British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer keeps saying that Britain is open for business. The issue is that the type of business the UK needs requires engaging with President Donald Trump—and he’s not buying what Starmer’s selling. Not while British laws treat tweets as serious crimes and taxes as political weapons.

The Promise of a U.S.–UK Free Trade Deal

The prize, elusive since the Brexit vote, is back on the table—and for the first time with real momentum. When Trump visited Britain as president in 2019, he touted the prospect of a “phenomenal” trade deal. Negotiations opened the following year but were mothballed under President Joe Biden. Now, with Trump back in the White House and his vice president J.D. Vance articulating a coherent and assertive agenda, talks are gaining pace. Starmer, eager to show that Brexit Britain remains commercially and diplomatically relevant, has signalled his enthusiasm.

British Ambassador to the U.S., Lord Peter Mandelson, has been quietly doing the heavy lifting in Washington. Drawing on his deep knowledge of trade negotiations, Mandelson has been working to align both governments on key issues, such as regulatory alignment and market access for British industries. His strategic engagement with U.S. policymakers has helped to overcome some of the diplomatic hurdles that typically stall such high-level talks. Mandelson has been focused on ensuring that a future U.S.–UK agreement reflects not only economic considerations but also the growing tensions in the “special relationship.”

Momentum makes sense. As geopolitical fragmentation accelerates and the multilateral trading system stalls, a bilateral U.S.–UK free trade agreement offers a promising prospect for two advanced economies seeking to reinforce supply chain security, regulatory interoperability, and capital market depth. Given the sophisticated and cutting-edge nature of both economies, a U.S.–UK free trade agreement would establish a high-standard framework aligned with their regulatory maturity and sectoral advantages. Tariff removal would enhance UK export competitiveness and reduce U.S. policy risk.

The Financial Sector Advantage

The real advantage lies in the financial sector. Deeper alignment in services would support mutual recognition of regulatory frameworks, facilitating dual listings, reducing capital charges on cross-border exposures, and enabling efficient use of client assets through compatible custody regimes. Harmonized rules on central clearing, margin requirements, and cross-border netting would improve liquidity conditions and reduce collateral fragmentation. This would enhance the UK’s access to U.S. institutional capital and preserve London’s status as a primary offshore dollar hub—an asset that may prove increasingly critical for the U.S. due to rising geopolitical tensions and efforts toward de-dollarization.

Digital Trade and Data Flow Security

The U.S. and the UK stand as two of the most advanced digital ecosystems globally, driving innovation across sectors such as fintech, artificial intelligence, and cloud computing. Their combined technological prowess offers a unique opportunity for deep collaboration. A digital trade chapter within a U.S.–UK free trade agreement would not only secure cross-border data flows but also establish robust standards for emerging technologies. This would build on successful precedents set by the UK’s FTAs with Singapore and Japan, where issues of data protection, privacy, and e-commerce were addressed in ways that promote innovation while safeguarding consumer rights. By harmonizing digital regulations, both nations could set a global benchmark, enabling faster adoption of cutting-edge technologies, and streamlining cross-border business operations.

Signs of a UK Illiberal Drift

But the Americans are no longer in the business of freebies. Beneath the surface of these economic negotiations lies a deeper issue that could complicate the path to a free trade agreement: the growing concerns over the UK’s approach to free speech and digital regulation.

Vance, a former venture capitalist and bestselling author of Hillbilly Elegy, is no stranger to cultural combat. As vice president, he gives intellectual shape to Trump’s instincts—particularly on trade and speech. In recent interviews with The Independent and UnHeard, Vance was blunt. For a deal to happen, the UK would need to rethink its censorious digital regulations. The vice president pointed squarely at the Online Safety Act, a sprawling piece of legislation that deputises tech firms into moral guardianship and grants Ofcom sweeping powers to police content. Nominally aimed at illegal material and child safety, the Act also targets “lawful but harmful” content—a category so vague it might include satire, criticism, or impoliteness. Fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global revenue await those who fall foul.

And that is not the only irritant. The UK’s digital services tax, set at 2% of revenues from large tech firms, overwhelmingly hits American companies. To Washington, it looks like a tariff in all but name. Combine that with the UK’s regulatory creep and the picture darkens. In the United States, where the First Amendment is sacrosanct, the British obsession with policing speech appears not just quaint but dangerous.

Vance also pointed to broader signs of Britain’s illiberal drift. He cited recent arrests for silent prayer outside abortion clinics, made legal under the new Public Order Act. He mentioned Labour’s enthusiasm for forcing employers to prevent “third-party harassment,” a plan that would make landlords, pub owners, and churches liable for what their patrons or congregants say. This, from the country that once gave the world Mill and Orwell. Meanwhile, social media censorship has intensified, with police warning users about potentially offensive tweets and even visiting homes to “advise” people on their posts. A recent report from the Free Speech Union highlighted the growing use of non-crime hate incidents to flag online speech, a practice that critics say bypasses legal norms.

The UK also faces a two-tier approach to policing and sentencing. Cases involving pro-Palestinian protesters, for example, have frequently seen leniency where comparable behaviour by right-leaning activists was swiftly penalised. In high-profile instances, activists defacing war memorials were treated more gently than Christian preachers reading from scripture. To American conservatives, this smacks of ideological bias backed by state power.

The Path Forward: Free Trade or Further Division?

To President Trump and Vice President Vance, the logic of a free trade agreement is straightforward. America is in the early stages of a strategic decoupling from China. The EU, for its part, has chosen regulatory protectionism over competition. Against that backdrop, the UK could serve as a vital ally and market. A free trade agreement would solidify a geopolitical partnership, expand access to American goods and services, and offer British firms a lifeline out of stagnation.

But to get there, Britain must stop behaving like a self-important prefect obsessed with rules. Trade is not theology. If Starmer wants a deal, he will have to temper Labour’s instinct to legislate every social ill into submission.

Free speech, in this case, is more than a slogan—it’s a precondition. And if Starmer thinks the Americans will trade access for the privilege of being lectured, he’s been listening to the wrong special advisers. Vice President Vance has made the terms plain. The question now is whether Downing Street can hear them over the din of its own regulations.

Bepi Pezzulli is a Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales specializing in Governance as well as a Councillor of the Great British PAC. He tweets at @bepipezzulli

Image: Number 10, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons, unaltered.

Source link