President Trump’s state visit to the United Kingdom this week comes at a moment when the U.S.–UK “special relationship” is strained by the UK’s approach to regulating technology. Specifically in areas like free speech, competition, and taxes placed on digital services, the UK has adopted policies that single out American innovators and punish success in the free market. Unless addressed, these measures risk undermining both free expression and a strong trading relationship.
One of the biggest sticking points is the UK’s digital services tax (DST). The UK, like other countries who have embraced these taxes, is clearly seeking to benefit as much as it possibly can from the world-leading American tech sector. Using DSTs, the UK is seeking to extract revenue from U.S. firms rather than seeking to enable its own tech sector to compete. The President should make clear that a 2% revenue tax on American business is not a fair or sustainable foundation for trade between allies. Rolling back the tax would send a powerful signal that the UK values genuine partnership rather than protectionism.
Just as troubling is the UK’s Online Safety Act. This law treats free speech like a toxin and gives regulators sweeping authority to remove or suppress lawful content. In recent testimony to Congress, we warned that the law is already suppressing political discourse and commentary that would be protected under the U.S. First Amendment. Instead of empowering bureaucrats to police speech, the UK should invest in law enforcement and digital education to combat real harms without chilling democratic debate. The President has an opportunity to remind our closest ally that a commitment to free expression is what has always distinguished open societies from authoritarian ones.
Finally, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority poses a growing challenge. Through the Digital Markets, Competition & Consumers Act, the CMA has broad new powers to micromanage digital markets, such as cloud services. This heavy-handed approach to competition puts the government rather than consumers in charge of what companies are allowed to be successful. And American firms have unfortunately and unsurprisingly found that the UK’s competition authority has been keen to target them, given the success of the American economy. Consumer benefit should be the standard for competition enforcement, not protectionism. Here again, the President can make clear that a strong U.S.–UK relationship requires regulatory fairness, not suspicion of American success.
The stakes are high. The U.S. and UK have a unique opportunity to lead the world in shaping the future of technology. But that will only happen if both sides approach the partnership in good faith. Rolling back discriminatory taxes, defending free expression, and committing to fair competition enforcement would only strengthen that trust.