All-In

Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers on dismantling the "Censorship Industrial Complex"

with Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers
22 Jan 2026 45 min read 1h 23m
TL;DR

The UK and EU are aggressively regulating speech through vague laws like the Online Safety Act and Digital Services Act, arresting over 12,000 people in 2023 alone for speech that would be legal in the U.S.—and now fining American tech companies like X for upholding First Amendment principles. The U.S. is pushing back through sanctions and trade mechanisms, arguing these regulations are both censorious and effectively function as hidden tariffs on American platforms.

Key Moments
Sarah B. Rogers
“and which is their primary regulator. So, under the Online Safety Act, we now have um active litigation by the relevant regulator Ofcom against several American websites. These are websites that don't reach into the UK. They're not These aren't websites dedicated to discussing the Queen. They're not websites that sell goods in the United Kingdom. These are websites that exist on American soil, host large quantities of American users and in often in oftentimes discuss American political topics, but because users are permitted to discuss them in a way that offends UK law, there's the imposition of a UK fine.”
Rogers explains how UK regulators are extraterritorially enforcing speech laws against American websites that don't even target British audiences
▶ 4:40
Sarah B. Rogers
“So that was in a single year of slightly over 12,000 Brits arrested for speech acts. And that is more than more than were arrested that year in Russia. More than in China. More than in Turkey.”
Rogers highlights the shocking scale of UK speech arrests in 2023 alone, exceeding authoritarian regimes
▶ 11:45
Sarah B. Rogers
“There was a 31-month sentence handed down to a suburban mother named Lucy Connolly in the UK because after a man called Axel Rudabunga stabbed, I think it was a 7-year-old girl, an 8-year-old girl and a 9-year-old girl at a birthday party. There was ensuing unrest and she she tweeted something anti-migration. It was pretty inflammatory, but it would have been unambiguously legal in the United States. She said, "If this is what migration is going to do to our country." And I'm paraphrasing slightly, but I remember it pretty well. "If this is what migration means, then burn down the migrant hotels for all I care."”
Rogers details a specific case of disproportionate punishment for speech criticizing migration policy in the UK
▶ 14:24
David Sacks
“I mean, it's not a good trend. Um I think that the the purpose of censorship, like I mentioned before, is always to protect the people in power. And and specifically, it it insulates them from criticism. But it'd be a lot better for them to hear that criticism and adjust their policies than it would be to try and switch off the you know, the feedback altogether.”
Sacks reflects on the broader pattern of governments using censorship to shield themselves from accountability rather than adapt policy
▶ 20:26
Sarah B. Rogers
“I've referred to the DSA before as a censorship tariff because the cost of maintaining the censorship apparatus under the DSA is intentionally levied on specific companies, mostly American ones that are that are subject to higher and more intricate regulatory standards than other companies are.”
Rogers characterizes the EU's Digital Services Act as a de facto trade weapon disguised as regulation
▶ 19:18
About Sarah B. Rogers
›
Sarah B. Rogers is the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy in the Trump administration, overseeing U.S. government relations with foreign publics, digital information ecosystems, and soft power initiatives including educational and cultural diplomacy. Previously a litigator specializing in First Amendment issues, Rogers has become a vocal defender of free speech against what she terms the "censorship industrial complex" in Europe and the UK.
Takeaways
1
UK and EU speech laws jail more people than China The Online Safety Act and Digital Services Act create vague, overbroad prohibitions that chill speech through regulatory fear rather than explicit bans. In 2023 alone, the UK arrested over 12,000 people for speech offenses—exceeding arrests in Russia, China, and Turkey combined. These laws operate extraterritorially, fining American platforms for hosting content legal in the U.S. but offensive to European governments.
2
Regulation is being weaponized against migration criticism Speech prosecutions in the UK disproportionately target criticism of mass migration policy while actual child sexual offenders receive minimal sentences, fueling public perception of "two-tier policing." A 31-month sentence was handed to a mother who tweeted anti-migration sentiment after a child stabbing—speech that would be clearly protected in the U.S. This pattern suggests regulation is selectively enforced to suppress politically inconvenient speech.
3
DSA functions as hidden tariff on American tech The EU's Digital Services Act imposes compliance costs disproportionately on American platforms like X, creating regulatory complexity designed to raise revenue through fines rather than legitimate content moderation. This creates an opening for U.S. trade retaliation—if Europe treats speech regulation as a tariff mechanism, the Trump administration will respond with actual tariffs, escalating the tech-trade conflict.