Did Trump pressure Starmer to ban Palestine Action?

The British government’s Cabinet Office rejected Declassified’s attempts to learn whether Donald Trump and Keir Starmer discussed Palestine Action shortly before the group’s proscription.

Conversations between the two leaders were referenced during a legal challenge against the direct action group’s ban, which opened in the High Court this week.

Starmer and Trump spoke on 10 and 30 March 2025 after Palestine Action vandalised Trump’s Turnberry golf course in Scotland earlier that month.

On 31 March, Trump declared on Truth Social: “I was just informed by Prime Minister Starmer of the United Kingdom, that they caught the terrorists who attacked the beautiful Turnberry, in Scotland. They did serious damage, and will hopefully be treated harshly”.

He added: “The three people who did this are in prison. You cannot let things like this attack happen, and I greatly appreciate the work of Prime Minister Starmer, and UK Law Enforcement”.

The post would suggest that Trump and Starmer discussed Palestine Action, as well as law enforcement in Britain, with Trump appearing to use specific wording from the Terrorism Act (“terrorists” and “serious damage”) to justify a harsh response.

‘Sensitive diplomatic communications’

The conversations came up during this week’s judicial review as lawyers for Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori questioned the transparency of the government’s decision making.

Ammori’s legal counsel, Raza Husain KC, highlighted that Trump had labelled the group as “terrorists” months before the ban was announced.

But the issue remains shrouded in secrecy.

In July, Declassified issued a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Cabinet Office regarding Starmer’s two calls with Trump, specifically asking for “all references to Palestine Action”.

In response, the Cabinet Office said it could “neither confirm nor deny if the specific information requested [regarding Palestine Action] is held”, relying on an international relations exemption in the FOI Act.

This exemption allows the government to withhold “confidential information obtained from” a foreign state.

In September, the Cabinet Office upheld its initial decision following a request for an internal review.

The department said_:_ “The information sought relates to sensitive diplomatic communications between the UK and US at the very highest level in the form of direct exchanges between the Prime Minister and President”.

Additional reporting adds weight to the suspicion that the US president may have been lobbying or seeking to influence the UK government with regards to law enforcement of Palestine Action.

On 14 September, The Telegraph reported that: “After Trump Turnberry was vandalised with red paint by pro-Gaza protesters in March, the Prime Minister was asked for updates on those arrested from Police Scotland and briefed Trump personally on developments”.

Repugnant

On Wednesday, Husain told the court that the ban on Palestine Action is “repugnant to the tradition of common law” and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Husain said “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country”, arguing that Palestine Action followed in the footsteps of direct action protest groups stretching back centuries.

“It is the mark of a civilised society that protests of this type can be accommodated”, he said. “Our client Ms. Ammori has been inspired by a long tradition of direct action in this country from the suffragettes to anti-apartheid activists to Iraq war protesters”.

Providing witness testimony for Ammori on this issue was Andrew Feinstein, an award-winning expert on the arms trade and former two-term MP in South Africa under Nelson Mandela who was actively involved in the struggle against apartheid.

Feinstein told the court that Palestine Action’s activities were “legitimate and remarkably similar to actions engaged in by South Africans and supporters across the world in support of the struggle against apartheid and state violence in South Africa prior to 1994”.

The court also heard about how the UK government had been advised that Palestine Action is “highly unlikely” to advocate for violence, with the Proscription Review Group noting any ban would be “novel and unprecedented”.

Since the ban was introduced, more than 2,000 people have been arrested for holding signs saying “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action”.

As Thursday’s proceedings began, Husain noted the chilling effect that the ban has had on people and organisations outside of Palestine Action.

He highlighted an 80-year-old Jewish woman who was visited by counter-terrorism police over an email and lyrics that had been removed from songs a choir was singing.

The Irish author Sally Rooney was unable to collect a literary prize in the UK earlier this year after her lawyer advised her that she might be at risk of arrest over her support for the group, he said.

The proscription has had “a massive impact” on the ability of groups like Amnesty and Liberty to campaign, said Husain.

Sir James Eadie, the government’s barrister who began his arguments on Thursday, immediately countered Husain’s comments about the ban being repugnant to common law.

“That is not a submission that is open to him or accurate,” Eadie said.

Changing the judges

The legal process was marked by controversy before it began.

Last week, Mr Justice Chamberlain, who has overseen the case and was billed to preside over the judicial review, was swapped out for Victoria Sharp, Karen Steyn, and Jonathan Swift.

It is unclear why this change was made, and the judiciary’s press office has reportedly refused to respond to media requests.

The move has raised eyebrows because Swift was previously the government’s top lawyer between 2006 and 2014, acting for the defence and home secretaries in at least nine cases.

For her part, Sharp’s family have attained high-level positions in the British establishment after being appointed by Conservative ministers.

Tayab Ali, a partner at the law firm Bindmans, told the Guardian: “A sudden and unexplained shift from the single judge who already had conduct of the case to an entirely new panel of three is deeply concerning, particularly without any stated justification”.

The case continues next week.