Policy paper

National Security (State Threats) Bill 2026: overarching factsheet

Published 9 June 2026

Summary

This bill creates a new power for the Home Secretary to designate bodies engaged in state threat activity, equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Designation will disrupt and deter the activities of designated bodies and those working with and supporting them.

New offences will apply to those supporting, assisting or obtaining material benefits from a designated body.

This will make it easier to disrupt proxy bodies that are designated, with offences that deal with them in the same way as foreign intelligence services.

Individuals acting for a designated body will feel the full force of our National Security legislation, with accompanying sentences of up to 14 years.

Background

The threat to the UK from foreign states and their proxies has grown in scale and complexity, putting lives at risk and undermining our democratic values.

The National Security Act 2023 modernised the suite of powers and tools available to law enforcement to counter state threats. We have seen a number of charges and convictions under the act which have significantly helped in making the UK a much tougher operating environment for states and their actors seeking to undertake hostile action.

However, new powers are needed to keep pace with the evolving threat landscape. Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, was commissioned by the Home Office to review terrorism legislation and identify areas which could be emulated under state threats legislation.

Jonathan Hall KC’s report, published in May 2025, highlighted the limitations of the terrorism proscription regime in applying to state bodies and how the National Security Act 2023, as drafted, is less effective at disrupting proxies than foreign intelligence services.

This culminated in Jonathan Hall KC’s recommendation for the Government to introduce a ‘State Threats Proscription-like Power’, equivalent to terrorism proscription, which this power reflects.

Key facts

In 2025, the Director General of MI5 said that the UK had seen a 35 percent increase in state threat activity from the previous year. Over the same period, MI5 had tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots.

In his annual threat speech, he described the threat from a range of state actors, including espionage against our Parliament, universities and critical infrastructure, as well as the commission of surveillance, sabotage, arson or physical violence here in the UK.

Quotes

Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, concluded in his May 2025 report that:

there are solid reasons for creating a classification power, equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000, which is additional to existing measures such as sanctions.

Designation criteria

The  bill provides that the Home Secretary may designate a body if they reasonably believe a body is, or has been, involved in foreign power threat activity and considers that designating the body is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the UK.

Designated bodies will be listed in a schedule to the National Security Act 2023.

Aliases

The Home Secretary will also have the power to list alternative names (aliases) that are, or have been, used by designated bodies to the Schedule.

Foreign power threat activity

Foreign power threat activity is defined under section 33 of the National Security Act 2023 and includes a range of activity done for, on behalf, or with the intention to benefit a foreign power including espionage, sabotage and new offences under this power.

Designation offences

Designation will make it a criminal offence to:

• support a designated body - this will apply where a person invites support for, or expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a designated body, and does so for a prohibited purpose (new section 17A)
• assist a designated body - this will apply where a person engages in conduct and intends for it to materially assist a designated body in carrying out UK-related activities; or where a person engages in conduct likely to materially assist a designated body and knows, or ought reasonably to know, their conduct is likely to materially assist a designated body in carrying out UK-related activities (new section 17B)
• obtain material benefits from a designated body - this will apply where a person obtains, accepts or retains a material benefit (or obtains or accepts the provision of such a benefit to another person) that is or was provided by or on behalf of a designated body and the person knows, or ought to reasonably know, it was; or where a person agrees to accepts a material benefit (or the provision of such a benefit to another person) that is or was provided by or on behalf of a designated body and the person knows, or ought to reasonably know, it was (new section 17C)

Harms tackled by the offences

The offence of supporting a designated body will disrupt individuals who promote the interests and objectives of designated bodies. This includes glorifying designated bodies.

Dual offences of assisting and obtaining material benefits from a designated body aim to treat those working with designated bodies in the same way as those working for foreign intelligence services, improving our ability to disrupt those bodies through prosecutions.

Penalties for a designation offence

The bill provides that the penalties for designation offences are a maximum of 14 years in prison and / or a fine.

Applicability to sanctioned entities

The designation offences apply in relation to designated bodies, for example those listed in the relevant Schedule to the National Security Act 2023.

These offences do not apply in relation to entities subject to sanctions under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA), unless such an entity is also a designated body for the purposes of this bill.

How designation disrupts state threats

In addition to the criminal consequences, designation sends a clear signal to designated bodies and the public that state threat activity against the UK or its interests will not be tolerated.

Designation can also support other disruptive activity including the use of other criminal offences, immigration powers or sanctions.

Overseas applicability

The offences apply to conduct taking place outside the UK if the person is a “UK person” (as defined under section 3 of the National Security Act 2023) or is employed or holds office under the Crown.

Safeguards

The bill has been drafted to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (including freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention) and the UK’s obligations under international law (including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Rights), while tackling the serious harms perpetrated by designated bodies.

Legitimate activity, such as diplomatic and humanitarian engagement and journalistic freedoms are protected in the offences which include relevant defences.

The power to designate a body through regulations after Royal Assent will ordinarily be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.

The process for applying to remove a designation provides a route of appeal where that application is refused.

Removing a designation

The bill includes provisions to expand the appeals route available under the Terrorism Act 2000 to designations under this bill. This will enable designated bodies, and those affected by designations, to challenge a designation by applying to the Home Secretary for it to be removed.

If the Home Secretary agrees to lift a designation, the relevant entry will be removed from the Schedule of bodies in the National Security Act 2023.

If the Home Secretary refuses an application, there is a route of appeal - as under the Terrorism Act 2000 - to the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission, a tribunal specialising in handling sensitive national security cases.

Business impact

There is expected to be minimal impact on businesses arising from this legislation. The potential cost to businesses largely comprises of monetised familiarisation costs alongside some unmonetised minor administration costs arising from expected reports to the National Crime Agency.

Businesses will be encouraged through guidance being published after Royal Assent to submit both Defence Against Money Laundering and Suspicious Activity Reports to the National Crime Agency when at risk of dealing with property linked to designated bodies.

This process should be familiar to businesses in the regulated anti-money laundering sector and does not create any new legal obligations.

An impact assessment detailing the anticipated impact on businesses will be made available for bill introduction.

Hypothetical case studies

Hypothetical 1 (assisting a designated body)

A state backed company, based outside the UK, is designated for facilitating espionage against the UK on behalf of a foreign power. Person A is a senior employee at a UK-based military technology company which has several contracts with the UK government to provide it with military-grade weapons and defence systems. Person B is an intelligence officer for the foreign power, working in a cover role for the designated body, but approaches Person A as an employee seeking commercial opportunities.

Person A knows that the state backed body is a designated body, and during the course of discussions with Person B, when queried about the details of existing contracts with the UK government, willingly provides access to sensitive information that is likely to assist the company in its activities.

Hypothetical 2 (obtaining material benefits from a designated body)

An organised criminal group, which operates in the UK and internationally on behalf of a foreign power, is designated following a series of sabotage and physical threat cases in the UK. The organised criminal group primarily targets dissidents and outspoken political opponents in the UK. The organised criminal group is intent on conducting arson against a UK-based media station that is publicly critical of the related foreign power.

Person C is approached online by Person D, an unknown individual, to set fire to the offices of the media station on a specific evening for a sum of £1,000. Person D does not give any indication of their motivation for the attack or that it will benefit the designated body. However, Person C is aware of other information indicating that payment is coming from a designated body. Person C accepts the sum and task assigned but is unable to act before law enforcement intervenes.