Pop quiz: Who did Donald Trump once praise by saying, “I also learned that he loves his country very much,” and “He wrote me beautiful letters. And they are great letters. We fell in love”?
If you guessed Nigel Farage, sorry—that’s wrong. The Reform UK leader may have spent the week before his party’s conference in his happy place—deep inside the U.S. president’s good graces—even asking U.S. lawmakers, “At what point did [the UK] become North Korea?” But those compliments from Trump were actually about Kim Jong-un, the dictator of… well, you know.
We always want what we can’t have, which is why Trump had to settle this week for Farage grinning blankly beside his Oval Office desk like a contest winner, while Kim laughed it up with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping at a massive military parade in Beijing that featured, among other bizarre displays, robot wolves. Good times. If you see China as America’s main rival, you can easily imagine a future Prime Minister Nigel casting the UK as the North Korea of the West. In a few years, Farage might be chuckling as robot coyotes march by at Washington’s own grand military parade.
But back to the present. Though Farage has to keep up his presidential access—use it or lose it!—he was in Washington mainly to criticize Britain, launch the U.S. branch of a TV network he works for (quite profitably and tax-efficiently), and plead for American help fighting what he calls “the really awful authoritarian situation the UK has sunk into” regarding free speech.
A quick note on that: The UK does have free speech issues and could use a serious rethink of its priorities—or at least some clarity. Consider those who agree with the new Green party leader that arresting someone over tweets is “proportionate,” yet also believe Palestine Action has done nothing wrong. Or take Farage himself, complaining about UK authoritarianism while his own team engages in blatant free-speech hypocrisy. More on that shortly. You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways—even if the last decade has taught many in politics that you can.
Still, no one plays both sides harder than Trump. No offense, but do we really need lectures on free speech from a country where his administration recently ordered the Smithsonian to review its museums and exhibits “in accordance with Executive Order 14253, Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”? They said this review was “to ensure alignment with the President’s directive”—meaning, to make museums say what he wants.
Do we really need advice from a country that threatens to defund universities for not teaching the way he prefers? From a country where the president constantly attacks the press and tries to weaken it? From a country whose leader openly admires dictators who crushed free speech in their own nations? From a country with book bans? I don’t think so.
Nigel would disagree, of course. He’d happily join in the hypocrisy. Just as Republicans would rather focus on European laws while their own First Amendment rights erode, Farage would rather jet off to Washington and be used as a pawn in partisan games than…Stay at home and get involved in a free-speech horror show he can definitely do something about. Now to Nottingham—not as flashy a power trip for Farage as Washington, but a town where his Reform party runs the council. Unfortunately, the council leader in Nottinghamshire, Reform’s Mick Barton, recently banned his councillors from speaking to the local press for scrutiny. Last week, Barton announced that due to a story about local government reorganization, none of his councillors could talk to the Nottingham Post, its online outlet Nottinghamshire Live, or a team of BBC-funded local journalists. This week, after backlash over his extreme stance against free speech, Barton backtracked and said the ban only applied to himself.
Following Farage’s appearance before a congressional committee, where he faced questions about his contradictions—including being asked, “Do you agree with yourself?”—Nigel has finally said he’ll “have a little chat” with Barton.
About time. Much easier than mustering the courage to “have a little chat” with Trump about his curious take on the First Amendment—or, for that matter, about deploying the national guard, staging military parades, encouraging insurgency, undermining elections, pardoning allies, and all the other things that give off strong “really awful authoritarian situation” vibes. Criticize Britain, and practically invite tariffs. Maybe Nigel loves his country as much as Kim does after all.
Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the topic framed in a natural tone with direct answers
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What is the Golden Rule being talked about here
Its a term critics use to describe a perceived double standard where figures like Trump and Farage claim their right to free speech allows them to say controversial or false things but they often react harshly or try to silence others who criticize them
2 Who are Trump and Farage
Donald Trump is a former US President and Nigel Farage is a British political commentator and former politician Both are known for their populist rhetoric and are strong advocates for what they call free speech often against what they see as cancel culture
3 What is their free speech crusade
Its their public campaign against what they perceive as censorship by woke media big tech companies and political opponents They argue that these groups silence conservative voices
4 What kind of nonsense do they talk about
This refers to statements that have been widely debunked such as misinformation about elections climate change or public health issues as well as inflammatory remarks about specific groups of people
5 Why cant I talk back What happens if I criticize them
Their supporters often launch intense online backlash including harassment and doxing The figures themselves may dismiss critics as haters fake news or part of a corrupt elite effectively discouraging dissent
AdvancedLevel Questions
6 Isnt free speech supposed to protect everyone equally
Yes in principle The criticism isnt about the legal right to free speech but about the hypocrisy of demanding it for oneself while frequently attempting to discredit intimidate or deplatform critics which chills free expression for others
7 How do they justify this double standard
They often frame themselves as victims of a powerful establishment Criticism against them is portrayed not as legitimate dissent but as an unfair attack or censorship by a biased system which they then use to justify their aggressive response
8 Can you give a concrete example of this happening
A common example is when a person or news organization factchecks a false claim made by them The response is often not to engage with the facts but to
