Internationally acclaimed Irish novelist Sally Rooney has announced that she is being forced to withdraw her books from sale in the United Kingdom. This is due to her support for the direct action protest group Palestine Action, which the British government proscribed as a terrorist organisation in June 2025.
Rooney is one of the most visible and exciting literary novelists of the past decade. Her novels have largely focused on nuanced, psychologically acute portrayals of young adult relationships. She uses these often fraught and ambiguous romantic entanglements as a lens for exploring the complexities and cultural anxieties of life in the 21st century.
Her titles typically sell more than 500,000 copies in the UK alone. The BBC adaptation of Normal People, her second novel, has attracted 62.7 million views.
Rooney is based in Ireland, where there is no prohibition on Palestine Action. However, her intention to provide financial assistance for the organisation, in the form of donated royalties, may have legal consequences in the UK. Section 15 of the 2000 Terrorism Act makes it an offence if one “provides money or other property, and knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism”. Under the Act, this is punishable by a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.
This led Rooney to cancel a trip to the UK to accept a prize for her work in 2025, due to concern she could be arrested. Now her UK publisher, Faber, says this section of the act means they can no longer pay Rooney royalties on UK sales of her novels.
“To sell a writer’s work and not be able to pass on earnings is an unconscionable situation for a publisher,” Faber announced. As a result, the publisher has decided it can no longer supply her novels, in any format, in the territory.
Faber has, however, expressed its ongoing support for Rooney and will continue to publish her in other countries.
What is Palestine Action?
The recent statements from Rooney and her publisher have drawn new attention to the controversial designation of Palestine Action as a “terrorist organisation” and the effect it may have on free expression. Rooney’s case highlights the very broad terms in which a terrorist organisation can be defined under the 2000 act, and how this may be out of kilter with public understanding.
Palestine Action was established in the UK in 2020. Its declared aim was to “take direct action against Israel’s arms trade in Britain”. Most significantly, this has taken the form of break-ins and property damage at weapons manufacturing and military facilities.
Factories belonging to Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems have been the group’s primary target, but its actions have also been directed against British-owned companies and military infrastructure.
The move to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation seems to have been precipitated by a break-in at the RAF Brieze Norton station, where two aircraft were vandalised with spray paint, in June 2025. Palestine Action commented on the incident:
Despite publicly condemning the Israeli government, Britain continues to send military cargo, fly spy planes over Gaza and refuel US/Israeli fighter jets.
The government case for proscription was largely based on damage to property caused by the organisation. Some activists associated with Palestine Action were also charged with violent offences.
Then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said Palestine Action had “committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the government”. She noted that its actions caused millions of pounds worth of damages, and employees at the affected institutions to fear for their safety.
Erik Voake/Getty Images
A disconnect in perception
The ban on Palestine Action is currently being disputed in the UK Supreme Court. Critics have noted that, as well as being hastily implemented, the ban conflates direct action organisations, which typically target property, with explicitly violent organisations, which target people.
For example, the two other groups banned as terrorist organisations alongside Palestine Action in 2025 were the Maniacs Murder Cult (a neo-Nazi group that actively encourages murders and assaults via online messaging) and the Russian Imperial Movement (a white supremacist, antisemitic movement with a paramilitary wing).
The damage to property caused by groups like Palestine Action can be policed and deterred under general criminal laws, without recourse to the Terrorism Act. Therefore, critics argue, the designation of a direct action group as a “terrorist” organisation may be a dangerous form of government overreach, with consequences that go beyond the group itself.
Since the ban on Palestine Action, over 3,700 people have been arrested for publicly expressing support for the organisation, resulting in around 2,500 charges. These expressions have largely taken the form of displaying placards at protests. Expression of support is an offence under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, carrying a maximum jail term of six months. However, no one has been convicted while the ban is under appeal.
This represents a massive escalation in terrorism-related arrests in the UK. Before the ban in June 2025, only 234 arrests were made. After it, there were 3,867 arrests by the end of June 2026, a rise of 1,553%.
These numbers suggest a disconnect in public perception. Many are now facing serious consequences for what they see as free expressions of support for an organisation whose activities fall far short of ordinary understandings of “terrorist” activity.
Indeed, initial critics argued the act was being invoked somewhat cynically, as sympathetic juries might refuse to convict activists on criminal damage charges.
Valid concerns
The steep rise in arrests and charges following the Palestine Action ban suggests the concerns of Rooney and her publishers are valid. The removal of Rooney’s books from one of her largest markets is a significant consequence of the move to categorise a direct action group as a terrorist organisation. This use of the Terrorism Act has not just resulted in restrictions on the targeted group and its supporters. Now, it has limited the public’s access to highly popular and otherwise unrelated creative works.
Rooney no doubt has sufficient sales and resources to weather this move, but other authors may be more vulnerable. The removal of her novels may herald a future where authors can no longer sell their work in particular territories due to their political speech, and stated beliefs or affiliations.
Whatever the outcome of the ongoing legal challenges around the Palestine Action ban, this development shows its effects are being felt in unexpected areas of public life. It raises some difficult – and perhaps unanticipated – questions about the far-reaching effects of political decisions on literary culture and free expression.
