Labour is willing to renegotiate elements of its flagship Online Safety Act, raising the prospect that its social media censorship laws could be softened to address US free speech concerns and help secure a trade deal with Donald Trump’s administration.
Granting sweeping new powers to Ofcom to regulate online content, the Act has long been criticised for its broad scope, particularly its measures targeting so-called “harmful” but legal speech. It allows for huge financial penalties against tech companies that fail to remove content deemed harmful, even if it is not unlawful – in direct contrast to the US approach, where speech protections are far stronger.
Critics, including the Free Speech Union (FSU) – here and here – have long argued that these provisions will pressure social media companies to adopt an ‘if in doubt, cut it out’ approach, pre-emptively removing or suppressing lawful content to avoid substantial financial penalties. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has also warned that the Act could create a “blueprint for repression”, encouraging platforms to err on the side of censorship rather than risk enforcement action. With Ofcom soon to gain new oversight powers, there is growing concern that lawful but controversial content – particularly political speech, satire, and journalism that challenges prevailing orthodoxy – could be algorithmically shadow-banned, de-prioritised, or removed entirely.
In contrast, American free speech laws, which are rooted in the First Amendment, broadly protect expression from government interference, even when content is offensive, controversial, or politically charged. Unlike in the UK, where legal but “harmful” speech can now be regulated, US courts have repeatedly ruled that the state cannot compel private companies to act as speech police (e.g., Missouri v Biden, NetChoice, LLC v Paxton, NRA v Vullo).
This fundamental divide explains why US officials and tech executives see Britain’s Online Safety Act as a major departure from long-standing free speech norms. According to sources close to the Trump administration, the Act is viewed in Washington as “Orwellian” and could become a key sticking point in UK-US trade talks. “To many people currently in power, they feel the United Kingdom has become a dystopian, Orwellian place where people have to keep silent about things that aren’t fashionable,” one senior figure said.
Elon Musk, one of President Trump’s closest advisers and an outspoken critic of the Act, is understood to be pressuring the administration to demand changes. He has repeatedly used his platform X to warn of rising censorship in the UK, describing Ofcom’s new regulatory role as a direct threat to free expression. Musk has also clashed with UK courts and Parliament over restrictions on speech, most recently calling for the release of Tommy Robinson, the far-Right activist jailed for contempt of court.
With British free speech laws already far stricter than America’s, sources suggest the Online Safety Act is now viewed by US officials as a “roadblock” to a UK trade deal. Andrew Hale, a trade policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said: “Every meeting I have to discuss trade policy with people either in the administration or Congress, they always raise that. They say, ‘This is a huge roadblock’.”
The legislation, introduced by the previous Conservative government, allows social media giants to be fined up to £18 million or 10 per cent of their global revenue if they fail to comply with content moderation rules set by Ofcom. Critics have long argued that this will incentivise platforms to remove lawful speech for fear of regulatory retaliation, chilling political debate online.
Lord Young of Acton, founder of the FSU, warned that Britain is heading for a major confrontation with US tech leaders if it tries to enforce these rules against Musk and Zuckerberg.
“If Ofcom tries to fine X or Facebook 10 per cent of their global turnover for not removing content that isn’t unlawful, I predict a showdown between Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and the UK Government,” he said.
“If that happens, Trump will side with his tech bros and tell Sir Keir that if he wants a trade deal, he’ll call off his dogs.”
The push for greater regulation of social media has been a key Labour policy, with Sir Keir Starmer previously facing criticism from US free speech advocates for pledging to clamp down on harmful but legal speech. Labour’s election manifesto promised to toughen online safety laws, pledging to “explore further measures to keep everyone safe online, particularly when using social media”.
However, with US tariffs looming, Downing Street is increasingly concerned about the economic consequences of the Act. President Trump has already paused tariffs on Mexico and Canada following negotiations, and Starmer is reportedly hoping that similar concessions on social media laws could prevent the UK from becoming Washington’s next trade target.
Despite growing pressure from Washington, any attempt to soften the Act would likely trigger fierce resistance from Labour MPs, who backed the law in opposition and have been lobbied by interest groups and campaigners demanding stricter content regulation.
With Ofcom’s new enforcement powers set to take effect in March, Britain may soon have to decide whether to prioritise online censorship or transatlantic trade – a choice that could have major implications for the future of free speech in the UK.
There’s more on this story here.
