British Critics Call U.S. Grants 'Trump Meddling' in Free Speech

The U.S. Embassy in London is handing out grants worth up to $500,000. The goal is to strengthen shared values like freedom of speech, due process, and limited government between America and Britain. Yet one British critic calls this offer "MAGA money meddling." Liberal Democrat MP Lisa Smart told The Guardian that the funding represents "Trump's MAGA money meddling in democracy."

"We have a proud tradition of liberty and freedom of speech in this country," Smart said. She believes that tradition is now under threat across the Atlantic. Greg Lukianoff, president of the nonpartisan Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), agrees with the assessment. He told Fox News Digital that free speech in the UK is facing a true disaster.

"It is a true free speech disaster in the UK, and they don't even seem to know what's happening," Lukianoff stated. He argued that Britain needs all available help right now. "Whether the help is coming from JD Vance or Trump or maybe some future Democrat who sees the light on this stuff, the UK should be accepting help on freedom of speech because they are in crisis, and it's unsustainable," he added to Fox News Digital.

The U.S. Embassy responded directly to Smart's accusations. Officials noted that Liberal Democrats did not complain about grants given during the Biden administration. Those earlier funds supported projects like climate justice, LGBTQ activism, and race-based hiring initiatives. The embassy said in a statement to Fox News Digital that it is mindful of concerns regarding meddling. It also confirmed it has stopped spending on those divisive ideological projects under Trump's direction.

President Donald Trump's State Department is axing Biden-era guidelines too. Those old rules told personnel to push a woke Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility agenda on foreign officials. Lukianoff rejected the idea that free speech principles are tainted MAGA constructions. "When it comes to the idea of these being fundamentally tainted ideas, that is very much a higher education, elite-educated concept," he said.

The UK has recently passed laws restricting speech. The 2023 Online Safety Act stands out as a major example. It gives regulators power to slap huge fines on digital platforms that fail to enforce stricter codes. Lukianoff compared this new direction to the first Red Scare in U.S. history. That era occurred in the early 1920s and saw thousands arrested for suspected communist ties.

"In the first Red Scare in the United States, 1919 and 1920, we arrested about 2,000 people per year, and that's bad," Lukianoff explained. He noted that arrests are now around 12,000 a year in a country roughly half the size of the U.S. at the time. "They are in free fall and also in complete denial of it," he said. A House of Lords debate on online communications happened last year. The House of Lords Library cited a Times of London analysis that found more than 12,000 arrests in 2023 under two communications laws. Both nations allow authorities to prosecute threats of violence, but the U.K.

Britain lacks a direct equivalent to the First Amendment and actually criminalizes communications marked as grossly offensive. The volume of arrests in the UK is massive, according to Lukianoff, yet that count fails to capture the many non-crime hate incidents or the material they are currently trying to suppress, something happening here in the United States too through online laws. It is a genuine free speech disaster there, he added, and authorities seem unaware of what is unfolding.

The government defines a non-crime hate incident as an act by one person that another perceives as driven wholly or partly by hostility toward people with specific characteristics. FIRE notes that officials keep a registry for those caught in these NCHIs, a move the group labels censorship with extra steps. Lukianoff told Fox News Digital that such incidents range from someone stating we want to cut immigration because it raises crime rates. That is an empirical question. If you are free or live in a free society, you must be able to debate it. You should be able to show numbers and persuade people. You cannot simply declare that argument illegal.

I think the UK has so much to offer if it would stand up on its own feet. Essentially, I believe they are rejecting everything that made them great once. If we can help a friend even when they don't see their need, we absolutely should. But I really do not know how Britain can gain a better view of itself right now because the message isn't getting through that what is happening there is unsustainable. Fox News Digital reached out to Smart for further comment.