Image Credit: Heather Diehl / Staff / Getty 
Washington is preparing legislation designed to prevent foreign governments from extending their online speech restrictions into the United States.
Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers confirmed that a new “censorship shield law” is being drawn up to ensure that laws such as Britain’s Online Safety Act or the EU’s Digital Services Act cannot be used to censor US citizens or companies.
Rogers said she expects “some kind of shield legislation” to be tabled soon, adding that any attempt to apply these overseas statutes in the United States runs counter to the country’s founding legal principles.
“Clearly, these censorship statutes are so anathema to the First Amendment that judgments under them shouldn’t be enforced here,” she told Harry Cole Saves the West.
Her comments mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from an American official toward the United Kingdom’s online regulation strategy.
Rogers accused Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government of showing “authoritarian intentions” in its digital policies, remarking that “The Labour Party has not distinguished itself with advocacy for free speech or sanity on migration.”
The US State Department has clashed repeatedly with British authorities in recent months, particularly over Ofcom’s role in policing online speech under the new Act.
Rogers said Washington has no intention of allowing British regulators to dictate what can or cannot be published by US platforms. “It’s our 250th birthday, and we’re going to stand up for our First Amendment rights, and we’re going to stand up for American industry, and we’re going to stand up for American political freedoms,” she said.
Rogers also issued a warning over Britain’s expanding use of artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology in policing.
She cautioned that “when a government has authoritarian intentions, then a powerful tool can be used for powerful authoritarian ends,” suggesting that such systems, when combined with censorship powers, risk becoming tools of political control rather than public safety.
More: The GRANITE ACT: Wyoming Bill Targets Foreign Censors With $10M Penalties
To illustrate what she described as a troubling trend, Rogers cited the case of Lucy Connolly and the more than 12,000 “non-crime hate incidents” logged in recent years by British police.
She said she would “be heartened to learn that the UK had done that,” referring to enacting protections akin to the First Amendment that guarantee a broader range of free expression.
The proposed American legislation would effectively block the enforcement of any foreign orders or penalties that attempt to silence online speech protected under US law. By doing so, it would safeguard domestic companies and individuals from being compelled to remove lawful content merely because it violates another country’s restrictions.
This approach builds on the Trump administration’s earlier criticism of the UK for what it described as “serious restrictions” on free speech.
Officials at the time pointed to the Lucy Connolly case, media limits around the Southport attack, and the new Online Safety Act as evidence of growing government interference in public discourse.
If passed, the censorship shield would permanently prevent international regulators from reaching across borders to influence American speech standards.
For the first time, the United States would have a clear statutory barrier ensuring that what Americans can say online remains determined by the US Constitution, not by foreign governments.
