LONDON — Scottish prosecutors will attempt to prove that pro-Palestinian activists accused of vandalizing one of President Donald Trump’s Scottish golf resorts last year committed acts connected to terrorism. The move is the latest in a broadening effort in Britain to target protest groups with terrorism laws.

In March 2025, prosecutors say, seven members of the British protest group Palestine Action broke into the resort, Trump Turnberry. They dug up the turf and damaged the sprinklers. They sprayed the clubhouse with red paint. And they emblazoned “Gaza is not 4 sale” on part of the picturesque course.

All seven were charged with malicious damage to property and are set to face a judge in a preliminary hearing in Glasgow, Scotland, on Monday.

But the prosecutors’ 16-page indictment also argues that the vandalism was “aggravated by reason of having a terrorist connection,” which could lead to a harsher sentence if the accused were convicted.

In a social media post soon after the activists were arrested last year, Trump described them as “the terrorists who attacked the beautiful Turnberry” and said that “they did serious damage, and will hopefully be treated harshly.”

At the time, Palestine Action had claimed credit for carrying out several acts of vandalism, mostly against British sites connected to an Israeli weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems. Three months after the Turnberry episode, the group said two of its members had vandalized planes at a British military base to protest what it described as Britain’s military support for Israel. The group posted footage of the episode online.

Days later, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government announced it would ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, a contentious move that prompted fierce debate over free speech and the right to protest.

The ban was the first time Britain had used anti-terrorism powers against a group for “serious damage to property” rather than because of the use or threat of violence against people.

Legal experts said the indictment against the protesters draws on 25-year-old laws originally designed to severely stiffen sentences for people convicted of murder or other serious crimes in the course of a terror attack.

Prosecutors in Britain have begun aiming to apply the same provisions to political protesters, with varying degrees of success. In one case, four Palestine Action activists convicted of vandalizing a building owned by Elbit in Filton, England, were sentenced as terrorists. In another case, however, a judge rejected prosecutors’ efforts to apply a terrorism connection to Palestine Action protesters accused of breaking windows at a Barclays Bank branch.

Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, accused prosecutors of trying to advance the agendas of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by pushing to sentence protesters as if they were terrorists.

“By hitting the profits of arms companies and by daring to spray paint on the golf course owned by the demagogue who has enabled Netanyahu’s crimes, we made powerful enemies,” she said in a statement. “The British government chose to appease them by criminalizing us as ‘terrorists.’”

That designation led to the arrests of several thousand protesters for holding signs that said: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” The terrorism law used against Palestine Action criminalizes the wearing, display or publication of anything that expresses support for a banned group.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration also designated Palestine Action as a terrorist organization as part of what it called “Action Against Violent Far-Left Terrorist Networks,” saying in a statement that the decision “complements the U.K.’s proscription.”

Jonathan Hall, an independent adviser to the British government on terrorism laws, said the authorities were right to want more tools to prevent terrorism, which is broadly defined in British law and can include serious damage to property. But he said the government was grappling with when to apply those legal tools.

“The really tricky thing,” he said, “and I’ve got no brilliant answer for this, is where do you draw the line?”

Amnesty International has accused the British government of overreach. In the case of the vandalism at Turnberry, Felix Jakens, director of communications at the human rights organization, said that it was “completely disproportionate to equate painting on a golf course with terrorism.”

“A terrorism sentence stays with you for life,” he added, “and it’s shocking that the defendants could face such severe punishments for this nonviolent protest.”

While in office, Starmer rejected charges that his government was endangering free speech by targeting protesters.

In May, he said that he wanted “tougher action” taken toward protesters who chant certain slogans like “globalize the intifada” that cause fear among British Jews. The Metropolitan Police in London previously announced that they would arrest protesters for using the phrase.

Andy Burnham, who replaced Starmer as prime minister, has not directly confronted the issue since taking office last month. Some members of his Labor Party have made clear that they believe he should take a stand against the overuse of terrorism laws.

In February, judges at England’s High Court ruled that the government’s ban of Palestine Action had been unlawful, saying it was disproportionate and breached the right to protest. But the Court of Appeal overturned that ruling in June. The Supreme Court will consider the case in November.

—

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

By Michael D. Shear/Tierney L. Cross
c. 2026 The New York Times Company