The United States has delivered a stinging rebuke to the United Kingdom’s record on human rights and free speech, according to a newly released State Department report. In a move that has sparked heated debate on both sides of the Atlantic, the annual Human Rights Practices report—produced by the Trump administration—claims that the UK’s human rights situation has "worsened" over the past year, with particular concern over restrictions on freedom of expression and a rise in antisemitic violence.
The report, published on August 13, 2025, lands at a politically charged moment. Vice President JD Vance, a vocal critic of the UK’s recent policies on speech, happens to be holidaying in the Cotswolds as the findings make headlines. The timing has not gone unnoticed, especially as the report’s criticisms echo concerns previously raised by Vance and other senior members of the US administration.
According to the State Department, “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression” have emerged in the UK, particularly since the October 2024 Hamas attack against Israel, which saw a spike in crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism. The report singles out “specific areas of concern” around limits on political speech deemed "hateful" or "offensive." It contends that while free speech is "generally provided for," there has been a marked increase in government intervention to “chill speech.”
One of the most controversial examples cited is the government’s response to the Southport attacks in July 2024. In that tragic incident, three young girls were stabbed to death at a Taylor Swift dance class by 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana. The following day, a peaceful vigil was held, but misinformation quickly spread online, falsely claiming Rudakubana was an asylum seeker who had arrived in the UK by small boat. These rumors fueled violent protests, prompting authorities to take action against internet users who spread the false claims and urged revenge. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer responded forcefully, promising that those involved would “face the full force of the law.”
The US State Department’s report describes the government’s crackdown on online speech in the wake of the riots as an “especially grievous example of government censorship,” adding that “censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech.” According to State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce, online restrictions have “targeted disfavored voices on political or religious grounds.” She told reporters, “No matter really how disagreeable someone’s speech may be, criminalising it or silencing it by force only serves as a catalyst for further hatred, suppression or polarisation.”
The criticism doesn’t stop there. The report highlights several recent UK legal measures as problematic for free expression. Among them are buffer zone laws, which prohibit protests outside abortion service centers. Scotland implemented 200-meter (656-foot) buffer zones in September 2024, followed by 150-meter zones in England and Wales the next month. The Home Office has said these "safe access zones" are designed to protect women from harassment or distress, but critics, including Vice President Vance, argue that they unduly restrict peaceful protest and free speech. Vance made his opposition clear during a headline-grabbing speech at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year.
The case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, convicted in April 2025 for holding a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want” outside a clinic in Bournemouth, has become a flashpoint in the debate. Her prosecution was highlighted by both Vance and the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour, which stated it was “disappointed” by the ruling. “Freedom of expression must be protected for all,” the bureau added, underscoring the tension between protecting individuals from harassment and upholding free speech rights.
Another target of criticism is Britain’s Online Safety Act. The law, which ministers say is about protecting children from online harm, has been accused of chilling speech—especially about the Southport murders and the subsequent riots. The State Department report claims that ministers have intervened to “chill speech,” making arrests in the wake of the unrest. UK officials, however, have defended the law, with some suggesting that those who oppose it are “on the side of predators.”
Public Spaces Protection Orders, which allow local councils to restrict certain activities in public places to prevent antisocial behavior, have also come under scrutiny. The State Department report argues that these powers can be used to stifle legitimate protest and dissent, further eroding the space for free expression in Britain.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and his government have repeatedly defended the UK’s record on free speech. In response to the US report, a government spokesperson stated, “Free speech is vital for democracy around the world including here in the UK, and we are proud to uphold freedoms whilst keeping our citizens safe.” Starmer himself has pushed back against criticism from Vance and others, famously telling the US vice president during a White House summit, “We’ve had free speech for a very long time, it will last a long time, and we are very proud of that.”
Yet, Vance remains unconvinced. During a recent meeting with Foreign Secretary David Lammy at his country estate in Kent, Vance warned he did not want the UK to go down a “very dark path” of losing free speech. The State Department’s report, for its part, echoes similar accusations made by high-profile figures such as Nigel Farage and Elon Musk, both of whom have claimed that the UK is sliding towards censorship.
It’s worth noting, however, that the Trump administration has faced its own accusations of curtailing free speech—particularly in its approach to criticism on university campuses, with Harvard cited as a notable example. This transatlantic exchange of criticisms highlights the complexity and subjectivity inherent in debates over free speech, especially in an era of polarized politics and rapid information spread.
Despite the harsh tone of much of the report, there is at least one area where the UK government receives praise. The State Department notes that British authorities have “effectively enforced laws protecting freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the right of workers to engage in a strike or other industrial action.” This acknowledgment suggests that, even as the two allies spar over speech, there remain areas of shared democratic values and mutual respect.
As the debate continues, the question of how to balance safety, dignity, and the right to speak one’s mind remains as contentious as ever. The US-UK relationship may be tested by these disagreements, but both nations are likely to keep wrestling with the same fundamental issues—just as they have for generations.
