9 September 2026
Once again, the Trump White House has found itself having to criticise another policy of this Labour Government which will harm not only the free speech rights of UK citizens and independent journalism, but also the free speech rights of US citizens and US businesses.
At the start of the summer, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, announced her department’s media green paper, Watch this Space. Under the proposals, social media platforms will be forced to prioritise the promotion of government-approved “trustworthy” news sources, such as public broadcasters like the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. In turn, this would see the demotion of alternative and more critical outlets like The Telegraph, The Guardian and GB News.
The US Government has raised serious concerns over these proposals and issued a stark warning to the Government that government influence over what news sources its citizens can and cannot access online “risks becoming a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship” and a blueprint for authoritarian regimes.
When the plans were announced in July, the Republican chair of the influential House Judiciary Committee and a close ally of President Trump, Jim Jordan, wrote to Lisa Nandy calling the plan an attack on free speech and voicing concerns about the negative impact that it would have on US businesses.
In his letter to the Secretary of State, the congressman wrote:
Several of DCMS’s [Department for Culture, Media and Sport] proposals would hurt the free, competitive marketplace of ideas, and instead prioritize 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.
The UK Government ran a consultation on the media green paper, to which the Free Speech Union submitted a response. The US Embassy in the UK announced that it had also submitted a response to the call for evidence, which aligned with many of the concerns the Free Speech Union had voiced.
It is deeply chilling that the UK Government is even considering plans that could influence what content its citizens can and cannot see. What self-respecting democracy thinks it should decide what constitutes a “trustworthy” news source? We are the United Kingdom, not North Korea.
What DCMS is proposing is a blatant attack on free speech and independent journalism. Its negative consequences, both intended and unintended, risk allowing future governments — both left and right — to impose greater censorship and regulation on online platforms and news outlets.
The US Embassy in London warned:
A framework that empowers governments to influence which sources receive preferential visibility risks becoming a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship.
If the UK compels platforms to boost government-preferred media in algorithmic feeds, the effect on a government-disfavored speaker or media source’s reach is not meaningfully different than outright removal.
Furthermore, such a mandate could establish a template authoritarian regimes could invoke to justify more control over online content.
As reported in The Sun, another fierce opponent of the proposals is the News Media Association, which represents the media sector. The group has argued that the proposals are incompatible with a free press and amount to press regulation by the back door.
The US Government has called on the British Government to withdraw these plans. The Free Speech Union shares this plea and urges the Government to abandon these Orwellian proposals.
It has also warned that the plans would unfairly harm US businesses operating in the UK and undermine independent journalism. The Embassy said the US Government would “likely consider such a measure as facilitating censorship” and warned that the proposals could create a template for authoritarian regimes.
Alarmingly, ministers have yet to rule out requiring publishers to submit to a state-backed regulator. Our new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is a prominent advocate of the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, having previously described it as “non-negotiable”. During the by-election campaign, he was joined by actors-turned-press-censorship campaigners Steve Coogan and Hugh Grant.
If the UK-US relationship could not be any more sour than it is today with regard to free speech violations — namely the Online Safety Act and the arrest of Graham Linehan, who lives in the US — these proposals risk inflaming tensions even further.
Read more in The Telegraph.
Worried about the state deciding which news you can trust?
The FSU opposed Labour’s plan to make platforms boost ‘trustworthy’ state-approved news. Join 45,000 members. From £29.99/year.