Trump administration mulls granting asylum to Brits

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt will discuss with Trump officials whether the United States should grant asylum to British nationals punished for free speech, she said in a Monday press briefing.

Leavitt announced the plans in response to a question by Winston Marshall, the former lead guitarist of the Grammy-award-winning rock band Mumford & Sons. 

"As we speak, there are people in prison for quite literally reposting memes,” said Marshall, a British national. “We have extensive prison sentences for tweets, social media posts and general free speech issues. Would the Trump administration consider asylum for British citizens in such a situation?"

Leavitt chuckled at the question, saying it was a “very good question” and promising to discuss it with national security officials.

"I have not heard that proposed to the president, nor have I spoken to him about that idea, but I certainly can talk to our national security team and see if it's something the administration would entertain,” she said.

In March, the US State Department expressed concern about the UK’s denial of free speech to British citizens. The Trump administration, which is being courted by the Labour government for a trade deal, indicated that the UK’s crackdown on freedom of speech may be a deciding factor in any agreement. 

“U.S.-UK relations share a mutual respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,” the State Department’s Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor Bureau said in a statement. “However, as Vice President Vance has said, we are concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.”

Free speech in the UK

The UK has passed various laws that make it a crime to offend certain people or groups. British taxpayers have been arrested and jailed for posting social media content critical of gender ideology, Islam, migrants, and women. Others have been arrested for thinking prayerful thoughts near abortion facilities. The Communications Act of 2003 criminalizes any electronic “message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character.” The Online Safety Act of 2023, set to take effect this year, makes it an offense to post “harmful content” or false information that could cause “non-trivial psychological harm” to users.

UK officials have been open about targeting non-citizens for free speech. Last year, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said: “We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.” When a reporter asked Rowley whether billionaire Elon Musk would be guilty of a crime for posting “offensive” social media content from the US, Rowley responded: “You can be guilty of offenses of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred, there are numerous terrorist offenses regarding the publishing of material.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer also threatened social media users when he said: “I guarantee you will regret taking part in this disorder whether directly or those whipping up this action online.”

British police spend an estimated 60,000 hours a year investigating reports of non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), according to a study last year. While not criminal offenses, NCHIs are incidents where someone belonging to a protected class feels that they were treated with hostility. An NCHI may be reported to police if a person claims that someone else treated them with ill will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, or dislike based on their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or transgender identity.

‘Dedicated police officers who are scouring social media’

Last year, British authorities threatened taxpayers with prison for sharing footage of the anti-immigration riots that broke out after a Muslim immigrant knifed to death three little girls under 10.

"The offense of incitement to racial hatred involves publishing or distributing material which is insulting or abusive, which is intended to or likely to start racial hatred," Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said. "So if you retweet that, then you're republishing that and then potentially you're committing that offense. And we do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media. Their job is to look for this material and then follow up with identification arrests and so forth. So it's really, really serious."

"People might think they're not doing anything, harmful. They are, and the consequences will be visited upon them," he warned.

Criticizing gender ideology

In 2023, the Metropolitan Police summoned James Goddard to an interrogation over his social media post mocking rainbow flags.

“These comments are targeting specifically the LGBTQ community would be considered ‘grossly offensive’ thus being in contravention 127 of the Malicious Communication Act 2003,” said police in the summons.

In a similar incident, three police officers arrested a war veteran at his home over a social media post that showed a swastika made of rainbow flags, a commentary on the state-sponsored intimidation of citizens to embrace gender ideology.

In 2023, British police arrested a 16-year-old Leeds girl with autism after the child said she thought one of the officers looked like a “lesbian” because she looked similar to the child's openly lesbian caretaker.

Leicestershire Police urged citizens to report others for misnaming people who claim to have changed their gender by referring to them by their “previous” name.  

Caroline Farrow, a journalist and mother of five, was the subject of a five-month-long police investigation in 2019 for opinions she expressed on social media regarding transgenderism. According to Farrow, her chief crime was “misgendering” — referring to someone by their actual gender and not the gender they claim to be.

In 2022, Farrow was arrested in her home for “malicious communications and harassment” while she was making dinner for her children. Photos provided by Farrow show police forcing their way into her house. When she asked to see a warrant, they replied, “We don’t need one.” Police seized several electronic devices, including from her husband’s parish next door. They then brought Farrow outside where a female officer subjected her to a body search and took her to the station.

Last year, The Gold Report detailed how London’s Metropolitan Police investigated Maya Forstater for criticizing a transgender doctor who boasted that his patients were unaware of his true gender. Forstater, who heads the women’s rights group Sex Matters, had voiced concerns about whether the patients of Dr. Kamilla Kamaruddin were giving their informed consent. In a tweet, Forstater said Dr. Kamaruddin “enjoys intimately examining female patients without their consent.” Police summoned the 51-year-old Forstater to Charing Cross Police Station, where they threatened her with arrest for “malicious communications.” They interrogated her about whether she meant “to target a member of the transgender community” and if she understood that her “tweet could be perceived as transphobic.” Police also wanted to know if Forstater had any “remorse” for her tweet.

Silent prayer

British police have arrested and issued fines to citizens who were silently praying in their heads while standing near abortion centers. Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) prohibit “protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling.”’

An off-color costume

Last year, police arrested British citizen David Wootton for posting photos of himself on social media showing him dressed as terrorist Salman Abedi for Halloween. In 2017, Abedi detonated a suicide bomb at an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena, killing 22 people and wounding over a thousand more.

Insulting a BBC journalist

British protestors who demonstrated against lockdowns in 2021 were sentenced to community service for insulting a BBC journalist. 

Holocaust references

A 63-year-old Jewish father is facing prison time for offending a “progressive rabbi” with a Holocaust reference. Rupert Nathan committed the "offense" when he posted criticism of Gabriel Kanter-Webber in a comment on a friend’s Facebook post. He referred to Kanter-Webber, who heads the Brighton and Hove Progressive Synagogue, as a “creep,” a “fake Rabbi,” and a “kapo boy.” Kapos were Jews in concentration camps who were deputized by the Nazis with authority over other Jewish prisoners.

In response to the “kapo” remark, Kanter-Webber reported Nathan to the police, who came to Nathan’s home and arrested him in front of his 12-year-old daughter. He was charged with the crime of malicious communications and detained for 12 hours. His case has been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for criminal proceedings and he faces up to two years in prison.

‍