In the ever-twisting saga of global free speech battles, the Trump administration has turned its gaze Down Under. With Australia's proposed race hate laws sparking domestic fury, a top US official has lobbed a diplomatic grenade, labelling the legislation "deeply perverse" and issuing a stark warning. This isn't just transatlantic trash-talk — it's a signal that the Albanese government might face real pushback from its closest ally. Drawing from Sarah Rogers' pointed critique, let's unpack the Trump team's response, why they're crying foul, and what actions Washington could plausibly take against Canberra.
The Trump Administration's Sharp Response: A Diplomatic Dressing-Down
President Trump's State Department didn't waste time mincing words on Australia's Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026. The salvo came from Sarah Rogers, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, who reports directly to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. In a series of posts and statements, Rogers tore into the bill, highlighting its potential to backfire spectacularly in the fight against extremism.
Her core gripe? The legislation's exemptions for quoting religious texts could create a loophole for radicals while slamming the door on everyday critics. As Rogers put it: "A statute that imprisons you for calling to deport jihadist extremists – but provides safe harbour if you are a jihadist extremist – would be deeply perverse. Let's hope this isn't what Australia intends." She doubled down on religious freedom concerns: "Religious freedom is a core value of our administration, but protecting speech only if it's religious, while arresting people for secular rejoinders, may distort the public sphere in ways that even progressive censorship enthusiasts dislike."
This isn't isolated sniping. The Trump admin has a track record of calling out allies on free speech erosions — think their blasts at the UK's online harms laws or Europe's digital services acts. By framing Australia's bill as a "clumsy effort to avoid the disgraces seen in Europe+UK," Rogers is drawing a line: where citizens get jailed for quoting the Bible or even silent prayer. It's a "chilling warning" that enforcement often favours "actual violent zealots" if they fit a certain narrative, per Rogers. In essence, the US sees this as a recipe for selective censorship, not security.
Why "Perverse"? Unpacking the Flaws in Australia's Bill
The "perverse" label isn't hyperbole — it's rooted in the bill's mechanics. Aimed at racial vilification post-Bondi attack, it slaps up to five years' jail for "promoting hatred" based on race, ethnicity, or origin, and 15 years for hate group involvement (banning outfits like neo-Nazis and Hizb ut-Tahrir). But here's the twist: exemptions for religious quotes could let extremists cloak incitement in scripture, while secular voices — say, a pundit calling for deporting radicals — get prosecuted.
Rogers nails it: This inverts justice, potentially shielding jihadists while punishing those exposing them. Broader critiques echo this, noting the bill skips Islamophobia or religious discrimination, focusing narrowly on race — yet vaguely enough to chill speech on migration, multiculturalism, or even accurate reporting of atrocities. It's "perverse" because it risks empowering the very hatred it claims to combat, distorting public debate and echoing Europe's free speech fiascos where enforcement is uneven and politically charged.
Trump's team views this through their "America First" lens: Free speech and religious liberty are non-negotiable. Rogers even flagged concerns over unequal protections, questioning if "white Aussies or Christians" are left out: "Still digging into this, but that's egregious if true." The perversity lies in the irony — a law born from antisemitism fears might inadvertently enable anti-Western extremism.
How Might the US Go into Action Against the Albanese Government?
While Rogers' comments stop short of explicit threats, the subtext screams escalation. The Trump administration isn't one for idle chatter; they've wielded diplomacy like a hammer on issues from trade to security. Here's how they could ramp up pressure on Albo's crew:
1.Diplomatic Freeze and Public Shaming: Expect more high-profile rebukes from Rubio or Trump himself, framing Australia as sliding toward authoritarianism. This could include congressional hearings or statements tying the bill to broader "woke censorship" narratives, embarrassing Canberra on the world stage and straining AUKUS alliances.
2.Religious Freedom Sanctions or Reviews: Under Trump's first term, the US ramped up the International Religious Freedom Act, sanctioning countries over persecution. If the bill's exemptions are seen as favouring one faith's radicals while sidelining Christians, Australia could face a "country of particular concern" watchlist — or worse, targeted visa restrictions on officials involved.
3.Trade and Security Leverage: The US-Australia Free Trade Agreement and defence pacts like ANZUS give Washington leverage. Subtle threats could include delaying tech transfers, scrutinising joint exercises, or linking aid to free speech reforms. Trump loves tariffs; a "free speech tariff" on Aussie exports isn't off the table if relations sour.
4.Amplifying Domestic Opposition: By echoing Aussie critics like the Free Speech Union or Coalition MPs, the US could boost internal resistance. Rogers' comments already align with warnings from figures like Anne Twomey about constitutional clashes. This soft power play could force amendments or a bill rethink.
5.Legal and NGO Mobilisation: Trump allies might fund challenges via groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, pushing High Court cases on implied freedoms. Or, US tech giants (influenced by Washington) could lobby against the bill's social media implications, fearing global precedents.
No concrete actions are outlined yet, but the "chilling warning" hints at monitoring: If the bill passes unamended, expect a formal demarche or bilateral talks turning frosty. Trump's playbook is predictable— criticise loudly, then act if ignored.
Wrapping Up: A Wake-Up Call for Down Under?
The Trump administration's takedown of Australia's hate speech bill underscores a growing transatlantic rift on liberty versus security. By dubbing it "perverse," they're not just opining, they're laying groundwork for intervention if Albo doesn't pivot. In a post-Bondi world, tackling hate is vital, but not at the expense of core freedoms. This could redefine US-Australia relations, pushing Canberra to balance ally expectations with domestic demands.