Across the world, democracies face an increasing threat. Foreign interference, disinformation, AI, cyber attacks, the intimidation of politicians and threats to electoral integrity are causes of increasing concern. In the UK, a key response to these various challenges has been the creation of the, intriguingly named, National Security Council’s Defending Democracy Taskforce (the Taskforce). Launched in 2022, the Taskforce – a cross-departmental and inter-agency initiative – aims to ‘protect the democratic integrity of the UK’.
Despite the importance of its stated objectives, and its growing prominence, relatively little attention has been paid to the role and the remit of the Taskforce. This blog post provides an overview of its origins, structure and functions, and considers its place within the UK’s broader constitutional and national security framework.
What is the Defending Democracy Taskforce?
The Taskforce was established by the Sunak Government and now works ‘across government and with Parliament, the UK Intelligence Community, the devolved administrations, local authorities and the private sector on the full range of threats facing our democratic institutions’. Upon its creation, Tom Tugendhat, then Security Minister, stated:
State threats are growing and changing. My priority is, and has always been, to defend our country and the freedoms that guarantee our prosperity and sovereignty. […] We are bringing together experts from across Government, security and intelligence agencies to defend our democracy and our right to choose our own future.
In evidence before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy in March 2025, Dan Jarvis, the now Chair of the Taskforce, emphasised its coordinative function and stated that it:
continues to provide the role of being the fulcrum point across Government that brings together different government departments, operational partners, the intelligence services and the Houses of Parliament. It is the mechanism by which we ensure that we are marshalling all our resources so that they are in the right place at the right time in order to safeguard our democracy.
Originally, the Taskforce’s remit was focused on foreign interference in British democracy, including:
- Attempts by foreign states to influence elections
- Disinformation and information operations
- Cyber attacks on political institutions and electoral infrastructure
- Interference in political parties, public office holders, and universities
- Transnational repression conducted by foreign governments within the UK
Over time, particularly in the run-up to the 2024 General Election, its remit broadened. More recently, the Taskforce has come to focus on:
- Harassment and intimidation of MPs, councillors, candidates and campaigners
- Violence and threats against elected representatives
- Security at elections and political events
- Online abuse and democratic participation
Ahead of the local and devolved elections in May, Dan Jarvis MP addressed the House of Commons regarding the Defending Democracy Taskforce. There he emphasised the Taskforce’s broadened remit, stating:
The mandate of the taskforce, renewed by this Prime Minister, is clear: to tackle the full spectrum of threats to our democracy. That means preventing and deterring harassment, ensuring real consequences when it occurs, and providing proportionate, effective security for everyone who participates in our democratic process.
We must challenge at every turn the notion that abuse, threats and intimidation are now an inevitability for those working in politics and public life. Across our society we must never become desensitised to rhetoric about harming those who serve in public life. When we hear it or see in our communities, it should be challenged, not shrugged off as some new normal.”
Despite Jarvis’ explanation, and beyond what appears to be a substantial increase in its remit, the Taskforce’s precise role remains somewhat unclear. Beyond its coordinative function, relatively little detail has been published regarding its internal decision-making processes, the frequency of its meetings, or the specific actions it undertakes. This may, though, reflect the fact that aspects of its work engage matters of national security and intelligence and therefore cannot be fully disclosed publicly.
Why is the Defending Democracy Taskforce Constitutionally Interesting?
First, and perhaps most obviously, the creation of a Taskforce of this kind in the UK points towards a modern trend of securitising democracy. Traditionally, questions concerning elections, political participation and representative government have primarily been viewed as matters of constitutional and electoral law. The creation of the Taskforce, however, reflects growing concern that threats to democratic processes may also arise from foreign interference, cyber attacks, online disinformation campaigns and intimidation directed towards elected representatives. In this respect, the protection of democratic institutions is being framed not only as a constitutional concern, but also as a matter of national security. The Taskforce’s association with the National Security Council, and its close cooperation with the intelligence and law enforcement services, clearly evidences this development.
Secondly, the Defending Democracy Taskforce occupies a constitutionally unusual position. It is neither a statutory body nor an institution established by Parliament. Instead, it operates as an executive coordination mechanism situated within the National Security Council machinery. Moreover, unlike many taskforces established to address a particular issue or crisis, it appears to have been constituted on a permanent basis. This institutional design, therefore, raises important questions relating to accountability and oversight. Notably, what mechanisms exist for scrutiny of the decisions made and any action taken by the Taskforce? Are those that sit on it answerable to Parliament? How transparent is its operation to the public? While the Taskforce brings together ministers, officials, intelligence agencies and operational partners to coordinate responses to threats against democratic institutions, comparatively little is publicly known about its internal processes, decision-making structures, or mechanisms of scrutiny.
Linked to this is the question of how a “threat to democracy” is defined and operationalised in practice. Who determines what constitutes a threat to democracy and, consequently, what falls within the Taskforce’s remit? As highlighted above, the scope of the Taskforce’s operations has recently expanded beyond threats posed by foreign interference, cyber threats and hostile state activity – relatively well-defined categories – to encompass issues such as online abuse, intimidation of politicians and democratic participation. Although clearly matters of concern, what constitutes ‘defending democracy’ in the context of online abuse and democratic participation is not necessarily clear-cut. Given that the Taskforce has the capacity to shape policy agendas, intelligence priorities and institutional responses, questions inevitably arise regarding the legal and constitutional basis upon which its remit is determined and its activities are overseen. The Taskforce’s budget is not publicly available.
Finally, the nature of the Taskforce’s work highlights a longstanding constitutional tension between democratic security and the rights and liberties upon which modern government depends. Efforts to preserve British democracy against foreign interference, AI abuse, online harms and intimidation may, potentially, infringe rights such as freedom of expression and the right to protest. A balance, therefore, must be struck by policymakers between these competing demands. As the Taskforce’s remit continues to evolve, democratic resilience and individual liberty may come to compete for priority.
Conclusion
Clearly, the Defending Democracy Taskforce reflects the growing concern with democratic resilience within contemporary governance and the increasing tendency to view threats to democratic institutions through the lens of national security. However, while its stated objective of protecting the integrity of the UK’s democratic institutions is clear, its current remit and exact role remain vague. This, in turn, raises a number of constitutional questions concerning accountability, transparency and oversight.
As the Taskforce continues to evolve and assume a more prominent role within the UK’s democratic resilience framework, these questions are likely to attract increasing attention.
Kate Dewsnip.
Kate is a Graduate Teaching Fellow and PhD candidate at the University of Liverpool School of Law and Social Justice. She is a contributing writer for the Constitution Society.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.