When the Home Office announced in July 2025 that Palestine Action would be added to the UK’s list of proscribed terrorist organisations, it marked a watershed moment. For the first time, a protest network – one that describes itself as a campaign of non-violent direct action – was formally branded a terrorist organisation.

The government argued the decision was necessary to protect public safety and national security. Ministers pointed to repeated acts of trespass, disruption and criminal damage, including an incident at RAF Brize Norton in June in which members caused extensive damage to military aircraft. Palestine Action claimed the planes were used to refuel the Israeli Air Force, though the Ministry of Defence publicly denied this.

The Home Secretary at the time, Yvette Cooper, proscribed Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. In an address to parliament, she said: “Palestine Action has passed the threshold for proscription based on clear national security evidence and assessments.

“The right to protest and the right to free speech are the cornerstone of our democracy and there are countless campaign groups that freely exercise those rights. Violence and serious criminal damage has no place in legitimate protests.”

Supporters of the proscription say such actions go beyond civil disobedience and fall within the Terrorism Act, which defines terrorism as politically motivated acts of violence – including serious damage to property – carried out to advance a politically ideological cause.

But critics argue that the government has crossed a dangerous line. For many legal experts and civil liberties groups, branding a protest organisation as “terrorist” sets an unprecedented narrative.

Founded in 2020, Palestine Action campaigns in support of Palestinian sovereignty and against the UK’s role in supplying arms to Israel. Its members have targeted factories, offices and vehicles linked to defence manufacturers. Importantly, the group has never advocated violence against people.

By law, proscription now makes it a criminal offence to belong to, support, or even publicly express sympathy for Palestine Action. Displaying its logo or organising a demonstration in its name can now carry a potential penalty of up to 14 years in prison – even if no law is otherwise broken.

This is the crux of why the proscription is so controversial. The law has shifted Palestine Action from the realm of criminal justice into the far more severe world of counter-terrorism. For campaigners and civil liberties lawyers, it is this step change, not the group’s disruptive tactics themselves, that they say threatens the health of democratic protest in the UK.

Compared to the Manics Murder Cult, proscribed on the same day and who have inspired killings all over the world, Palestine Action stands in stark contrast. Yet other protest groups – such as the English Defence League – have committed direct violence against people and mosques without being proscribed.

On the left, the Animal Liberation Front or Extinction Rebellion, have each committed extensive property damage including arson, and have been prosecuted for criminal damage, but never proscribed.

Dr Fotios Moustakis, Associate Professor in Strategic Studies at the University of Plymouth, describes the decision as “setting a dangerous precedented.” While the Terrorism Act was deliberately drafted in broad terms, he notes it has never before been applied to an organisation that does not promote or commit violence against people.

“Every action has a reaction, and the government will be responsible for what happens next,” he said. “This decision, in my view, is aimed at appeasing allies such as the USA and Israel for the sake of the national interest.”

His comments highlight a wider concern: that proscribing Palestine Action may be less about domestic security than about diplomacy. The UK has faced increasing pressure from Washington and Tel Aviv to clamp down on what those governments see as ‘hostile’ protest movements. With defence contracts, intelligence sharing and strategic alliances at stake, critics argue the UK may be extending terrorism laws to reassure partners abroad at the detriment of civilians expressing humanitarian concern.

Civil liberties lawyers argue the measure risks collapsing the distinction between disruptive activism and terrorism. Defence teams are expected to challenge the lawfulness of charging peaceful demonstrators with terrorism offences, both under domestic and international law.

Caroline Voaden, Liberal Democrat MP for South Devon, echoed those concerns: “Protesting about the proscription of Palestine Action is different from supporting the group’s actions. This nuance is being completely lost.”

The weekends following the announcement saw thousands take to the streets in protest. On 6 September alone, 857 people were arrested in London for holding placards reading “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

Organisers and attendees stressed the demonstration was peaceful - but under the new law, multiple police forces were called in to enforce the proscription. Viral footage showed retired doctors, priests, the elderly and disabled people being calmly carried away by officers and arrested under terrorism offences. A blind wheelchair user, Mike Higgins, was one of the last to be arrested at approximately 1am.

The scale of the arrests raised questions about proportionality and resources. Processing nearly 900 suspected “terrorists” in one weekend is an expensive and time-consuming task. Critics ask whether taxpayer money and finite resources are being best spent treating peaceful dissent as a national security threat.

Voaden added: “With 1,600 people already being arrested since Palestine Action was proscribed, it’s clear the status quo is not tenable. Seeing priests and retirees arrested under terrorism law is wholly disproportionate. These people are plainly not terrorists and shouldn’t be labelled as such.”

For those arrested, the personal costs may be severe: potential loss of jobs, lengthy legal battles, emotional stress, risks to international travel and the stigma of being branded a terror suspect as well as the potential charge.

Protesting is a protected right under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. While the UK government has discretion in applying terrorism legislation, many European neighbours take a narrower view: property damage is prosecuted as criminal damage, not terrorism.

The historical irony was not lost on those watching mass arrests unfold in Parliament Square – a space ringed by statues of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill, David Lloyd George and, maybe most notably, Millicent Garrett Fawcett. Figures once branded leaders, agitators or even “terrorists” for their fight against oppressors who are now celebrated for their role in advancing democracy.

In this case, foreign policy considerations seem to have overarched the considerations of civil rights and the overwhelming public distain for the atrocities being committed in Palestine.

The decision pushes the Terrorism Act to its outer limits, stretching the definition of terrorism to cover acts of property damage without direct threats to life. Legally, it sets a milestone but the interpretation of law is the States prerogative. Politically, it risks being viewed as an attempt to suppress dissent on one of the most divisive foreign policy issues of our time.

Whether history judges this as a prudent defence of national security or a dangerous overreach may depend less on Palestine Action itself, and more on what follows.

What is certain is that every action has a reaction. The government may have succeeded in limiting one protest movement, but it has also sparked a broader debate about the future of protest and democratic freedoms in the UK – a debate whose consequences are only beginning to unfold.