U.S. Lawyer Preston Byrne and Trump Administration Challenge UK’s Online Safety Act Over Free Speech Concerns

In a bold move against what he perceives as an overreach of British regulatory authority, U.S. technology and free speech lawyer Preston Byrne has announced plans to sue the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, in federal court to protect American companies and citizens from the impact of the UK’s recently enacted Online Safety Act.

The legislation, which came into effect on July 25, 2025, has sparked significant controversy in the United States, with the Trump administration, including President Donald Trump, and Vice President J.D. Vance expressing strong concerns over its implications for American free speech and sovereignty.

This article outlines Byrne’s legal strategy, the actions and statements from the White House, and the broader political response to the UK law.

Preston Byrne’s Legal Challenge

Preston Byrne, managing partner of the U.S.-based tech law firm Byrne & Storm, P.C., has emerged as a leading figure in the fight against the UK’s Online Safety Act, which imposes strict regulations on online platforms to curb “harmful” content, including hate speech, material promoting substance abuse, and depictions of serious violence. The law applies to any website accessible in the UK, even those based in the U.S., requiring platforms like X, Reddit, and others to implement robust age verification checks and content moderation measures or face fines of up to £18 million ($24 million) or 10% of their global revenue.

Byrne has publicly declared his intent to file a federal lawsuit against Ofcom, arguing that the Act infringes on the constitutional rights of American citizens and companies under the First Amendment. In a series of posts on X, Byrne stated (@RonColeman), “and I will be suing Ofcom in federal court to protect all Americans from UK censorship,” inviting tech companies affected by the Act to join the legal challenge. He emphasized the need to “stop censorship at the waterline,” asserting that no foreign power should be allowed to interfere with American free speech.

Byrne has also confirmed that multiple American websites have instructed his firm to pursue this lawsuit, seeking a declaratory judgment from a U.S. federal court to affirm that the Online Safety Act is “null and void” in the United States.In an interview with GB News, Byrne was unequivocal about the severity of Ofcom’s actions, stating, “They [Ofcom] are really not going to like what comes next. The First Amendment protects an American’s right to talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime, about anything they choose—without interference from anybody. Not Congress, not a senator, not the governor, not even the president—and certainly not a British unelected bureaucrat.”

He revealed that he has intercepted enforcement letters sent by Ofcom to American social media companies and forwarded them to the White House, which he claims is “really ticked off.” Byrne’s legal strategy hinges on two key questions: whether U.S. courts can assert jurisdiction over a UK regulator like Ofcom and whether the Online Safety Act unlawfully extends UK law into the U.S., conflicting with First Amendment protections.

Byrne has also called on major tech CEOs, including Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and Sundar Pichai, to join his coalition, arguing that a unified stand could dismantle European censorship regimes. “One big defection from European censorship regimes, and it’s over. They’ll never censor any American again,” he wrote on X. His firm, based in Connecticut, represents a range of clients, including blockchain developers, social networks, and gaming platforms, positioning Byrne as a formidable advocate for tech companies facing international regulatory challenges.

White House and Trump Administration’s Response

The Trump administration has taken a firm stance against the UK’s Online Safety Act, viewing it as a direct threat to American free speech and sovereignty. A senior U.S. State Department official told The Telegraph, “President Trump has made it clear that free speech is one of our most cherished freedoms as Americans. Accordingly, we have taken decisive action against foreign actors who have engaged in extraterritorial censorship affecting our companies and fellow citizens. We will continue to monitor developments in the UK with great interest and concern.”

President Trump himself addressed the issue during a joint press conference with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Scotland, where he lightheartedly remarked, “Well, I don’t think he’s [Starmer’s] going to censor my site, because I say only good things… will you please uncensor my site?” Despite the jest, Trump’s comment underscored his administration’s serious concern about the Act’s impact on platforms like Truth Social.

The White House’s response has been bolstered by actions from other administration officials. In May 2025, the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour sent diplomats to London to meet with British pro-life activists and challenge Ofcom over the Online Safety Act, signaling early concerns about its implications for free expression. The administration has also raised questions about high-profile UK cases, such as the prosecution of Lucy Connolly, a former childminder jailed for a social media post, and Livia Tossici-Bolt, an anti-abortion campaigner fined for breaching a buffer zone, citing these as evidence of the UK’s eroding commitment to free speech.

J.D. Vance’s Comments

Vice President J.D. Vance has been outspoken about the erosion of free speech in the UK and across Europe. In a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2025, Vance highlighted the case of British pro-life campaigner Adam Smith-Connor, who was convicted for breaching a buffer zone outside an abortion clinic. Vance declared, “Free speech in Britain and across Europe [is] in retreat,” framing the UK’s regulatory actions, including the Online Safety Act, as part of a broader trend of suppressing expression.

His comments align with the administration’s broader narrative that the UK’s policies threaten fundamental freedoms, particularly for Americans operating under the protection of the First Amendment.

Broader Political Context and Implications

The controversy surrounding the Online Safety Act has ignited a transatlantic debate about the balance between online safety and free speech. Critics, including Byrne and U.S. lawmakers like Congressman Jim Jordan, argue that the Act’s vague definition of “harmful” content pressures platforms to over-censor legal speech to avoid hefty fines. Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, described the law as an “attack” on American companies, noting its potential $500 million impact on firms like Apple. He raised these concerns directly with UK Technology Secretary Peter Kyle, questioning the government’s correspondence with social media platforms during the 2024 riots in England.

The Act has also faced domestic criticism in the UK. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch called its rollout a “predictable mess,” pointing to the surge in VPN downloads as evidence of public resistance, while Reform UK leader Nigel Farage pledged to repeal the law, accusing it of enabling predators rather than protecting children. In response, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has defended the Act’s intent to protect children but acknowledged the need to balance safety with free speech, even putting the law’s provisions on the table in U.S. trade negotiations.

Byrne’s lawsuit, backed by the Trump administration’s vocal opposition, could have significant implications for international tech regulation. A U.S. court ruling against Ofcom could limit the enforceability of UK laws on American soil, setting a precedent for how nations regulate global digital platforms. As Byrne put it, “No foreign power will be allowed to cross our waterline with unconstitutional and illegal orders.”

Where now?

Preston Byrne’s planned federal lawsuit against Ofcom represents a direct challenge to the UK’s Online Safety Act, which he and the Trump administration view as an affront to American free speech and sovereignty. Supported by President Trump, Vice President Vance, and a broader coalition of U.S. lawmakers, Byrne’s legal action seeks to protect American companies and citizens from what they see as extraterritorial censorship.

As the case unfolds, it will likely intensify debates about the intersection of national laws, global tech platforms, and the fundamental right to free expression, with potential ripple effects for U.S.-UK relations and the future of online regulation.