In mid-April 2025, claims (archived) circulated online that U.S. President Donald Trump would require the U.K. to get rid of laws protecting LGBTQ+ people before agreeing to a trade deal.
A popular X post repeating the claim was captioned: "Trump is requiring the United Kingdom to get rid of laws protecting LGBTQ people before he will agree to a trade deal with them."
The claim circulated on X (archived), Threads (archived) and Reddit (archived). Snopes readers also emailed to ask whether the claim was true.
The claim came from a report by the British online newspaper The Independent that relied on an unnamed "Washington source." According to The Independent's report, Vice President JD Vance — not Trump specifically — was "obsessed by the fall of Western civilisation" and the supposed fall of free speech in Europe. The source said: "No free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that," implying that the U.K. would have to conform to American standards for free speech if it wished to secure a trade deal.
Snopes does not rely on anonymous sources, and it was not possible to independently verify The Independent's source. It was unclear whether the source specifically said protections for LGBTQ+ people had to be removed, or whether that was The Independent's reporting. In the U.K., stirring up or expressing hatred — actions known as hate speech — on the basis of sexual orientation, race and religion is an offense under the Public Order Act of 1986.
We reached out to Vance's office and 10 Downing Street, the office of the prime minister of the U.K., to ask whether the claims made by the anonymous source were true and await a reply. According to The Independent's report, a spokesperson for 10 Downing Street said free speech "is not a feature of the talks."
The connection to LGBTQ+ rights seemed to come mainly from The Independent's headline. The article, titled "Starmer told UK must repeal hate speech laws to protect LGBT+ people or lose Trump trade deal," mentioned LGBTQ+ rights only once in the body text to say that, according to the anonymous Washington source, Vance would "demand" that the U.K. government "rolls back laws against hateful comments, including abuse targeting LGBT+ groups or other minorities, as a condition of any deal."
Vance's reservations about 'infringements on free speech'
A potential trade deal between the U.S. and the U.K. — countries that frequently cite their "special relationship" — has been in the works for years. Recently, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer discussed U.S.-U.K. trade while visiting the White House on Feb. 27, 2025.
During a Oval Office press gathering, a reporter asked Vance about "free speech violations" in the U.K. Vance said: (time stamp 1:57:16):
I said what I said, which is that we do have, of course, a special relationship with our friends in the U.K. and also with some of our European allies. But we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens, so that is something that we'll talk about today at lunch.
Vance was referring to his speech at the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 14, 2025, during which he said: "In Britain, and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat."
During the Feb. 27 Oval Office meeting, Starmer replied (time-stamp 1:57:41):
We've had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom and it will last for a very, very long time. No, I mean, certainly we wouldn't want to reach across U.S. citizens, and we don't, and that's absolutely right. But in relation to free speech in the U.K., I'm very proud of our history there.
Starmer's reply, however, didn't seem to have affected American willingness to enter a deal. When asked during an UnHerd interview in April 2025 about the possibility of U.S.-U.K. trade deal, Vance said:
We're working very hard on a trade deal with the Starmer government. I don't want to prejudge it, but I think there's a good chance that, yes, we'll come to a great agreement that's in the best interest of both countries.
Vance did not mention specific U.S. requirements for a potential trade deal during that interview.
U.K. Secretary of State for Business and Trade Jonathan Reynolds, who was also a party to negotiations about a potential U.S.-U.K. trade deal, said during a Bloomberg interview on April 3, 2025, that though free speech was discussed between the nations it wasn't a significant factor (time stamp 4:29, emphasis ours):
Those issues have been raised by the U.S. diplomatically more widely, those references that you have given, but they haven't been part — a material part — of the trade negotiations that we have been having, I will obviously say, and I think I can defend this pretty strongly: the U.K. is a place that has always had a proud record on free speech.
Vance's Feb. 27, 2025, remark about "infringements on free speech" in the U.K. that affected "American technology companies" was likely a swipe at the U.K.'s Online Safety Act of 2023.
This law meant that internet services regulated by the act, a list including online giants like Meta, X and Google, must "identify, mitigate and manage" the risks of harm from "illegal content and activity" and "content and activity that is harmful to children" or face large fines.
The law applies only to services that have "links" with the U.K, for example, a significant number of users based there.
When asked whether he thought the act amounted to censorship, Starmer said:
No, we don't believe in censoring speech but of course we do need to deal with terrorism. We need to deal with pedophiles and issues like that. But I talked to the vice president about it today and we had a good exchange about it. And, of course, he's right to champion free speech. We champion free speech in the United Kingdom.
Starmer is willing to regulate free speech
In the U.K., while the right to freedom of expression is secured under the Human Rights Act of 1998, successive U.K. governments have enshrined extra protections in legislation for certain groups against hate speech.
For example, the Public Order Act of 1986 made stirring up or expressing hatred on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation an offense. Offenses under the Public Order Act can be punished by fines and up to seven years' imprisonment.
Starmer, formerly the head of the Crown Prosecution Service that charges and prosecutes criminal cases in the U.K., has previously shown his willingness to use the Public Order Act of 1986 to regulate the right to freedom of expression.
Police arrested more than 400 people in September and August 2024 after an 18-year-old man killed three girls in Southport, in the north of England, and rumors that the suspect was an asylum-seeker resulted in days of riots and disorder.
Following the riots, the CPS convicted people who admitted to inciting racial hatred or violent disorder, both offenses under the Public Order Act.
The U.S. does not have hate speech laws like the ones in the U.K. due to the Constitution's First Amendment that protects freedom of speech. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a civil liberties group, the U.S. Supreme Court has "repeatedly rejected government attempts to prohibit or punish hate speech."
There was no indication, at the time of this writing, that the U.K. planned to roll back existing legislation on hate speech or internet content regulation. Likewise, according to officials from 10 Downing Street and the U.K. Department for Business and Trade, free speech in the U.K. was not a "material feature" of trade deal discussions.