National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 explained

If you have seen ministers celebrating the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 and wondered what actually changed on 8 July, the short answer is this: the UK has created a new way to label organisations linked to hostile foreign states and then make it a crime to support, help or profit from them. The Act received Royal Assent on 8 July 2026 after being introduced to Parliament on 9 June, with ministers saying it needed to move quickly after recent antisemitic attacks. (hansard.parliament.uk) The Home Office says the law is meant to close a gap in the UK’s defences against proxy groups used by foreign states. In official examples, that could mean attacks on communities, the targeting of dissidents on UK soil, cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, or other hostile acts carried out by bodies that give a foreign state some distance and deniability. (gov.uk)

**What ‘designation’ means:** this Act gives the Home Secretary power to designate a body if she reasonably believes it is, or has been, involved in foreign power threat activity and thinks designation is necessary to protect the UK’s safety or interests. Once designated, that body is listed in a schedule to the National Security Act 2023, and the Home Secretary can also list alternative names or aliases. (gov.uk) That is why people keep comparing the new power to terrorist proscription. Parliament’s own briefings say it is the state-threat version of that idea: a formal public naming process that can then trigger criminal offences for support or assistance. It is not exactly the same as sanctions, though. The Home Office says a sanctioned entity is not automatically covered unless it is also formally designated under this Act. (commonslibrary.parliament.uk)

**What becomes illegal:** the Act creates offences for supporting a designated body, assisting it, or obtaining a material benefit from it, with maximum penalties of up to 14 years in prison and/or a fine. The Act also came into force on the day it was passed, so these powers are already live rather than waiting for a later start date. (gov.uk) One bit of small print matters here. Support is not described simply as saying something favourable about a group. The Constitution Committee noted that the offence is tied to a prohibited purpose that a person knows, or ought reasonably to know, would harm the safety or interests of the UK. That still leaves wide room for argument about where advocacy, discussion and criminal support begin and end. (publications.parliament.uk)

The government argues that this is not a made-up threat. In its factsheet, the Home Office said MI5 had reported a 35% rise in state threat activity in 2025 and had tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots over the same period. Officials say the threat can include espionage, sabotage, political interference, arson and physical violence inside the UK. (gov.uk) This new Act sits on top of the National Security Act 2023 rather than replacing it. The Home Office points to earlier convictions under the 2023 law, including Dylan Earl and Jake Reeves over an east London warehouse arson attack, and Peter Wai and Chung Biu Yuen over the targeting of Hong Kongers in the UK. In other words, ministers are arguing that the older law was useful, but not strong enough when states work through proxies instead of acting openly. (gov.uk)

**What this means for journalists, aid workers and diplomats:** this is where the debate became more serious than a standard government announcement might suggest. The Home Office says the Act was drafted to respect freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights, and that journalistic freedoms, diplomatic engagement and humanitarian work are protected through defences built into the offences. (gov.uk) That protection was tightened during the Bill’s final stages. On 6 July, ministers backed Lords amendments adding a specific defence for legitimate humanitarian activity and a reasonable excuse defence for receiving information from a designated body. In Hansard, the government gave examples such as a journalist carrying out an interview or a charity receiving information about the location of landmines. (hansard.parliament.uk)

Still, not everyone was satisfied. The House of Lords Constitution Committee warned that urgent designations could, in some cases, take effect before Parliament has approved them, and said that is constitutionally undesirable except in the most exceptional circumstances. The committee also said the new support offences are cast in broad terms and asked Parliament to consider wider protections, including a stronger no-reasonable-cause defence and a public interest defence. (publications.parliament.uk) That matters because national security law does not stay in legal textbooks. It shapes what police investigate, what prosecutors test in court, what reporters feel safe asking, and what communities fear may be used too loosely. A law can be a response to a real threat and still raise real civil liberties concerns; those two things can both be true at once. (publications.parliament.uk)

**What to watch now:** the Act creates the power, but individual designations will still need to be made through regulations, and those designations can later be challenged. According to the Home Office factsheet, a body or person affected can ask the Home Secretary to remove a designation, and if that request is refused there is an appeal route to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. (gov.uk) For you as a reader, the next question is not whether ministers say this law is tough. Of course they do. The better question is who gets designated first, what evidence is used, how Parliament scrutinises urgent cases, and whether the promised protections for journalists, charities and legitimate speech hold up in practice. That is where this story stops being abstract law and starts becoming everyday democratic accountability. (gov.uk)