Source · Select Committees · Foreign Affairs Committee
Recommendation 23
23
Not Addressed
The United States remains the UK’s closest security and defence partner, yet the evolving political...
Conclusion
The United States remains the UK’s closest security and defence partner, yet the evolving political landscape in Washington has introduced new strains in transatlantic cooperation on countering foreign information manipulation and interference. While both countries acknowledge the threat posed by malign disinformation actors, the Trump Administration has placed significant emphasis on defending absolute freedom of speech and has criticised European and UK legislative initiatives as forms of censorship. This has led to the Trump Administration closing key US institutions, restricting funding for independent media and civil society organisations and instigating visa bans on prominent British and European anti-disinformation experts, whom the US government has accused of attempting to suppress American viewpoints through extraterritorial censorship. (Conclusion, Paragraph 127)
Government response summary AI-generated
The government's response addresses concerns about algorithms, the Online Safety Act, and a new Researcher Access to Data Scheme, but fails to engage with the committee's conclusion regarding the impact of the US political landscape on transatlantic cooperation and specific US actions.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government · verbatim extract
Not Addressed
Agree. The US remains the UK’s closest security and defence partner. For this reason, we will continue to coordinate closely with them on shared national security threats. The UK and US share a deep commitment to upholding freedom of speech and defending open democratic debate. The UK views information manipulation as a form of deception rather than legitimate discourse. We are focused on stopping hostile actors from misleading the public, not on regulating political views or lawful disagreement. Decisions regarding the closure or funding of US institutions are matters for the US Government. It would not be appropriate for us to comment on these.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗