Sayer Ji
Nov 11, 2025
🇺🇸⚡Please read, share, and comment on the X post dedicated to this story: https://x.com/sayerjigmi/status/1988309401053040734?s=20
Breaking Story-at-a-glance
• Unprecedented Action: The Trump administration is preparing to revoke the U.S. visa of Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), marking the first time a foreign advocacy leader faces deportation over censorship activities targeting American citizens.
• Transatlantic Censorship Network: CCDH was co-founded by Morgan McSweeney, now chief of staff to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, revealing a direct line between British political operatives and efforts to deplatform American voices including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Elon Musk, and health freedom advocates like myself
• First Amendment Clash: The move represents a constitutional collision between America’s free speech protections and Britain’s newly empowered Online Safety Act, which UK regulators are using to pressure U.S. platforms to censor content that remains legal under the First Amendment.
• Personal Stakes: As one of the “Disinformation Dozen” targeted by CCDH’s 2021 deplatforming campaign, the author examines why this watershed moment signals a necessary pushback against unelected foreign actors serving as speech arbiters for American citizens.
The past few days brought a stunning development in the battle over online speech. Not only did the BBC’s top executives resign amid revelations that the broadcaster doctored footage of President Trump’s January 6 speech — an admission that has shaken confidence in Britain’s media establishment — but now the censorship complex behind that same network’s ideological allies faces a reckoning of its own.
The Trump administration is reportedly preparing to revoke the U.S. visa of Imran Ahmed, the chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Ahmed – a British citizen who runs the CCDH’s Washington, D.C. office – could soon be deported from the United States over his role in what the White House views as coordinated censorship. As someone who has been personally targeted by CCDH’s campaigns, I want to unpack what this breaking news means for free expression, digital rights, and political transparency.
CCDH vs. “Digital Hate”: Who Are the Targets?
For those unfamiliar, the CCDH is a UK/US-based advocacy group that claims to fight “digital hate” and “misinformation.” In practice, CCDH has often acted as a pro-censorship pressure group – seeking to deplatform voices it deems problematic. Over the past few years, it has put a bullseye on several high-profile figures:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – In 2021, CCDH infamously labeled RFK Jr. as one of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a list of 12 people it claimed should have their social media accounts removed for posting “anti-vaccine” content. (Notably, Mr. Kennedy now serves as the U.S. Health Secretary – a testament to how far his credibility has come despite such censorship attempts.)
Elon Musk – The group’s internal documents reportedly listed “kill Musk’s Twitter” as a top priority after Musk acquired Twitter (now X). CCDH published multiple reports accusing Musk of allowing hate speech to spread “like wildfire” on the platform, and they urged advertisers and regulators to pressure him. Musk even sued CCDH last year (though the case was dismissed) and blasted the group for “violating laws against foreign interference in US elections.”
Sayer Ji (yours truly) – For the record, CCDH’s 2021 report also singled me out as one of the “Disinformation Dozen,” accusing me of promoting health misinformation online. Imran Ahmed claimed I was "killing people” and that I “sell death.” This untrue and hateful rhetoric was used to lobby platforms to ban my website and social media presence. In other words, I have first-hand experience of CCDH’s tendency to conflate dissenting views with “disinformation” and to call for our silencing.
By draping itself in the banner of combating “hate” and “misinformation,” CCDH has gained influence in media and tech circles. But many free speech advocates see its efforts as an attempt to police lawful speech and delegitimize opposing perspectives. That context is crucial to understanding why the U.S. government’s new move against CCDH’s leader is so significant. You can learn more about the years of persecution I have experienced by reading my first tell-all article on the topic I released on May 5th, below.
Four Years of Lawfare and Black Ops: The Silence Ends Here
[IMPORTANT NOTICE: On May 28, 2025, it was brought to my attention that this article—originally published on May 5, 2025—was entered into an active UK criminal proceeding by a private multinational law firm without my knowledge, consent, or participation. My constitutionally protected journalistic speech, written on American soil, was recontextualized a…
Trump Administration Strikes Back at Censorship
According to a breaking report in The Telegraph titled “Trump to deport boss of Starmer-linked charity,” the White House is poised to revoke Imran Ahmed’s visa, taking aim at the very person spearheading CCDH’s deplatforming campaigns. U.S. officials have placed Ahmed “at the top of the list” of figures to be considered for visa cancellation, after growing alarm over his charity’s role in pushing for restrictions on Americans’ online content.
The Telegraph reports that the intention is to “send a message” – an unnamed source said the administration is “not having it” when it comes to foreign actors coercing Big Tech to censor U.S. citizens. This would be a remarkable step: essentially expelling the head of a British-founded organization because of its censorship lobbying. It reflects a broader assertiveness by President Trump in defending free speech.
The Spectator – in an analysis piece aptly titled “Trump takes on the British disinformation complex” – put it bluntly that President Trump is “waging war on the great British disinformation complex.” In other words, the administration is no longer treating groups like CCDH as benign do-gooders; it views them as hostile meddlers in the democratic discourse. (The same piece ran in The Spectator Australia as well, underscoring the global interest in this transatlantic censorship showdown.)
It’s worth noting that this wouldn’t be the first time Trump’s team has used immigration law to counter foreign influence in U.S. debates. As The Telegraph highlights, there is precedent for booting or barring foreign nationals over speech-related issues – for example, a British activist had his visa revoked recently after online posts praising terrorism. In the case of Imran Ahmed, the rationale is clear: his organization’s actions are seen as an affront to American free speech rights.
One U.S. official candidly described Ahmed’s potential visa revocation as part of a campaign to “step up pressure” on those who attempt to silence Americans from abroad. In fact, a White House insider framed Trump’s move as the “latest example” of clamping down on British nationals “complicit in censoring American citizens.” This is strong language, signaling that what Ahmed and CCDH have been doing – pressuring platforms to ban users like RFK Jr., Elon Musk, and others – is viewed as a direct attack on Americans’ First Amendment values.
Censorship’s Political Web: From London to Washington
Why is a British charity like CCDH wielding such power over U.S. social media in the first place? The answer lies in a tangled web of political influence that spans the Atlantic.
It turns out CCDH was co-founded by Morgan McSweeney, a veteran Labour Party operative who is now chief of staff to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. McSweeney is considered “one of the most, if not the most, influential figures on the British left,” according to The Spectator.He helped launch CCDH in 2018, then moved on to lead Starmer’s team – but not before embedding a censorship-focused agenda that would echo from London to California.
Under the Labour government, Britain recently passed the sweeping Online Safety Act, a law that empowers regulators to police online content in the name of safety. CCDH proudly claimed it was “instrumental in passing” that law. This should raise eyebrows: a supposedly independent “digital hate” watchdog boasting about helping craft government legislation. The transatlantic link is now undeniable – the same network that influenced UK internet policy has been lobbying for censorship on U.S. platforms.
Most notably, CCDH’s founder was caught stating that a “black ops” campaign was being carried out against U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — an extraordinary revelation that, if verified, would represent not only a foreign interference effort but a potential violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which prohibits covert actions by foreign entities aimed at influencing another nation’s internal affairs. This disclosure underscores how deeply enmeshed the censorship industry has become with international political operations, blurring the line between “countering disinformation” and engaging in transnational psyops.
The clash comes because America’s constitutional values around speech are very different from Britain’s approach. U.S. officials – on both sides of the aisle – have expressed alarm that the UK’s Online Safety Act imposes state censorship that would never fly under the First Amendment. The White House has openly warned that the law “dangerously and undemocratically stifles dissent” and has emboldened the UK’s tech regulator (Ofcom) to pressure American companies.
Just last month, for example, Ofcom fined the message board 4chan £20,000 under this new law, over content that was legal in the U.S. In effect, British authorities now claim the power to punish U.S.-based platforms for allowing Americans to exercise their free-speech rights. Where have we seen this before? – ask critics, pointing out the irony that the same voices who decried “foreign interference” in elections are now silent when a foreign government tries to dictate Americans’ online speech standards.
From Washington’s perspective, groups like CCDH are an arm of this broader British censorship regime. Imran Ahmed may present himself as a truth-teller fighting “hate,” but his organization’s activities align neatly with a political agenda: one that was incubated by a top Starmer aide and enshrined in UK law. That explains why Trump’s administration is responding in such dramatic fashion. The U.S. government is effectively saying enough – that it will not sit quietly while a UK-based network exports its censorship crusade onto American soil.
Why This Matters – My Perspective on Free Speech & Digital Rights
This moment is personal for me. As someone labeled and blacklisted by CCDH’s reports, I see the potential revocation of Imran Ahmed’s visa as a watershed moment. It’s a bold affirmation that freedom of speech is worth defending across borders.
For years, a handful of organizations (CCDH chief among them) have acted as unelected arbiters of truth, pressuring Big Tech and governments to erase voices they disagree with. They operated with little transparency, often under an altruistic banner that obscured their political ties. Now, the curtain is being pulled back.
If the Trump administration follows through, it sends a powerful message: censorship is not without consequences. Free societies have to draw a line when private “fact-checkers” and partisan NGOs collude to suppress legitimate debate. The fact that a foreign activist could quietly exert so much influence over who gets to speak online in America should concern everyone who cares about digital rights. It took a drastic step like this to finally spark a public conversation about that influence.
We are learning, for instance, that CCDH’s founder sits at the right hand of the UK Prime Minister – something CCDH’s press releases rarely mentioned. Such revelations point to a dire need for greater political transparency in the realm of content moderation: citizens deserve to know who is orchestrating the cries of “misinformation” and why.
I believe in healthy debate and the contest of ideas. Yes, genuine hate speech and dangerous falsehoods exist – but who decides what constitutes “digital hate”? Should it be a shadowy UK-based group with political patrons, or should it be We the People through open discourse and democratic processes? I, for one, side with the latter.
This transatlantic showdown highlights that free speech is a fundamental right that needs vigilant protection, especially in the digital era. It’s heartening to see policymakers push back against the silencers. But it’s also a reminder that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance – we must ensure that in protecting people from harm, we don’t empower authorities (or NGOs) to become speech police.
Our White House Moment for Restoring Justice
On May 22nd, 2025, I was invited to the White House for the Make America Healthy Again initiative—a profound reversal, given that same office orchestrated my defamation and deplatforming just years earlier under the Biden Administration through figures like Vivek Murthy, Imran Ahmed, and President Biden.
Call to Action
If you value free expression and truth, I encourage you to subscribe to this Substack, share this article, and join me in advocating for free speech and digital rights globally. The fight is far from over, but together, we can hold the line against censorship and ensure that the future of open debate remains bright.
This isn’t over—it’s just beginning. Imran Ahmed sits as a defendant in our federal civil rights lawsuit, but he’s merely one piece of a vast censorship machine we’re dismantling in court. We’re going after everyone: CCDH, the government officials who colluded with them, the agencies that turned American citizens into targets, and every institution that conspired to silence dissent. This lawsuit will restore the Constitution to its rightful place as the supreme law of our land. It will establish precedent that protects future generations from government-sponsored censorship. This is our 1776 moment for digital rights. Stand with us. Fund this fight. Share our story. The Republic needs you now.
🔥 🔥 On Trial for TRUTH: Replay of Live Conversation with the Trusted Twelve
They called them the “Disinformation Dozen” and tried to erase them from the internet.
References
“Trump to Expel Boss of Labour-Linked Charity,” The Telegraph, November 11, 2025, accessed November 11, 2025.
“Trump takes on the British disinformation complex.” The Spectator, accessed November 10, 2025
“Sayer Ji,” Wikipedia, accessed November 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayer_Ji.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario