than half of all British adults list social media as one of their main news sources.

Isn't it concerning – or indeed ironic – that the Government has announced plans to roll out a social media ban for children under the age of sixteen while also wishing to enfranchise 1.7 million more people by giving sixteen-year-olds the vote through the Representation of the People Bill. As a result of this ban, a fifteen-year-old child will not be able to access content of both democratic and journalistic importance – as required under the Online Safety Act – dampening their ability to make a properly informed decision at the ballot box.

The Trump administration has not been shy in criticising the British Government for its record on freedom of speech since President Trump returned to the White House in January 2025. The administration has criticised the Starmer Government's decision to introduce an Australian-style social media ban for under-sixteens, arguing that it risks harming freedom of speech, and that it should ultimately be the responsibility of parents to regulate their children's social media use. It is also expected that President Trump's own social media platform, Truth Social, will be included in the list of platforms banned.

This is also not the first time Mr Jordan or the Trump administration has raised concerns about the state of free speech in the UK, particularly online. Last year, Mr Jordan led a House Judiciary Committee delegation to the UK and Europe to examine the UK's Online Safety Act and the EU's Digital Services Act. The Free Speech Union had the opportunity to brief the delegation at a roundtable in Parliament.

On last week's episode of the FSU Podcast, the General Secretary and founder of the Free Speech Union answered questions sent in by FSU members relating to the social media ban. You can watch the episode on the FSU YouTube channel here.

Read more in The Telegraph.