State Threats Bill could implicate British journalists in terrorism prosecutions, experts warn
British journalists operating in conflict zones could be criminalised under new anti-terror laws being rushed through Parliament this week, because the legislation defines the “material benefit” they might obtain from state-backed sources as including information — and contains no explicit exemption for newsgathering.
The National Security (State Threats) Bill, which is expected to clear its final parliamentary stages within days, introduces new criminal offences for anyone who “supports, assists and obtains material benefits” from groups formally designated as state-supported threats. The government intends the powers to allow it to label organisations such as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as terrorist entities, but legal experts and media organisations have warned that the drafting is so broad it could inadvertently pull foreign correspondents into prosecutions.
Journalists at risk of prosecution
Lord David Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation who now sits as a cross-bench peer, said the bill seemed to have been “pulled together in a hurry” with safeguards for journalists and non-governmental organisations “largely absent from its text”. He warned that, on the face of it, foreign correspondents would be at risk of prosecution if they had any contact with sources within designated bodies or their agents.
“It would place in potential jeopardy a charity such as Halo Trust, which could not lawfully ask the IRGC or its agents where the landmines were laid, or a conflict resolution organisation that needs to engage with designated bodies as part of its work,” Lord Anderson said in a briefing note. “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.”
Broad definition of material benefit
Central to the concern is the bill’s expansive definition of “material benefits”. Under the legislation, that term explicitly covers not only financial gain but also information. It would be an offence to “obtain, accept and retain” such a benefit — and crucially, also to “agree to accept” it. The bill provides no “reasonable excuse” defence for either of those actions as they relate to information.
Jonathan Hall KC, the current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation who was appointed last year as the UK’s first Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, has argued for the law to be amended to extend the reasonable excuse defence to cover information obtained. The government has not accepted his recommendation.
Ministers have argued that information would only fall within the prohibition if it “possesses an inherent value that enriches the recipient”. But Lord Anderson noted that the bill treats information as a separate category, distinct from financial benefit, leaving the scope of the offence dangerously unclear. He also dismissed the reassurance that prosecutions would require the consent of the attorney general, saying that those potentially caught would “have their own views on how robust such a reassurance is in practice, and in all possible political futures”.
Government insists journalists are protected
The Home Office has denied that the bill would undermine journalistic work. A 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.”
The government has pointed to guidance suggesting that journalists are shielded, but Lord Anderson stressed that those protections are not explicit in the bill’s text. The Home Office has also made amendments to clarify that support or assistance must be specifically related to the harmful conduct defined under the bill, rather than unrelated activities. Officials argue that the offence requirements are designed to prevent the legislation from capturing legitimate activities, negating the need for a public interest defence for journalists.
Coalition of journalism groups warns of ‘spy’ label
Beyond the individual warnings from legal reviewers, a coalition of media organisations — including Index on Censorship, the National Union of Journalists, openDemocracy, and Reporters Without Borders — has voiced strong opposition. They argue that the bill’s broad and vague wording could lead to journalists being labelled as spies and facing lengthy jail sentences, and that it risks conflating public interest reporting with espionage. Broader concerns have also been raised that the National Security Bill, combined with the Online Safety Act, could expand state control over reporting and weaken protections for confidential sources.
The bill builds on the National Security Act 2023, which modernised the UK’s counter-state threat capabilities, and its designation power is described as equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. It is intended to replace older espionage laws contained in the Official Secrets Acts of 1911, 1920 and 1939, which the government considers outdated. The Home Office has stressed that the bill does not replace the Official Secrets Act 1989 and does not target leaks or whistleblowing.
Lord Anderson has called for the missing safeguards to be inserted “early this week, before the bill becomes law”.
