UK journalists and NGOs risk terrorism prosecutions under new security bill

New national security legislation being rushed through the UK’s parliament could criminalise British foreign correspondents and NGO workers engaging with designated state-backed groups, experts warn.

The National Security (State Threats) Bill, which is moving through its final stages in parliament this week, hands the UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood sweeping powers to designate as a threat any state-backed organisation deemed to be prejudicial to the UK’s “safety and interests”.

Independent reviewers of terrorism legislation have warned that the bill’s vague wording risks criminalising journalists and NGO workers engaging with a designated organisation and could lead to them incurring sentences of up to 14 years.

The legislation criminalises people who “support, assist and obtain material benefits” – including information – from groups deemed to be terrorist organisations.

The bill makes it a criminal offence to “obtain, accept, and retain” a material benefit or even to “agree to accept it”.  It stipuates that there is no “reasonable excuse” defence for these offences.

The Home Office has insisted that the bill will not target journalists, but critics have pointed out that protections for reporters are not explicit.

No journalistic safeguards

David Anderson, a former UK independent reviewer of terrorism, said that the legislation could see foreign correspondents prosecuted for terrorism, as it does not contain any safeguards for journalists.

According to the Guardian, he highlighted that “mooted safeguards for NGOs and journalists are largely absent from its text”.

“Foreign correspondents could also be affected. Indeed on the face of it, they would be at risk of prosecution if they were to have contact of any kind with sources within designated bodies or their agents,” Anderson said.

Ministers have argued that only information which “possesses an inherent value that enriches the recipient” is prohibited under the legislation, but Anderson pointed out that the bill’s definition of a “material benefit” categorises “information” as distinct from the financial benefit clause.

The government also rejected a recommendation by Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, that the “reasonable excuse” provision should be extended to cover information.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “This bill does nothing to undermine the vital work journalists do, and any suggestion otherwise is absolutely false. Legitimate activity including journalistic freedoms are protected under the bill, as well as diplomatic and humanitarian engagement.

“We have a proud tradition in this country of upholding the freedom of the press. Indeed, it is our obligation to ensure journalists are empowered to carry out their work.”

Vague definitions

Critics have also warned that the bill’s vaguely worded definitions of “foreign power threat activity” and “expressing support” could be weaponised to further constrain the right to protest, pointing to the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through parliament as cause for particular alarm.

‘A fantasy’: How the Palestine Action ruling whitewashed the history of civil disobedience

Read More »

MP Jeremy Corbyn said in a statement on 17 June that the bill constitutes “an alarming expansion of state power, and an escalation of the government’s chilling assault on the right to protest”.

He added that the legislation was “deliberately vague and open-ended”, enabling the home secretary to “criminalise political campaigns of their choosing”.

Corbyn pointed to the arrests of over 100 people under terrorism legislation for holding placards in support of the proscribed direct action group Palestine Action.

More than 3,00o people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act for expressing support for the banned group since the proscription was introduced in July 2025.

Earlier this month, five judges overturned a high court’s ruling in February that found the proscription to be unlawful.