What to expect from Trump and Putin’s special relationship

This article first appeared in Volume 54, Issue 2 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled Land of the Free?: Trump’s war on speech at home and abroad, published on 21 July 2025. Read more about the issue here.

In April 2022, two months after the invasion of Ukraine, a bill designating the USA as “the main enemy of the Russian Federation” was submitted by several deputies of the Russian Duma (the lower house of the Russian parliament). It was political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann – deemed to be a foreign agent by the Russian authorities – who told Index about this “strange bill”, as she described it. It was meant to amend the law on countermeasures in response to hostile acts by foreign states, which was passed in 2018.

In July 2024 – four months prior to US president Donald Trump’s election victory – six of the seven deputies who had submitted the bill withdrew their signatures.

“Usually this happens when [legislators] realise that their initiative is not going to pass, or that the timing is bad – or that it is politically risky,” Schulmann said.

It seems that the deputies got wind that “the outcome of the election would be such that the US would no longer be [Russia’s] foe – but a friend, if not the best friend”, she added.

In April 2025, the Council of the Duma, an organisational body within parliament, suggested dismissing the bill.

“The political situation changed – and the [bill’s] initiators were nowhere to be found,” said Schulmann.

Trump and the Russian narrative

The re-election of Trump was also pivotal in shaping the Kremlin’s rhetoric. In July 2022, Dmitry Kiselyov, host of Russian political show Vesti Nedeli (News of the Week), dedicated a whole segment to then US president Joe Biden’s poor health, speaking of his “cognitive problems”, according to independent news outlet Verstka.

And in February 2025, the host praised the new US president, saying: “Putin perceives in Trump his own quality – restraint.”

Vladimir Putin himself called Trump a “courageous man” after his victory. As for Trump, he publicly refused to call the Russian president a dictator (he had said Putin was “genius” and “savvy” on other occasions).

What’s more, Trump seems to be repeating the Kremlin’s claims about Ukraine’s responsibility for the aggression. “You don’t start a war against someone 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles,” he said in April.

And when he called Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “dictator without elections” in February, he was echoing rhetoric from the Kremlin.

Trump’s criticism of the Ukrainian government is, in turn, used in Russian propaganda, which brainwashes people into supporting Putin’s politics. For example, in February, Kiselyov called Zelenskyy “a mediocre comedian”, according to Verstka, which mirrored Trump’s words about him being “a modestly successful comedian”. Kiselyov reportedly said that Trump “tolerated Zelenskyy for a long time, but now his disgust is obvious”.

Not only does Trump give credit to Putin’s official narrative but, since he took office, the White House has been debating lifting sanctions on Russian organisations and oligarchs, according to Reuters.

In an interview with the independent media outlet Zhivoy Gvozd in April, 83-year-old dissident-in-exile Lev Ponomaryov said that if the sanctions on the Kremlin’s officials were lifted during peace talks, it would allow for the “semi-fascist” regime to remain in place after the war ended. In fact, he is worried that the repression “will only become more severe” when the war is over, because Putin will need to reinforce his position domestically.

An end to Russia’s pariah status?

Talking to Index from Russia, independent politician Dmitriy Kisiev said that, for him, “it’s hard to imagine things getting worse” than they are today. He was the head of the team which stood behind the campaign of Boris Nadezhdin, the pro-peace candidate barred from running in the presidential election in March 2024.

According to Kisiev – and he admitted this might sound surprising – Trump’s presidency could ultimately benefit Russian civil society. He argued that Trump established “some sort of dialogue” with the Kremlin, which could eventually result in Russia becoming more integrated with the rest of the world. In that case, its civil society would be “freer and more protected”. He is concerned about Russia potentially “heading in the wrong direction”, like North Korea, which he described as “a very closed country and a totalitarian state”.

He used the example of Western companies, the majority of which left Russia at the beginning of the war. Their presence acted “as a kind of limiting factor” on the government and helped to deter the creation of overly harsh laws or regulations. This also applied to student exchange programmes and international tourism, which are no longer there either, he said.

Kisiev added that when Trump began talking about peace, speaking about it became safer in Russia. Whereas previously “peace politics” were supported by less than half the population, “today it feels as though more people are for peace”.

In a recent survey by the independent Levada Centre, more than half the respondents said they were in favour of peace talks. The number of people who believed peace negotiations “should definitely begin” (30%) has never been higher. The survey was conducted with 1,617 adults across Russia.

Kisiev underlined that Trump brought hope for peace to people in the face of despair. The pro-peace stance being voiced by more people, he said, could eventually lead to the end of the “special military operation” in Ukraine. When that happens, he believes Russia could evolve in a more “humanistic direction”.

“Some laws would be revised as there would be no more need for such harsh punishments,” he said, referring to legislation passed when the war began – the censorship law which criminalises “discreditation” of the Russian armed forces.

He tries to remain optimistic, saying that if he didn’t believe things could change for the better then he wouldn’t be taking the risk of being an opposition politician in Russia today.

When asked whether Russia’s repressive legislation could be amended or even abolished if the war ends, political scientist Schulmann said the Russian state system was “flexible”, which is “one of the main features of modern autocracies, [making] them different from the totalitarian systems of the 20th century”.

“They are the ones setting the norms,” she said. “A change in the political context can result in changes in the legislation … even though I don’t think that the system would want to get rid of such a convenient instrument as the war censorship law.”

Faint hopes for peace

An independent parliamentary deputy from Moscow, who requested anonymity, spoke to Index about the “faint hope” for peace raised by Trump, echoing Kisiev. But, alluding to the difficult peace negotiations, he said it was “hope which rises and falls, again and again”.

He highlighted that it was not only the public and the opposition in Russia who were fatigued by the war but also deputies from the Kremlin’s United Russia party.

He hopes that a peace agreement would allow his country to “go back in time to a more democratic era”.

But he said that repression remained as severe as it was at the beginning of the war and pro-democracy movements were still being crushed.

One recent example was the request by the Ministry of Justice to liquidate opposition party Grazhdanskaya Initsiativa (Civic Initiative) in May.

The same month, Grigory Melkonyants, co-founder of the election watchdog Golos (Voice), was sentenced to five years in prison after he was found guilty of working for an “undesirable organisation”.

Meanwhile, Trump’s politics continue to affect Russian refugees and opposition movements abroad.

Index spoke to LGBTQ+ activist Nadezhda Shchetinina, who fled Russia for the USA after the LGBTQ+ movement was labelled extremist in November 2023. “Since Trump took office, the [Customs and Border Protection] programme that allowed me to get to the United States safely is no longer operating,” she said.

Trump’s war on immigration and international aid

The second Trump administration has implemented harsh anti-immigration policies. One of its executive orders states that admitting refugees is now considered “detrimental” to US national interests.

Shchetinina said that Russians arriving in the USA have not been welcomed, especially since the invasion of Ukraine. And with Trump as president, “there is less hope that this situation will improve”.

“Everything is being done to prevent Russian political refugees from getting here, even though we have every right to [seek political refuge],” she said.

Many Russian immigrants – including those who have fled to the USA for political reasons – are kept in detention centres, she added. People are deported back to Russia despite the risks of being arrested as soon as they cross the border.

On top of this, the Trump administration has tried to dismantle multiple pro-democratic media outlets through funding cuts, such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which are funded by the federal government. These outlets historically broadcast to countries behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. Since then, they have continued reaching and covering authoritarian states, including Russia, countering state propaganda. Although some funding for these media outlets has been restored, their future is bleak under Trump amid his administration’s attacks, cuts to services and the resulting mass staff layoffs.

The president’s shuttering of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) also severely affects campaign groups, NGOs and independent media that oppose Putin abroad. Those impacted include Kovcheg (The Ark), which supports Russians who have fled because of their anti-war position; international human rights organisation Memorial; and also Golos, whose co-founder was jailed in May.

The human rights non-profit Free Russia Foundation has also had its funding heavily impacted, according to independent media outlet Meduza. Founded in the USA in 2014, FRF supports Russian political prisoners, refugees and civil society.

In 2024, it was labelled an “extremist organisation” by the Russian government. Its vice-president – dissident and former political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza – was released in the prisoner swap between Russia and the West in 2024. He became one of the key figures of Russian opposition abroad. In his speech in April at the opening of an exhibition in Paris dedicated to Russian political prisoners, Faces of Russian Resistance, he stressed that discussions between Trump and Putin had centred on economic issues rather than human rights.

“We hear [Trump and Putin] talk about minerals, [frozen] assets; American businesses coming back to Russia; direct flights – anything but the people,” he said.

He stressed the importance of releasing hostages of war, including children kidnapped in occupied Ukraine, and Russian political prisoners. “The only reason they [political prisoners] are imprisoned is that they spoke against this criminal war,” he said.

Olga Romanova, director of civil rights organisation Russia Behind Bars, recently said in an interview that Trump was not concerned about Russian political prisoners – including minors.

Dozens of teenagers have been imprisoned for their anti-war actions or words, such as 16-year-old Arseny Turbin, who was sentenced to five years in a correctional colony for “participation in a terrorist organisation”.

In May, Ukraine and Russia exchanged 1,000 prisoners of war each. But Russia’s commissioner for human rights, Tatyana Moskalkova – a key interlocutor in the swaps – does not work with independent human rights defenders, few of whom are still in Russia, Ponomaryov told Zhivoy Gvozd.

Moskalkova has also promoted the Kremlin’s narratives – including that the Russian armed forces are “successfully fighting neo-Nazism” – and has rejected the term “political prisoners”.

The USA on the global stage

Ponomaryov and other members of the Council of Russian Human Rights Defenders wrote an appeal in April, highlighting that human rights are not being prioritised in the current peace talks. Recognising human rights as “the necessary condition” for world peace and security was an important breakthrough of the post-World War II era, the appeal reads, referring to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The statement acknowledges how the USA has played a key role in this “movement towards progress”. But today, Ponomaryov says, “the US no longer sets an example for democracy, human rights and so on – and that is a catastrophe for the entire world”.

The Trump administration has created chaos for Russians opposing Putin abroad and reinforced the Russian leader’s position at home. At the same time, Trump’s relationship with Putin has raised a faint hope for peace.

But, even if the war ends it might not lead to the loosening of the Kremlin’s iron grip. As the human rights defenders’ appeal stresses, an unjust peace would “give a green light” to further aggression – and to even more repression in Russia.

In the face of this new reality, where the US president aligns with Putin rather than acting as a counterpower to him, there is a need for global unification. As Ponomaryov says, rights defenders across the world must come together around the issue of human rights and “start influencing what’s happening in the world arena”.

The week in free expression: 9 August – 15 August 2025

Bombarded with news from all angles every day, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at the targeted killing of four Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza, and the arrest of hundreds of protesters in the UK.

A targeted strike: Five Palestinian journalists killed by Israeli missile in Gaza

Four Palestinian journalists working for Al Jazeera, as three other media workers, were killed in a targeted Israeli strike on 10 August, bringing the total number killed in Gaza to at least 184 journalists since 2023 according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)

Anas al-Sharif, one of Al Jazeera’s most prominent reporters on the conflict in Gaza, was one of those killed in the strike. Having consistently reported on the ground since 7 October 2023, al-Sharif was subject to numerous death threats online. Israeli officials have repeatedly made unverified claims that al-Sharif was the leader of a Hamas terrorist cell, claims vigorously denied  by Al Jazeera, the CPJ and others. The IDF gave this as justification for the targeted strike on al-Sharif’s location, however no such justification was given regarding the lives of the others killed.

With foreign journalists banned from entering the Gaza strip, the only reporting from the ground is coming from Palestinian journalists.

Spare no protestor: More than 500 demonstrators arrested in one day for supporting Palestine Action

A demonstration in London’s Parliament Square in support of proscribed group Palestine Action saw 522 arrested on suspicion of breaking terrorism laws in one day – more than doubling the amount arrested on these terms in the entirety of 2024.

Taking place on Saturday 10 August, the demonstration organised by Defend Our Juries asked participants to hold up signs or placards stating “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Such a statement is a criminal offence, as the UK government banned Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws after two members of the group broke into RAF Brize Norton airbase and defaced aircraft.

An age breakdown by the Metropolitan Police revealed that of those protesters arrested who could have their ages verified, 49.9% were over the age of 60, with nearly 100 being in their seventies. Over 700 people have been arrested for supporting Palestine Action since its proscription, bringing widespread condemnation. UN human rights chief Volker Türk, argued that the proscription was an “impermissible restriction” on freedom of expression, while former cabinet minister Lord Peter Hain said the government were “digging themselves into a hole” by proscribing Palestine Action.

Gang violence: Two journalists attacked, one killed, while investigating gang activity

Two journalists were violently attacked on consecutive days while investigating gang activity in the city of Gazipur, Bangladesh, with one of the journalists being killed in the assault.

Reporter Anwar Hossain, 35, was interviewing rickshaw drivers about allegations of extortion on 6 August when he was brutally attacked by seven to eight men in broad daylight, one of whom repeatedly beat Hossain with a brick, injuring him severely. A video of the assault went viral on social media, with police seen nearby taking no immediate action. The following day, journalist Asaduzzaman Tuhin, 38, was filming armed men chasing a young man through a market, when the men turned on him and hacked him to death with machetes.

Following the death of Tuhin, five people have been arrested in connection with his murder. Attacks against journalists for their reporting have become more common in recent months in Bangladesh – in July, journalist Khandaker Shah Alam was assaulted in retaliation for reporting on a case that landed the assailant in jail. He later died of his injuries.

Art under attack: Pieces removed from Bangkok gallery under pressure from China

An art gallery in Bangkok has been forced to remove or alter a number of works by Hong Kong, Tibetan and Uyghur artists, following a visit from Chinese embassy officials.

The exhibition, titled Constellation of Complicity: Visualising the Global Machinery of Authoritarian Solidarity, was curated by the Myanmar Peace Museum, and aimed to lay out the interconnected nature of authoritarian regimes such as China, Russia and Iran. Held at The Bangkok Art & Culture Centre, the exhibition opened on 24 July – but just three days later, Chinese embassy officials alongside Bangkok city officials “entered the exhibition and demanded its shutdown”, according to the co-curator of the exhibition.

The gallery was reportedly warned that the exhibit “may risk creating diplomatic tensions between Thailand and China”. Under this pressure, they removed a number of works, including a multimedia installation by a Tibetan artist, and censored many more – removing the words “Hong Kong”, “Uyghur” and “Tibet” from artworks, redacting artists’ names, and taking down any content featuring Chinese president Xi Jinping. They also insisted that the gallery enforce the “One China policy” that iterates that the People’s Republic of China is the only government representing all of China, including the self-governed island of Taiwan.

A long struggle: Colombian presidential hopeful dies two months after being shot

Two months after he was shot at a campaign rally in Bogotá, Colombian senator and presidential candidate Miguel Uribe has died in hospital from his injuries, his wife has confirmed.

Uribe was shot twice in the head and once in the leg at the rally on Saturday 7 June. Colombian President Gustavo Petro launched an investigation into the incident as it was revealed that Uribe’s protection team had been reduced from seven to three people on the day of the attack for unknown reasons. The alleged gunman, a 15-year-old boy, was among six individuals arrested regarding the murder – the boy reportedly stated he acted “for money, for my family”.

Uribe was a member of the right-wing Democratic Centre party. He stated his inspiration for running for public office was his mother, journalist Diana Turbay, who was herself kidnapped and killed by a gang alliance in 1991 over her reporting. Uribe’s death brings back unwanted memories of a nation that was fraught with gang violence.

The Online Safety Act risks making everyone less safe

The Online Safety Act could have been worse. When it was still a bill, it included a provision around content deemed “legal but harmful”, which would have required platforms to remove content that, while not illegal, might be considered socially or emotionally damaging. We campaigned against it, arguing that what is legal offline must remain legal online. We were successful – “legal but harmful” did not make the final cut.

Still, many troubling clauses did make their way into the Act. And three weeks ago, when age verification rules came into force, people across the UK began to see the true scope of the OSA, a vast piece of legislation which already is curtailing our online rights.

Setting aside the question of how effective some of these measures are (how easy is it, really, to age-gate when kids can just use VPNs, as we saw a few weeks back?), many of our concerns focus on privacy.

Privacy is essential to freedom of expression. If people feel they are being monitored, they change how they speak and behave. Of course, there is a balance. We use Freedom of Information requests to hold power to account, so that matters of national importance aren’t hidden behind closed doors. But that doesn’t mean all speech should be open to scrutiny. People need private space, online as well as off. It’s a basic right, and for good reason.

We’ve landed in a strange place in 2025. Never before in human history have we had such powerful tools to access people’s inner lives. But just because we can doesn’t mean we should. The OSA empowers regulators and platforms to use those tools, mostly in the name of child safety (with national security also a stated goal, albeit one that seems secondary), and that’s not good.

To be clear: I empathise with concerns around child safety. We all want an internet that is safer for children. But from every conversation I’ve had, and every piece of research I’ve seen, it won’t make much of a difference to the online experience of our children. There are too many loopholes and the only way to close them all is to further encroach on the privacy of us all. Even then there will still be get-arounds.

What does a less private internet look like? Just consider a few ways we use it: we send sensitive data, like bank details, ID documents and health records, to name just three. That data needs to be private. We talk online about our personal lives. In a tolerant, pluralistic society, this may seem unthreatening, but not everyone lives in such a society. Journalists speak to sources via apps offering end-to-end encryption of messages. Activists connect with essential networks on them too. At Index we use them all the time.

The OSA is already eroding privacy. Privacy is being compromised by the OSA’s age-gating requirement under Section 81, which mandates that regulated providers use age-verification measures to ensure children – defined as those under 18 – don’t encounter pornographic content.

This means major platforms like TikTok, X, Reddit, YouTube and others must comply. Several sites already have profiles of us, based on information we’re had to upload to register, and the tracking of our online habits and patterns. Now our profiles will grow bigger still, and with details like our passports and driving licences. Although the OSA says age verification information should not be stored we already know that tech is not infallible and this additional data could be extremely powerful in the wrong hands. We’ve seen enough major data breaches to know this isn’t a worse-case abstraction.

But it could get worse. Section 121 of the OSA gives Ofcom the power to require tech companies to use “accredited technology” to scan for child abuse or terrorism-related content, even in private messages. Under the OSA, technology is considered “accredited” if it has been approved by Ofcom, or a person designated by Ofcom, as meeting minimum standards of accuracy for detecting content related to terrorism or child abuse. These minimum standards are set by the Secretary of State. By allowing the government to mandate or endorse scanning technology – even for these serious crimes – the OSA risks creating a framework for routine, state-sanctioned surveillance, with the potential for misuse. Indeed, while the government made assurances that this wouldn’t undermine end-to-end encryption, the law itself includes no such protection. Instead, complying with these notices could require platforms to break encryption, either through backdoors or invasive client-side scanning. Ofcom has even flagged encryption itself as a risk factor. The message to tech companies is clear: break encryption to show you’re doing everything possible. If a company doesn’t, and harmful content still slips through, they could be fined up to 10% of their annual global revenue. They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Yes we want a safer internet for our children. I wish there were a magic bullet to eliminate harm online. This isn’t it. Instead, clauses within the OSA risk making everyone less safe online.

Sometimes we feel like a broken record here. But what choice do we have, when the attacks keep coming? And it’s not just the OSA. The Investigatory Powers Act, formerly dubbed the “Snooper’s Charter”, has also been used to demand backdoors into devices, as we saw with Apple earlier this year.

So, we’re grateful that WhatsApp recently renewed a grant to support our work defending encryption and our privacy rights. As always, our funders have no influence on our policy positions and we will continue to hold Meta (WhatsApp’s parent company) to account just as we do any other entity. What we share is a core belief: privacy is a right and should be protected. And at Index we work on a core principle: human rights are hard won and easily lost. Now is not the time to give up on them – it’s the time to double-down.

 

 

 

Just Stop Oil climate protests feel the chill

This article first appeared in Volume 54, Issue 2 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled Land of the Free?: Trump’s war on speech at home and abroad, published on 21 July 2025. Read more about the issue here.

Ella Ward sat in jail in the UK for 10 months, waiting to be sentenced for planning to disrupt Manchester Airport in August 2024. When the sentence was handed down this May, it was 18 months in prison for Ward, with other protesters receiving up to 30 months.

Ward and their fellow activists from climate change direct action group Just Stop Oil never reached the runway, where they intended to glue themselves as part of a co-ordinated European action. Instead, according to an account from Ward, police arrested the activists on a side street in Manchester just after 4am on 5 August for planning the protest, which would have caused “severe delays”.

Four JSO activists were charged with conspiracy to cause a public nuisance and found guilty in February.

Ward, 22, a former environmental science student at the University of Leeds, is a serial activist. They have slow-marched down roads for JSO (for which they spent time in prison before charges were dropped) and thrown paint over think tank Policy Exchange, and they were one of three young people – under the banner of Youth Demand (an offshoot of JSO) – who left children’s shoes outside the home of Keir Starmer, then leader of the opposition, to protest against the killings in Gaza.

None of these actions have been violent, although many have caused offence and disruption. But the fact that Ward and others have been sentenced to prison for months demonstrates how the UK has been clamping down on protest when it would once have dealt with such direct actions with fines.
JSO, whose activists threw soup over Vincent Van Gogh’s Sunflowers at the National Gallery, announced earlier this year that it was stopping its activities.

The official reason given was that its demands – for no new oil and gas licences to be issued – had been met. But at the group’s final demonstration through London in April, it was clear that the imprisonment of key activists was a major concern: there were as many protesters holding up pictures of activists who had been jailed as there were messages about climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

Ths shift in protest policing

Mel Carrington, 63, is a JSO spokesperson who was acquitted in June after blocking the departure gates at Gatwick Airport with suitcases last year. She told Index: “We have to respond to repression, and all our most radical people are in prison. So it does have an impact.”

There are currently 11 JSO protesters behind bars. Co-founder Roger Hallam (also co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, or XR) is serving a four-year sentence (reduced from five years) for conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. His crime was playing a major role in a Zoom meeting where he was found to have conspired in a “sophisticated plan” for activists to climb gantries over the M25 – a motorway which circles London – and disrupt traffic. Hallam did not participate in the action, which took place in November 2022, but the law enabled him to be imprisoned for the protest nonetheless.

Locking up climate protesters is relatively new in the UK. Richard Ecclestone, an XR spokesperson and a former police inspector, said the attitude of the police, as well as actual laws, had changed dramatically over the last six years, which he found “very disturbing”. Police used to facilitate protest, now they are shutting it down.

“We don’t want to be like Russia, China or North Korea. That’s not who we are,” he told Index.

Recent anti-protest legislation has given police the power to stop almost any action they don’t like and granted the courts expanded powers to imprison protesters, although the Court of Appeal decided in May that the idea of “disruption” – which led to Swedish climate protester Greta Thunberg being arrested in London – had been drawn too widely and that “serious disruption” could not be categorised as anything “more than minor”.

The 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act has proved particularly effective at shutting down civil disobedience, while protest-related offences under the Public Order Act 2023 were introduced in direct response to environmental activism. Serious Disruption Prevention Orders introduced in 2024 also mean the courts can prevent people from taking part in disruptive protests after they’ve been convicted of protest-related offences, and breaching the order would be a criminal offence.

Mothers supporting daughters

The Labour government, elected last year, is seeking to give police even more powers to control demonstrations. Amnesty International has highlighted provisions in the new Crime and Policing Bill currently going through parliament which seek to ban face masks and criminalise climbing on war memorials.

The courts have also blocked the right for defendants to use beliefs and motivation as a lawful excuse for causing a nuisance, damage or disruption in most cases.

Ward’s mother (who didn’t want her name to be published) was on the march, as was Rebecca, the mother of Ruby Hamill, another protester who, at the age of 19, was held in prison for slow-marching. Ruby has now been released. Both mothers went on the final JSO march in support of their daughters.

Ward’s mother told Index: “My daughter is very passionate and compassionate and feels deeply about the injustice of the climate crisis and how it’s affecting the global south, and wants to let people know as much as possible. She’s done the most she possibly can do by putting her liberty on the line. She knew the potential outcome.

“She told the jury in the trial she would be at peace with whether she is found guilty or not guilty … the point of her action is to get the message out there. I’m here in solidarity with my daughter and all the other people who have been imprisoned.

“It’s a very conflicting place for a parent – so worried about them being in prison but conversely proud of them for standing up for their beliefs.”

The UK’s deteriorating record

The UK has a poor record when it comes to arresting climate protesters who, like JSO members, have been non-violent and allow themselves to be arrested.

A recent report from the University of Bristol, called the Criminalisation and Repression of Climate and Environmental Protests, looked at government responses across a range of countries.

The report found that 17% of climate and environmental protests in the UK involved arrest, making it the second most likely country (after Australia at 20%) to take environmental protesters into police custody.

It is not the only country to have clamped down heavily on climate protest. France has reached for anti-terror laws, and Spain, Germany and the USA have used legislation designed to tackle organised crime.

Separately, climate activists in the UK have often been subject to civil proceedings such as injunctions which prevent named (and sometimes unnamed) individuals from going near certain places. Carrington says these injunctions can be as intimidating as criminalisation, making people afraid they could lose their savings or their jobs.

In 2022, JSO protester Louise Lancaster was ordered to pay £22,000 for breaching an injunction preventing her going on the M25.

Carrington herself found that she couldn’t renew her house insurance because of proceedings against her. She also claimed teachers had discovered their jobs were at risk because criminal prosecutions for climate change action turned up in Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.

Another way forward?

All of this risks environmental protesters going underground and carrying out actions with less accountability. There are already organisations such as The Tyre Extinguishers whose members deliberately let down the tyres of SUVs and then scarper, or Shut The System, which sabotages infrastructure.

But the authors of the Bristol report recommended another way forward.

“Governments, legislatures, courts and police forces should operate with a general presumption against criminalising climate and environmental protests,” it said. “Instead, climate and environmental protest should be regarded as a reasonable response to the urgent and existential nature of the climate crisis, and activists engaged as stakeholders in a process of just transition.”

The leaders of climate change movements agree and are working out how to pivot to a less disruptive street-based approach and one which might garner more public support. Ecclestone says XR was interested in using citizens’ assemblies to achieve change and that a lot of work was going on to see how that could be made to work.

Carrington said JSO had a project as part of the umbrella group Assemble which aimed to build on the idea that politics was broken and corrupt, and that building a political project from the grassroots up was the way to achieve change.

She said: “What we need to do more than ever is to come together and to work together to survive the storm that’s coming.”

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK