The White House has formally urged the UK government not to impose a social media ban for children under 16, warning that such restrictions would place a “disproportionate” burden on American technology companies. In a submission to a UK consultation on online safety, the US government argued against “prescribed one-size-fits-all government restrictions” and “blunt regulatory instruments” to address online harms to minors.
The notice, published by the US embassy in London, also dismissed the effectiveness of age-gating for 13- to 16-year-olds, stating that “technical methods developed to distinguish minors from adults cannot simply be repurposed for younger thresholds.” Instead, the Trump administration called for empowering parents with “robust tools” to manage privacy settings and account controls, and requiring platforms to promote healthy online experiences “rather than outright bans.”
The UK’s approach to online safety has been a source of transatlantic tension, with the Online Safety Act drawing criticism from US officials over free speech concerns. Vice-President JD Vance has claimed free speech in the UK is “in retreat,” while a senior Republican congressman labelled the act the “UK’s online censorship law.”
Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to announce a ban on “harmful” social media apps next week, alongside measures such as blocking conversations with strangers on gaming platforms and limiting AI chatbot use. While specific apps remain unnamed, exemptions for educational platforms like YouTube Kids are reportedly under consideration. The move follows Australia’s blanket ban on under-16s accessing platforms such as TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat.
The White House expressed concern that the UK and EU are targeting US tech firms. The embassy notice stated: “We have concerns about regulations that impose disproportionate compliance burdens on American companies or that apply to one platform but not similar services.” A UK government spokesperson said ministers are determined to act quickly but in a way that is “effective, enforceable, and genuinely keeps children safe,” though they are mindful of the risk of judicial review.
