With President Trump’s tariff regime going into effect around the world, Great Britain may accommodate American demands to water down its strict free speech laws, which are reportedly resulting in 33 arrests per day of Britons for expressing their opinions online.

The British government had been talking about revising its new Online Safety Act even before it went into effect in March. Vice President Vance raised the issue of free speech during the Munich Security Conference in mid-February and directly to Prime Minister Starmer when the Labour Party leader was visiting the White House at the end of February. 

The Trump administration is concerned that the act, passed in 2023, could result in penalties against American tech firms. Under the law, social media companies could be fined up to 10 percent of their global annual revenue for failing to remove from their platforms content deemed offensive. The law also calls for these companies to pay 70 million pounds per year beginning in 2026 to cover the costs of enforcement. 

President Trump’s right-hand man and owner of social media platform X, Elon Musk, whose company would be hit by the regulations, has severely criticized the law, calling it censorship. X is already facing as much as $1 billion in fines from the European Union for breaking its online safety law, the Digital Services Act, which aims to stop harmful content and misinformation.

Great Britain has had several laws on the books going back decades to prevent offensive or malicious speech both on and offline. Enforcement has resulted in 12,000 arrests a year, according to police data. Arrests can be for offenses as benign as posting pictures of questionable Halloween costumes or as severe as suggesting incitements to violence.

One British woman, Lucy Connolly, was sentenced to 31 months in prison for comments she posted on X about deporting illegal immigrants and setting fire to hotels where the government is housing asylum-seekers. She deleted the post after four hours, but not before it was seen more than 300,000 times. 

Ms. Connolly, the wife of a conservative local council member, apologized for her post, claiming she wrote it in the heat of the moment after hearing about the stabbing attack on a children’s dance class, which killed three girls, allegedly by an illegal immigrant. The perpetrator’s illegal status turned out to be incorrect. 

Offline, another woman, Livia Tossici-Bolt, was put on probation for two years and ordered to pay roughly $26,000 in legal costs last week after being convicted of intimidation for holding a sign near an abortion clinic that read, “Here to talk. If you want.”

The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor mentioned Ms. Tossici-Bolt’s case when it announced that it is monitoring Great Britain’s free speech arrests. “Freedom of expression must be protected for all,” the department posted on X.

Speaking with business leaders last week, Mr. Starmer said “nothing is off the table” in negotiations around tariffs. However, his Business Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, denied that free speech has come up during trade talks. 

“Obviously there are things from different people in the administration that they’ve said in the past about this, but it’s not been part of the trade negotiations that I’ve been part of,” he said.

“I don’t think enhancing our economic engagement that is beneficial for both countries is contingent on this particular issue.”

With baseline tariffs of 10 percent now in place on British imports, British officials are determining which American goods could be subject to retaliatory tariffs. At the same time, they are scrambling to ease regulatory burdens for British manufacturers, including carmakers who may not be able to meet net zero emissions rules, set by Mr. Starmer, without importing American-made electric vehicles.