Since Donald Trump’s election, several figures from within his administration as well as various close associates have criticised the United Kingdom’s stance on freedom – particularly concerning free speech.
US criticism of the UK’s Online Safety Act
Elon Musk, now an adviser to Trump, has criticised the UK’s Online Safety Act, which imposes heavy fines on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) for failing to regulate harmful content. Musk frames this as a threat to free speech and has labelled Britain a “tyrannical police state.” Indeed, he has called for the “liberation” of Britain from what he describes as a “tyrannical government.”
At the Munich security conference, James “JD” Vance, Trump’s vice-presidential sidekick, criticised Britain’s free speech laws. “To many of us on the other side of the Atlantic, it looks more and more like old, entrenched interests hiding behind ugly Soviet-era words like ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation,’ who simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion or, God forbid, vote a different way, or even worse, win an election,” he said. “Most concerning is the United Kingdom. The backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons in particular, in the crosshairs.”
This strikes me as a bit rich given the Trump administration’s own record on free speech.
Free speech hypocrisy
Recently, the Trump administration has cut funding for universities in the US because, I suspect, they don’t hold the same views as Trump (the administration claims the funding review is part of a crackdown on antisemitism on college campuses). JD Vance is conveniently overlooking the US president’s efforts to muzzle the press on the other side of the pond. When Trump signed an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, the Associated Press (AP), a mainstream news organisation, said it wasn’t going to play ball and would stick to using the long-established name, which makes sense to its international readership.
As a result, AP’s reporters were barred from White House press events and from the president’s plane (on 14th February 2025, AP reporters were denied access to Air Force One for a trip to Florida). Trump’s administration also excluded AP reporters from designated press pools, limiting their ability to cover presidential activities. This included barring AP journalists from news conferences and official briefings. And White House officials have publicly criticised the AP’s stance. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that news organisations refusing to use “Gulf of America” are disseminating “lies”. The actions against the AP are “retribution, plain and simple”, said Tim Richardson of PEN America.
Silencing the media: a dangerous precedent
Far from being champions of free speech, the president and his cronies are clearly trying to dictate the language journalists use in their stories – God help me if I tried to pull that stunt with Robyn Hall of Mortgage Soup or Beth Fisher of MediaNett, let alone an international newswire. This amounts to trying to control the media and interfere with the flow of accurate information. It might not feel like such a big deal, but compliance is a slippery slope. “What happens, for example, when Trump proclaims that Ukraine is no longer Ukraine, but to be simply called Russia?” asks Margaret Sullivan, a US columnist for the Guardian, writing on media. “Do news organisations politely accept the rewriting of history?” Well, quite.
A federal judge has since ordered the White House to restore the AP’s full access to cover presidential events, affirming the government cannot punish the news organisation for the content of its speech.
And that makes US criticism of British freedoms a very bitter pill to swallow.
Five PR lessons from the Trump administration’s approach
From a PR perspective, this situation offers a masterclass in both the pitfalls and opportunities of managing a narrative in the public eye.
The power and peril of language control
On the one hand, the administration’s tactics highlight a solid PR ambition: attempting to control the conversation. By insisting on terms like “Gulf of America”, Trump’s team is attempting to dictate the terms of the conversation. It appears to have worked on Trump’s most loyal supporters who have adopted the new terminology uncritically. For better or worse, this shows the power of repetition in shaping public perception. Consistency and boldness in messaging can rally a base.
The risks of strong-arm PR tactics
On the other hand, bully-boy tactics can come at the cost of alienating those who value independence and accuracy — like journalists or the AP’s international readership. The Trump administration’s heavy-handed approach to the AP offers another critical lesson for PR professionals: attempts to strong-arm the media into compliance can backfire spectacularly.
Hypocrisy undermines credibility
By barring AP reporters and issuing public rebukes, the administration has not only alienated a major news outlet but also drawn attention to its own inconsistencies on free speech. When your messaging (e.g. championing free speech) contradicts your actions (e.g. punishing dissent), you risk losing trust not just with the press, but credibility with the broader public. The backlash shows how quickly a narrative can spiral out of control when it’s perceived as hypocritical.
Anticipate pushback
Another lesson for PR professionals is the importance of anticipating when you’re going to get pushback. The Trump administration’s failure to predict or mitigate the AP’s defiance (and the subsequent fallout) highlights a lack of strategic foresight. Effective PR involves not just pushing a narrative but preparing for how stakeholders (in particular a free press) might respond.
Persuasion vs. coercion
Finally, this episode serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between persuasion and coercion. The Trump team’s approach leans heavily on the latter. That may work in the short term with certain audiences. In my experience, building relationships with the media, even adversarial outlets, often yields better long-term results than burning bridges.
Could the Whitehouse have offered incentives instead of punishments? Could they have engaged in dialogue rather than exclusion? These are questions PR practitioners should ask when crafting their own campaigns. As one of my old PR sanseis used to say, “when you want to throw a punch, invite them to lunch”.
Final thoughts: freedom, reputation, and responsibility
In conclusion, Trump’s approach has done long-term damage to the team’s reputation as defenders of freedom. The key PR professional takeaway is to prioritise persuasion — using data for mutual benefit, perhaps — to achieve their goals, without resorting to tactics that invite accusations of censorship… or tyranny. In an era where public scrutiny is amplified by platforms like LinkedIn or X, the line between influence and this sort of overreach is thinner than ever.
Written by: James Staunton
Read our next blog on: Is your PR strategy missing comment opportunities?