Legal experts and press freedom advocates have raised concerns that the United Kingdom’s proposed State Threats Bill could unintentionally expose British journalists, particularly foreign correspondents, to terrorism-related prosecutions while carrying out legitimate reporting in conflict zones and politically sensitive regions.
The legislation, which is expected to complete its final stages in Parliament this week, is designed to strengthen the UK’s national security framework by allowing the Government to designate state-backed organizations as terrorist entities. While ministers argue that the Bill is aimed at countering hostile foreign actors and strengthening protections against state-sponsored threats, critics warn that its current wording could have unintended consequences for journalists, humanitarian organizations and other professionals whose work requires contact with designated groups.
The proposed legislation introduces new criminal offences for individuals who “support, assist or obtain material benefits” from organizations officially designated as state-backed threats. Although the primary objective is to combat proxy organizations linked to hostile governments, legal experts argue that the broad language of the Bill could inadvertently criminalize routine journalistic activities, including gathering information from sources affiliated with such organizations.
One of the principal concerns relates to the Government’s ability to designate groups backed by foreign states, including organizations such as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), as terrorist entities under the new legal framework. Once designated, individuals interacting with these organizations could face criminal liability under the expanded provisions of the legislation.
David Anderson, the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has warned that the Bill lacks explicit safeguards protecting journalists and non-governmental organizations. According to Anderson, unless Parliament amends the legislation before it becomes law, foreign correspondents reporting from high-risk countries could face prosecution simply for obtaining information from sources connected to designated groups.
Anderson argued that while Government guidance suggests journalists would remain protected, these protections do not appear clearly within the legal text itself. He cautioned that relying on guidance rather than statutory exemptions creates legal uncertainty for reporters working in dangerous environments, where communication with armed groups or state-linked organizations is often essential to gathering accurate information.
The concern centers on the Bill’s definition of “material benefits.” Under the proposed legislation, material benefits extend beyond financial gain to include information. Consequently, individuals could commit an offence not only by receiving information from a designated organization but also by agreeing to accept such information.
Legal observers note that the legislation does not currently include a comprehensive “reasonable excuse” defence for obtaining information, a safeguard that many believe is necessary to protect legitimate professional activities, including journalism, academic research and humanitarian work.
Jonathan Hall, the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has also expressed reservations about the Bill. He has recommended expanding the reasonable excuse defence to explicitly cover information obtained during lawful professional activities. However, the Government has not adopted this recommendation.
Experts argue that the implications extend well beyond journalism. Humanitarian organizations operating in conflict zones frequently communicate with armed groups or state-backed actors to negotiate access, secure humanitarian corridors or obtain information necessary for protecting civilians.
For example, organizations involved in demining operations may need to communicate with groups controlling affected territories to identify the locations of landmines or unexploded ordnance. Similarly, conflict mediation organizations often rely on dialogue with designated entities as part of peacebuilding efforts.
According to Anderson, the Bill’s current wording could place these legitimate activities at legal risk, potentially discouraging organizations from carrying out essential humanitarian missions.
Foreign correspondents covering conflicts in countries such as Iran, Syria or other politically unstable regions may face similar challenges. Journalists routinely rely on sources connected to government agencies, military organizations or armed groups to verify information, understand developments on the ground and provide balanced reporting.
Media organizations have expressed concern that criminalizing contact with such sources could significantly undermine independent journalism, restrict access to reliable information and ultimately weaken public understanding of international events.
Critics also question the Government’s reliance on prosecutorial discretion as a safeguard. Ministers have argued that prosecutions would proceed only where the Attorney General determines they are in the public interest. However, legal experts contend that relying on future prosecutorial judgment does not provide sufficient legal certainty for journalists operating in high-risk environments.
Anderson noted that while current officials may exercise restraint, future governments could interpret the law differently, leaving journalists vulnerable to prosecution under changing political circumstances.
Responding to the criticism, the Home Office rejected suggestions that the legislation threatens press freedom. A spokesperson stated that the Bill is intended solely to strengthen national security and combat hostile state-backed organizations, while preserving legitimate journalistic, diplomatic and humanitarian activities.
The department emphasized that the United Kingdom maintains a strong commitment to protecting freedom of the press and insisted that the legislation would not interfere with the ability of journalists to perform their professional duties.
Nevertheless, legal experts continue to urge Parliament to introduce explicit statutory protections before the Bill receives final approval. They argue that clear exemptions within the legislation itself would eliminate uncertainty and ensure that journalists, aid workers and researchers can continue carrying out legitimate activities without fear of criminal liability.
As Parliament prepares to finalize the State Threats Bill, the debate highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing robust national security measures with the preservation of fundamental democratic freedoms. While there is broad support for strengthening the UK’s ability to respond to state-sponsored security threats, many legal specialists believe the legislation must include stronger safeguards to protect press freedom, humanitarian work and the public interest.
The outcome of the parliamentary process will determine whether the Government introduces additional legal protections or proceeds with the Bill in its current form, a decision that could have significant implications for journalists reporting from some of the world’s most challenging environments.