Trump Calls Australia's Social Media Crackdown 'Extortion' — Here's What's Actually Going On
The Trump administration is gearing up to confront Australia over its plan to force digital platforms to remove harmful content and let users switch off algorithm-generated "for you" feeds. The White House has branded the proposed laws a form of "extortion" against American technology companies (The Guardian).
President Trump personally used the word "extortion" to describe Australia's social media crackdown. White House spokesperson Kush Desai issued a statement less than 24 hours after Australia's September 8 announcement, saying Trump had "unequivocally warned trading partners against imposing digital services taxes, fines, and other forms of extortion on America's leading technology sector" (SCMP; The Guardian). Desai said the administration would raise its concerns with "trading partners" generally.
This didn't come out of nowhere. The confrontation traces back to a Trump administration directive from February 2025, when the President signed a memorandum titled "Defending American Companies and Innovators From Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties." It directed actions against foreign digital services taxes and unfair fines on US companies (White House). That memo followed a January 2025 memorandum clarifying that the OECD Global Tax Deal — an international agreement on how multinational companies are taxed — has no force or effect in the United States (White House). The White House fact sheet accompanying the February memo noted that several trading partners had enacted digital services taxes from 2019 onward that could cost American companies billions (White House).
So what is Australia actually proposing? The centrepiece is a digital duty of care legislation, which includes an initiative called "My Feed, My Way." It would require platforms to protect children from harmful content related to eating disorders, misogyny, pornography, glorifying crime, abuse and cyberbullying, and to protect both adults and children from illegal material. Platforms would need to send users a pop-up letting them choose between a main feed with personalised content — the kind algorithms generate based on your behaviour — or one showing only content shared by people they're connected to. Australians over 16 would be able to opt in or out of social media algorithms entirely (The Guardian; Minister Wells media release).
The legislation would also give the communications minister the power to set new definitions for harmful content that platforms would be required to take down. Companies that fail to document measures taken to address risks of harm could face fines of up to A$109.2 million (US$79 million) for non-compliance (WSJ; Reuters).
Communications minister Anika Wells downplayed the White House statement as "broad" and said she had not directly received a warning from a US representative. "We're a sovereign nation," Wells said. "We have the right to defend Australian parents and kids" (The Guardian). Prime Minister Anthony Albanese defended Australia's national sovereignty in response to the White House warning (SCMP).
The proposal builds on rules already in place. Age-restricted social media platforms in Australia are already required to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from having accounts, following amendments to the relevant rules. The updated rules define "age-restricted social media platforms" as services with account-based recommender systems — that is, algorithms that suggest content based on user data (Infrastructure.gov.au).
Domestically, the bill is creating its own fault lines. The Coalition accused the Labor government of using the legislation to censor free speech. Nationals leader Matt Canavan zeroed in on the minister's power to define harmful content, arguing it could extend to political speech opposing the government. "I don't trust big tech, but I trust the Labor Party a lot less," Canavan said. Albanese called Canavan's comments "disingenuous" (The Guardian).
The Greens are pushing from the other direction, demanding the government make the connections-only feed the default and force users to actively opt in to personalised feeds. Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young called for higher fines pegged to companies' global revenue: "you need to hit them really where it hurts, and that's their revenue" (The Guardian).
Meta, Google and TikTok had not publicly commented on the proposed laws. Their lobby group, Digi, said the law's definitions of harmful content and its impact on user experience would be crucial. OpenAI said it planned to engage with the Australian government to ensure the laws were "protecting Australians while enabling them to benefit from AI." The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia asked the government to model the costs to small businesses and their visibility in feeds (The Guardian).
The broader context here is the collision of two currents that have been running on parallel tracks. Australia has been steadily building a regulatory perimeter around social media, from the under-16 age restrictions through to this duty-of-care regime. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has been telegraphing since January 2025 that it considers foreign fines on US tech companies to be a trade issue, not a domestic regulatory one. The February 2025 memorandum was not a vague signal; it was a directive to act. Wells saying she has not personally received a warning is technically accurate but somewhat beside the point. The White House statement was a shot across the bow of all "trading partners," and Canberra knows exactly which category it falls into.
The provision worth watching most closely is the ministerial discretion to define harmful content. It is simultaneously the most powerful element of the bill and the most politically exposed. The Coalition's censorship framing is predictable opposition rhetoric, but Canavan has identified a genuine design question: giving the communications minister the power to define what content platforms must remove is a significant delegation of authority, and the legislation's fate in the Senate may turn on whether crossbenchers share his suspicion or the Greens' enthusiasm for going further.
On the fines, the $109.2 million figure is substantial in absolute terms. Whether it amounts to a deterrent for companies the size of Meta or Google is a different question entirely, and one Hanson-Young is right to pose. Global-revenue-pegged penalties would change the calculus considerably, but there is no sign the government is moving in that direction.
