What's documented

Britain has made it a crime to support Iran's Revolutionary Guard. But only in one specific way — and the specific way matters more than the headline does.

Start with what didn't happen. Britain did not brand the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. That would be a different law, the Terrorism Act 2000 — the one used to outlaw ISIS and al-Qaeda. Parliament reached for a different tool.

The new tool is a category called state-threat designation. Once a group is named under it, saying you support that group can be a crime — but only if you say it for what the law calls a "prohibited purpose." In plain words: a reason that hurts Britain's safety or its interests.

That condition carries the whole law. Say something kind about the group at a dinner table, and this law doesn't touch you. Say the same words to help the group damage Britain, and it might. A prosecutor has to prove the second thing, not just the first.

The condition is real. It's also vague. And no court has explained it yet.

What the law says

Parliament passed the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 on July 8. On July 13, the government named the first three groups to fall under it: the Revolutionary Guard, a group called the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, and a Russian military-intelligence unit called the GRU Volunteer Corps. The House of Commons approved all three on July 15, without a formal vote count.

The House of Lords was set to debate them on July 16. This piece was written that same day. As of writing, Parliament's official record didn't yet show the result — or the date the ban actually starts. For the confirmed outcome, check parliament.uk.

The law creates three separate crimes.

Saying you support a named group. A crime only if you do it for a prohibited purpose. Maximum sentence: 14 years.

Helping a named group. This covers giving it information, goods, services, or money for its work in Britain or against Britain. The law carves out exceptions for lawyers doing legal work, for aid groups, and for people carrying out official duties.

Taking money or benefits from a named group. A separate crime, with its own exceptions for journalists and for authorized government work.

There's a fourth thing the law does, and it's easy to miss. Britain already had laws against spying, sabotage, and foreign interference, under an earlier law called the National Security Act 2023. Some of them carry life sentences. To use them, prosecutors had to prove a link between the accused and a foreign government. Now, if a group is on the list, proving that link gets easier. Being on the list doesn't prove anyone committed sabotage. It removes one hurdle prosecutors used to have to clear.

What is not a crime

Read the law's actual text and a lot stays legal:

  • describing what the Revolutionary Guard says or wants
  • quoting it, or reporting on it
  • arguing that Britain's Iran policy is wrong
  • saying something positive about the group, without a prohibited purpose

The law also doesn't make it a crime to belong to the group, or to wear or display its symbol. That's a real gap between this law and how terrorist bans usually work.

So why build something new instead of using the terrorism law? The government's answer: terrorist bans were designed for groups like ISIS — organizations with no country behind them. The Revolutionary Guard is part of the Iranian state, with official government roles. Jonathan Hall KC, a reviewer the government appointed, put it this way: using terrorism law here is "shopping in the wrong department."

Not everyone buys that. The US and Canada both restricted the Revolutionary Guard using laws they already had. But that's a fair argument about which tool to use — not proof the government's reason is a lie.

Where this gets uncertain

The key phrase in the law is "prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom." Read it closely. It doesn't say helps them attack someone. It doesn't say encourages violence. It's wider than that — and no judge has drawn the line yet.

There's a second wrinkle. You can be judged not only on what you knew, but on what you should have worked out from what was already in front of you.

Does any of that make the law illegal? Nobody knows yet, and that's worth being exact about. Europe's free-speech rule — Article 10 — does let a country restrict speech to protect national security. But the restriction has to be clear, aimed at a real goal, and no heavier than necessary. The government says its law clears that bar, because of the prohibited-purpose condition. That's the government's own view of its own law. No court has ruled.

Parliament's own reviewers flagged problems before it passed. The House of Lords Constitution Committee said the speech offense was written too broadly, and that some of the law's exceptions didn't cover everything they should. It also objected to how the government bundled all three groups into a single vote. MPs could take all three or reject all three. They couldn't vote on them one at a time.

What this piece is not saying

Not every kind word about the Revolutionary Guard is now illegal in Britain. The prohibited-purpose condition is real, and a prosecutor has to prove it.

This also isn't a claim that Britain invented the threat. The government says its security services have stopped more than 20 Iran-backed plots that could have killed people since 2022. That's the government's account, and it's the reason it gives for the law. We're reporting what it said — we haven't independently confirmed it.

What's left is narrow, and worth watching. Britain has created a crime that can reach something a person said out loud. Whether those words cross the line depends on a phrase no court has defined. And the penalty is 14 years — high enough that people may go quiet just to be safe, long before anyone is ever charged.

What can I do?

If a foreign government is threatening you. Britain publishes guidance for exactly this; it calls the problem transnational repression. Save your messages, call logs, and screenshots, and write down what happened and when. When you talk to police, tell them you think a foreign government is behind it — that changes how they handle it.

If your work could touch one of these groups — journalism, research, aid work, law. Don't treat a headline as legal advice. Read the actual rules and the Home Office guidance. Keep a record of why any contact, payment, or exchange of information was legitimate, and who signed off on it.

If the law's reach worries you, ask your MP for specific things: a separate vote on each group, published guidance on how prosecutors will decide these cases, yearly numbers on how often the law gets used, and an early independent review. Those are answerable questions. "I don't like this law" isn't.

The Receipts