When centrist candidate Rafal Trzaskowski lost the presidential elections in Poland last Sunday by only two percentage points, he was defeated not only by conservative Karol Nawrocki, but also by the Republican Party of the United States and the Government of Donald Trump.
The US's position in the Polish presidential campaign in favor of Nawrocki, a nationalist who rejects much of the EU's policies, has been unprecedented in the history of European democracies' elections. A clear example is the US Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, known for appearing armed in photos as if going to war. At an event in Poland last week, Noem stated that Trzaskowski "is useless" and informed the Poles that if Nawrocki was elected, they would be "blessed with the friendship of President Donald Trump."
Meanwhile, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States, Republican Brian Mast, sent a letter to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, accusing her of not taking action against a Facebook campaign (which, as usual, has denied any responsibility) that allegedly favored Trzaskowski, and of refraining from sanctioning the Polish electoral authorities against PiS (Law and Justice Party, to which Nawrocki belongs).
The case of Poland is just one more interference by the Trump administration in Europe's internal politics, especially in defense of the far-right, the Hungarian government, candidates opposing the EU, and groups opposing abortion in the United Kingdom, a country where, according to Washington, there is no freedom of expression.
These positions contradict the proclamations of the US President in his first and second terms, where he had promised to let countries choose their own systems of government and to abandon traditional US policies in defense of democracy and human rights in favor of a non-interference policy in countries' internal affairs. The pressure is particularly visible with the closest US ally in Europe, the United Kingdom, where, according to the conservative newspaper Daily Telegraph, these actions reveal "the growing interest of the United States in intervening in the internal affairs" of that country. In several cases, the disagreements between the two allies have names and surnames.
But in some cases, criticisms of the European concept of freedom of expression also come from within. In the UK itself, an active debate is unfolding among those who believe that monitoring people's activity on social media by law enforcement is excessive. The argument used for this is reduced to a figure: between June 2023 and June 2024, about 12,000 citizens of that country were arrested for posting online messages considered offensive, inciting hatred, or calling for violence.
For some, this is an inevitable problem in a multicultural and multi-religious society, such as the British one, especially in London, a city of 9.2 million inhabitants where 41% of the population (approximately 3.7 million people) were not born in the UK. This is the case for the literary supplement director of the conservative British newspaper 'The Times', Martin Evens, who has written as a guest columnist for the news agency 'Bloomberg' that "the desire to promote social harmony and protect minorities has been put ahead of freedom of expression."
For others, it is a concession to 'political correctness', reflected in the decision of the audiovisual content regulator Ofcom to create such strict rules that in practice, they prohibit the broadcast of classic comedies - and very 'thick brush' - from British television in the 1970s, such as Carry On Laughing or Please Sir!
And finally, there are those who believe it is mainly hysteria from the authorities. Be that as it may, the debate remains open about whether, for example, posting a photo on social media making a tasteless joke about the 2017 Manchester attack where an Islamist killed 22 teenagers at a concert by American singer Ariana Grande is a crime or just a display of foolishness.
Additionally, there is simply the citizens' bad blood, like when the management of a public school in Borehamwood, a town an hour north of London, reported to the police a heated argument in WhatsApp groups between a student's parents and the school. The argument ended with the police questioning the parents for eight hours, an action that, according to the authorities themselves, should not have been carried out because the school had no grounds for the report. However, the incident is governed by British regulations on the right to freedom of expression, which are increasingly relevant as online communications proliferate.
There are two more elements. One is the 'non-hate crime', created in the UK after the murder of 18-year-old black youth Stephen Lawrence in 1999. The crime led the British police to have a record of all kinds of racist incidents, including those that could not be considered criminal in any way. Thus, the country's law enforcement has a database that includes "any criminal offense perceived by the victim or another person as motivated by hostility or prejudice against someone based on a characteristic [of that person]." This information is confidential, but employers can access it when hiring for elderly care, teaching, childcare, and other activities considered "sensitive." For its critics, it only inflates the number of allegedly 'racist' cases.
The other factor is politicization. The Conservative Party has become one of the biggest critics of these rules, despite the fact that they were mostly established and implemented by their prime ministers between 2010 and 2024. This is compounded by the attitude of some media outlets, especially the 'ultra' TV channel GB News. In fact, in his article on 'Bloomberg', Evens used the definition of 'non-hate crime' as if it were a 'hate crime', even though the former, which is much broader, is not codified in any law but only in police ordinances.
A recent example of this situation was the case of Turkish-Armenian refugee Hamit Coskun, who was arrested on February 25 for burning a Quran in front of the Turkish consulate in London while shouting slogans like "Screw Islam," "Islam is the religion of terrorism," and "99% of terrorists are Muslims." Coskun, who identifies as an atheist, was fined £336 (¤399) on Monday. His supporters argue that the sentence effectively reinstates blasphemy laws, which were in force in Scotland - though not in England, where the Quran burning took place - until last year. Coskun, for his part, says he will do it again, which threatens to become a headache not for the British police but for the Foreign Ministry, given Turkey's hypersensitivity to acts against the Quran.
So, when Washington intervenes, a portion of the British public opinion, media, and political class share their concerns. These concerns are leading the US to take action: it is "monitoring" - as confirmed by the UK Foreign Ministry to EL MUNDO - the case of Lucy Connolly, a woman sentenced to jail for posting a message on the social network X - which she later deleted and apologized for - urging people to set fire to immigrant reception centers. The Trump administration has also sent a team of five diplomats to the UK to meet with anti-abortion activists over the alleged limitation of their freedom of expression by not being able to protest near abortion clinics.
These actions are being carried out by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) of the State Department, indicating the depth of the disagreements between the US and Europe. It would have been unimaginable until now for Washington to disagree with European human rights policies.
Connolly, 42, was sentenced to 31 months in prison last summer for inciting racial hatred by posting a message on X (formerly known as Twitter) calling for "mass deportations now, set fire to all the damn hotels full of bastards [referring to asylum seekers]. If that makes me racist, so be it."
Connally published that text in response to the stabbing murder, on the same day, of three girls aged six, seven, and nine by a 17-year-old Welshman, Axel Rudakubana. Initially, there was a rumor on social media that Rudakubana was an immigrant, triggering a wave of riots and attacks on immigrants. When the true identity of the killer was revealed, Connally deleted the post and apologized. But it was too late. She was sentenced to 31 months in prison for inciting racial hatred. Last month, the judges rejected her appeal.
Another person who has sparked controversy between the US and the UK is Livia Tossici-Bolt, 64, who had been arrested twice in 2023 for standing in front of an abortion clinic with a small sign that read "I am ready to talk if you want." Although the sign had no reference to abortion, Livia Tossici-Bolt violated the ban on protesting against abortion within 150 meters of abortion clinics. The rule, established by the conservative government of Rishi Sunak in 2023, imposes fines on offenders. Just a month ago, however, the court decided to suspend Tossici-Bolt's sentence for two years, provided she does not commit further crimes, although she insists she will do it again, and she was ordered to pay £20,000 (almost ¤24,000) in legal costs.
In Tossici-Bolt's case, there are indications that the Trump administration has tried to influence the actions of the British judiciary. Just five days before the anti-abortion activist was sentenced, the US State Department issued an unusual statement on the social network X (formerly known as Twitter) stating that "as Vice President JD Vance has stated, we are concerned about freedom of speech in the UK."
In the X thread, the State Department explains that the senior advisor of the DRL, Sam Samson, met with Tossici-Bolt in what, again, is a surprising practice among allies. Last week, Samson, in his capacity as an advisor to the State Department, published an article on the State Department's Substack page titled 'The Need for Civilizing Allies in Europe,' implying that most countries on the continent are not 'civilizing' as they "have turned political institutions into weapons against their own citizens."
Samson cites Hungary as an exception - and a model - stating that it is a "Christian nation" unfairly labeled as authoritarian and human rights violator. On his LinkedIn professional page, Samson presents himself as a conservative Catholic, a former researcher at the Thomist Institute dedicated to spreading the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, and at American Moment, a conservative non-profit organization whose advisors include US Vice President JD Vance, which in February organized an event to promote the idea that "the role of the State is not to cultivate civility, but the Gospel."
The criticisms of the State Department advisor mirror, point by point, those made by Vance in his February speech at the Munich Security Conference. He refers to the potential banning of the far-right German party Alternative for Germany (AfD) as a "restriction of elections," and the disqualification of the French far-right leader, Marine Le Pen, from running for President of France after her recent conviction for embezzlement. When writing about Le Pen, Samson goes against the teachings of Saint Thomas and blatantly lies, stating that the French far-right leader has been "prosecuted" when she has actually been sentenced to four years in prison.