28. April 2026

Who Gets to Define Extreme?

If you find this useful, I share practical tools and insights by email Sign up to the newsletter

There's a word at the centre of a debate between the government and the charity sector. That word is extreme. And until someone does, every charity working at the edges of faith, justice, or social change should be paying close attention.

In March, the government announced plans to give the Charity Commission significantly stronger powers — faster investigations, easier closure of organisations, and potential bans on trustees where there is evidence of promoting violence or hatred. The stated aim is a good one. The proposals are designed to ensure that those with extremist agendas cannot exploit charitable status and undermine public trust in the sector. Few people in the sector would argue with that ambition.

But good aims and well-designed powers are not the same thing. And the sector has noticed.

The concern isn't the intention. It's the imprecision.

A letter signed by the leaders of 18 charities and membership bodies — including NCVO, ACEVO, the Muslim Charities Forum and the Charity Finance Group — warned the Culture Secretary of the possible negative consequences of the proposals, expressing particular concern about "broader and more ambiguous grounds on which organisations could be reported for alleged and ill-defined extremism."

That phrase — ill-defined — is key. Because when definitions are vague, they move. They are interpreted, applied, and contested. And in that movement, charities doing entirely legitimate work can find themselves suddenly uncertain about whether they still are.

The letter warned that Muslim-led, environmental, and racial justice organisations already face disproportionate scrutiny and are frequently misrepresented in ways that subject them to heightened regulatory pressure and reputational attacks.

For faith-based charities, the stakes feel closer to home — but the principle is the same for everyone.

Belief has always been uncomfortable for regulators.

Faith is not a private hobby that charities happen to share with their founders. It is, for many organisations, the entire framework through which they understand justice, community, and human dignity. It motivates the work. It shapes the language. It is inseparable from the purpose.

And that means faith-based charities have always had to navigate a particular tension: being authentically themselves whilst operating within a regulatory framework that was largely designed without them in mind.

That tension is not new. But it becomes more acute when the rules shift — especially when the shift is driven by political urgency rather than careful definition.

The question was never whether charities should be allowed to hold and express beliefs. They should, and the framework has always permitted it. The question is who gets to interpret whether that expression crosses a line — and what safeguards exist when they get it wrong.

Sector leaders have been consistent in calling for clear definitions and robust oversight — but also for a fair and transparent regulatory environment that supports charities, not just restricts them. That balance matters enormously. Faster powers to close charities are only safe if the threshold for using them is equally well-designed.

Governance has always been protection. Now it needs to be articulate.

None of this means retreating. It means being clearer — with yourselves, with your trustees, and with anyone who might one day ask why you said what you said or did what you did.

For trustees, the practical questions are straightforward, even if the answers require some work. Can you explain, in plain language, why your activities serve your charitable purpose? Have you recorded the reasoning behind decisions on sensitive topics — not defensively, but confidently? Does your board understand the difference between the charity expressing its values and straying into territory the Commission might view differently?

These questions aren't a sign that something is wrong. They're a sign that you're taking your role seriously.

The Muslim Charities Forum put it directly: any expansion of powers must not become a vehicle for suppressing legitimate advocacy or political participation, which would further erode democratic norms in an already shrinking civic space. You don't have to share their particular context to recognise that the concern is a reasonable one — and one that applies across the sector.

The charities most at risk from poorly defined powers are not the ones the government is targeting. They are the ones doing difficult, necessary work in contested spaces, who suddenly find themselves having to justify their existence to a regulator with broader tools and less time.

That is worth being ready for.

Not worried. Ready.

Further Reading:

• PRESS RELEASE : Government plans new powers to close down charities peddling extremism [March 2026]
• New Charity Commission powers could suppress advocacy and campaigning, culture secretary warned
• PM’s pledge of more powers to close charities promoting extremism draws sector concerns

Want more like this? I send practical tools, funding ideas, and honest insights straight to your inbox for small and medium charities. Sign up to the newsletter