US Threatens Sanctions Over UK Plan to Block X

Washington’s warning has turned Starmer’s hardline internet policy into a diplomatic reckoning over the limits of state power online.

DAN FRIETH

Efforts by the British government to restrict X over its AI assistant Grok have ignited an unexpected diplomatic storm, with Washington warning that ministers and regulators involved could be barred from entering the United States.

The dispute, rooted in the collision between online safety laws and free speech norms, has quickly evolved into a peak of how far Western democracies are willing to go in policing digital communication.

US officials told The Telegraph that they were ready to impose travel bans if Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer follows through on threats to block X inside the United Kingdom.

One senior figure said Washington “had the right to up the ante” should Britain move to censor a US company.

The danger is a new British law that criminalizes the creation of non-consensual, sexualized AI images.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said she would make the offense a formal priority under the Online Safety Act, forcing platforms to demonstrate that they are curbing the spread of explicit synthetic content.

She confirmed that Ofcom, the country’s communications regulator, would gain expanded powers to investigate and, if necessary, suspend access to sites that fail to comply.

Ofcom officials contacted X last week, demanding documentation by Friday showing how the firm enforces safety compliance.

The regulator warned that it could ultimately block the service if the company refuses to cooperate.

That possibility has alarmed Washington, where authorities view the threat as a direct assault on an American firm and on free expression more broadly. “UK officials could face being barred from the US over plans to ban X,” a State Department source told the paper.

The warning was reinforced by Sarah Rogers, President Donald Trump’s undersecretary for public diplomacy, who said during a GB News appearance that “nothing’s off the table” when it comes to defending free speech.

Rogers was unsparing in her criticism. “If the UK bans X, it won’t be the first country to do so. Russia bans X. Venezuela bans X. Iran bans X. Free societies generally don’t,” she said.

She accused the Starmer government of using the language of online safety to disguise a political motive: “What the British government wants isn’t a reasonable, safe, online, discursive environment for women or whatever it claims… What the British government wants is the ability to curate a public square to suppress political viewpoints it dislikes.”

She later posted on X, calling the proposal “a Russia-style X ban,” adding that “America has a full range of tools that we can use to facilitate uncensored internet access in authoritarian, closed societies where the government bans it.”

Washington, particularly under Trump’s leadership, has made opposition to censorship abroad a cornerstone of its tech policy.

The United States has already revoked visas from British and European figures linked to organizations that promote online content moderation, including Imran Ahmed of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate and Clare Melford of the Global Disinformation Index.

Both groups were founded or supported by allies of the Labour Party, of which Prime Minister Keir Starmer is the leader.

A source familiar with Whitehall’s discussions acknowledged that a full ban on X could trigger severe diplomatic retaliation. “They were determined not to sanction any government officials, but they considered X the prize jewel to protect. If X were banned, all hell would break loose,” the source said.

The transatlantic fallout has already spilled into trade. Washington suspended the “tech prosperity” cooperation agreement last month, citing Britain’s censorship direction under the Online Safety Act.

Members of Congress have also joined the pushback. Republican representative Anna Paulina Luna warned that she would introduce legislation to “sanction not only Starmer, but Britain as a whole” if Labour proceeds with restrictions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the sentiment, describing European and British moves against Musk’s company as “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people.”

Asked about the escalating dispute, a State Department spokesperson declined to address specific sanctions but reiterated: “The United States will continue to take all necessary actions to protect the free speech rights of our citizens from foreign threats.”

This article (US Threatens Sanctions Over UK Plan to Block X) was created and published by Reclaim the Net and is republished here under “Fair Use with attribution to the author Dan Frieth

See Related Article Below

US State Department threatens UK over probe into Elon Musk’s X

Official Sarah B. Rogers said “nothing is off the table” if X is banned in the U.K.

MIZY CLIFTON

LONDON — The U.S. Department of State’s Sarah B. Rogers says “nothing is off the table” if the U.K. government makes good on its threat to ban Elon Musk’s X over concerns about a deluge of AI-generated sexualized deepfakes on the platform.

“I would say from America’s perspective … nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech,” Rogers, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy, told GB News in an interview which aired in the U.K. in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

“Let’s wait and see what Ofcom does and we’ll see what America does in response,” she added.

Rogers, an appointee of President Donald Trump, has repeatedly criticized European efforts to crack down on hate speech. She was involved in last month’s State Department decision to sanction former European Commissioner Thierry Breton and four other European nationals involved in efforts to curb the spread of disinformation.

At least one lawmaker aligned with Trump has also weighed in on behalf of the Elon Musk-owned platform. U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, said last week she was drafting legislation to sanction the U.K. if X is banned in the country.

In her GB News interview Rogers accused the British government of wanting “the ability to curate a public square, to suppress political viewpoints it dislikes.”

X has a “political valence that the British government is antagonistic to, doesn’t like, and that’s what’s really going on,” she added.

Asked whether Rogers’ remarks accurately represent the Trump administration’s stance on the issue, a spokesperson for the U.S. embassy in London said: “Her remarks speak for themselves.”

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson denied the case was about freedom of expression, insisting the U.K. had upheld freedom of speech “for many hundreds of years, and will do in future too.”

“It’s about the generation of criminal imagery of children and women and girls that is not acceptable. We cannot stand by and let that continue. And that is why we’ve taken the action we have.”

Ofcom, the U.K.’s online safety watchdog, is currently investigating whether X failed to comply with its duties under the Online Safety Act by allowing its Grok AI chatbot to create and distribute non-consensual intimate images, including potential child sexual abuse material.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told the House of Commons on Monday that Ofcom has the government’s backing to use the full extent of its powers, which include imposing financial penalties of up to £18 million or 10 percent of a company’s worldwide revenue, and in the most serious cases seeking a court order to block X from functioning in the U.K.

“This is not, as some would claim, about restricting freedom of speech, which is something that I and the whole Government hold very dear. It is about tackling violence against women and girls. It is about upholding basic British values of decency and respect, and ensuring that the standards that we expect offline are upheld online. It is about exercising our sovereign power and responsibility to uphold the laws of this land,” she said.

At a behind-closed-doors meeting with Labour lawmakers on Monday Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “If X cannot control Grok, we will — and we’ll do it fast because if you profit from harm and abuse, you lose the right to self regulate.”

POLITICO reported last week that Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy raised the issue of Grok with Vice President Vance, and Lammy later told The Guardian that Vance had agreed the deepfaked images spreading on X were “unacceptable.”

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.