Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has announced a significant shift in government communication strategy by declaring that both she and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) will cease all activity on X, the social media platform owned by billionaire Elon Musk. In a pointed final message, Nandy criticized the site for evolving from a space intended for free expression into an environment that actively promotes abuse and misinformation. She emphasized that the platform is no longer “healthy for our democracy or our communities,” and noted that she intends to focus her digital engagement on alternative platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
Nandy’s departure marks the second instance of a government department formally distancing itself from the platform, following a similar move by the Attorney General’s Office last month. Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, had previously spearheaded this boycott, publicly denouncing the site as a space that “constantly descends to racism and misogyny.” During a hearing with the Justice Committee, Lord Hermer defended his decision to pull his department from X, arguing that meaningful, respectful, and detailed public discourse cannot function in an environment plagued by hate speech. He maintained that his office could operate effectively without participating in the toxic dynamic of the platform.
The decision reflects a growing frostiness between the UK government and Elon Musk, who has frequently clashed with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. During the wave of violent civil unrest that gripped the UK earlier this year—sparked by inflammatory online rhetoric regarding the death of student Henry Nowak and various stabbing attacks—the Prime Minister accused Musk of attempting to “whip up division” from abroad. Government officials have expressed deep concern over how posts by high-profile figures, including Musk and far-right activists like Tommy Robinson, have been used to mobilize street rioting and exacerbate social tensions across the country.
While Lord Hermer admitted that some government departments might feel compelled to remain on X to counter disinformation and engage directly with the public, he stressed that his own department’s mission did not require such exposure. The government is clearly weighing the necessity of reaching audiences on large-scale platforms against the reputational and democratic risks posed by the prevalence of extremist content. For Nandy and Hermer, the refusal to lend institutional legitimacy to X via official activity has become a principled stance against the platform’s current moderation policies and its influence on the national political climate.
This withdrawal occurs against the backdrop of broader legislative efforts by the Starmer administration to clamp down on the negative impacts of social media. The Prime Minister has already unveiled plans for a potential ban on social media access for under-16s, framing the move as a way to “give youngsters back their childhood.” This initiative has already faced scrutiny, however; the US embassy in London recently issued a response to the government’s consultation, expressing a preference for “narrowly targeted requirements” rather than broad, sweeping bans on access, particularly when it might restrict legitimate political speech.
The tension highlights a complex challenge for Westminster: balancing the need for safe digital spaces in an era of rampant online misinformation with the desire to preserve open communication. As the administration continues to evaluate its digital footprint, the exodus of cabinet-level departments from X suggests that the government is increasingly prioritizing the moderation and health of public discourse over the convenience of broad digital reach. Whether more departments will follow in Nandy’s footsteps remains to be seen, but the trend indicates a hardening stance against platforms that are perceived as facilitators of systemic divisiveness.
