UK Announces National Centre for Information Defence to Counter Hostile State Disinformation
Prime Minister Andy Burnham used his first address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 22 September to announce the creation of a new UK government body dedicated to tracking and disrupting disinformation campaigns orchestrated by hostile states. The National Centre for Information Defence, he said, will be tasked with working alongside UK security chiefs to “detect, attribute and disrupt these kinds of hostile state information attacks.” In a speech that sought to place information warfare at the centre of global security concerns, Burnham described an “industrial-scale assault by hostile actors on the information environment” in recent years, with Russia singled out as the most prolific offender. He detailed a litany of deceptive tactics, including the use of bots, fake websites, falsified newspaper articles, and the forged branding of 28 British organisations, among them universities and the BBC. The Prime Minister also accused Russian agencies of amplifying far-right narratives and claimed that there was evidence of attempted interference in the 2019 UK General Election. The announcement marks a significant escalation in the UK’s response to what Burnham framed as a persistent and evolving threat to democratic institutions and public trust.
Burnham sought to quantify the scale of the challenge, stating that the Kremlin spends approximately £1.3 billion each year on manipulating information, while UK companies and institutions have also been subjected to repeated cyber attacks. He warned that artificial intelligence would “multiply the threat,” making it even harder for citizens to distinguish authentic content from malicious fabrication. The Prime Minister acknowledged that the UK had been too slow to confront this challenge, saying, “We have tiptoed around this for too long.” He argued that the corrosive narratives spread by hostile actors were particularly dangerous for vulnerable groups, including people struggling with the cost of living and young people not in employment, education or training, who are “much more vulnerable to this kind of influence.” The new centre, according to reports from the BBC, will bring together expertise from intelligence agencies, government departments, law enforcement and social media platforms to provide a coordinated response to information warfare. By centralising detection, attribution and disruption capabilities, the government hopes to move beyond passive monitoring and toward active countermeasures that can neutralise hostile operations before they gain traction.
The Prime Minister also used his UN platform to stress the importance of international cooperation in defending the information environment. He noted that the UK had already supported Moldova in protecting its elections from Russian interference and expressed readiness to share the UK’s understanding of how hostile actors operate and how democracies can respond. This cooperative approach extends to emerging technology, with Burnham revealing that the UK is developing a new AI defence partnership with the United States to protect national infrastructure. He also announced that artificial intelligence will be at the heart of the UK’s G20 Presidency next year, arguing that “fundamental decisions on this technology are too important to be left to chance” and must be taken by elected governments who serve working people. The UK, he said, will work toward “a single set of global principles and standards to ensure the transparency and access we need to increase our preparedness.” Burnham made clear that the government is prepared to take legislative action if necessary, stating that it will do “whatever is necessary to protect the public, including bringing forward new laws if that is what is needed.” This signals a willingness to move beyond voluntary agreements with tech companies and toward binding regulation of the digital ecosystem.
The announcement was welcomed by Chi Onwurah MP, Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, but she was quick to point out a significant gap in the government’s approach. While the new centre is designed to counter state-sponsored disinformation, Onwurah warned that it leaves domestic misinformation untouched. Her committee had recommended the creation of a single body to counter state disinformation threats in its July 2025 report on social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms, which was published in the aftermath of the Southport riots. That report also warned that Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, was ill-equipped to tackle misinformation from both domestic and foreign sources. Onwurah said, “Our warning stands. Today’s announcement will not tackle domestic dis- and misinformation as seen in the recent riots in Belfast. So long as misinformation remains unchecked there will always be routes for disinformation.” She urged the government to revisit the committee’s other recommendations, including measures to tackle the algorithmic amplification of legal but harmful content. Her comments highlight a growing concern among lawmakers that focusing solely on foreign threats may overlook the ways in which domestic actors, partisan media and unregulated social media algorithms can create an environment in which disinformation thrives.
The creation of the National Centre for Information Defence raises important questions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. While few would dispute the need to protect democratic processes from foreign interference, civil liberties groups and technology policy experts are likely to scrutinise the new body’s powers, particularly its ability to “disrupt” information attacks. The involvement of intelligence agencies in domestic information operations has historically been a sensitive issue, and the government will need to ensure that the centre operates with clear legal authority and robust oversight. At the same time, the emphasis on working with social media platforms suggests that the UK is seeking a collaborative rather than coercive approach, at least initially. The reference to new laws, however, indicates that the government is prepared to legislate if platforms fail to act on harmful content. The challenge will be defining what constitutes “legal but harmful” material and ensuring that any new regulations do not inadvertently suppress legitimate speech. The Southport riots and subsequent unrest in Belfast have demonstrated that misinformation can have real-world consequences, but they have also shown how quickly online narratives can become entrenched and difficult to correct.
Burnham’s address to the UN General Assembly represents a defining moment in the UK’s approach to information warfare, elevating the issue to the highest level of international diplomacy. By announcing the new centre on a global stage, he sought to position the UK as a leader in defending democratic societies against digital manipulation. The partnership with the United States on AI defence and the promise of global principles and standards reflect a recognition that no single country can tackle this problem alone. Yet the domestic dimension remains unresolved, and the government will face mounting pressure to address the broader information ecosystem, including the business models of social media companies that profit from engagement and outrage. The National Centre for Information Defence may prove to be an important tool in the fight against state-sponsored disinformation, but it is unlikely to be a panacea. As Onwurah and others have argued, the fight against misinformation must be comprehensive, addressing not only the foreign actors who seek to sow division but also the domestic platforms and algorithms that amplify their messages. With AI poised to make the problem even more complex, the coming months will test whether the UK’s new institutions and legislative proposals can keep pace with the evolving threat.
