Freedom of expression across England’s cultural sector is being constricted by escalating political scrutiny, nervous trustees and the growing weaponisation of funding, according to a new report published today by the arts charity Queercircle.
Let’s Create Change: Artistic Freedom in a Time of Genocide and Rising Fascism draws on anonymous testimony from 44 arts workers across England. Their accounts claim that expressions of solidarity with Palestine and support for the rights of transgender people are being disproportionately stifled, while more permissive approaches are taken towards other topics.
Nearly three-quarters (72%) of respondents described stark inconsistencies in how institutions apply principles of free expression, depending on the subject under discussion. One recalled that their employer had readily issued statements on anti-racism and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, yet refused to comment on the Israel-Palestine conflict because it would be deemed “taking a side”.
The report argues that Arts Council England’s (ACE) guidance on “matters of political debate”, which was introduced in January 2024, has exacerbated these fears. It also highlights controversial changes made by ACE to its Relationship Framework for National Portfolio Organisations (NPOs), which focused on the “reputational risk” associated with “overtly political or activist” statements, warning that “output that might be deemed controversial” could threaten funding for recipients.
More than half of respondents (55%) said the guidance had affected their organisation, with one freelancer noting that ACE-funded venues were “too scared to let artists make statements or show solidarity.” A spokesperson for Arts Council England said it “unequivocally supports artistic expression and the right of artists to make work that is challenging, provoking, and indeed, political” and pointed out that its guidance was updated after concerns were raised about its impact on freedom of expression.
Several arts workers said they had been explicitly warned that certain viewpoints could alienate trustees or jeopardise funding. One described being told by a director “not to assume everyone shares your views”, a remark they described as having “a censorious effect”.
Another respondent highlighted the “many occasions” when they were “directly asked to offer opinions from my ‘lived experience as a Black woman’”, only to then be told they were “‘being too political, hyper-critical” or “making trouble”.
Respondents also described experiencing pressure through active interference in programming. According to the report, trustees at one institution argued that the public programming of work by Palestinian artists “would be considered contentious” and should instead be limited to a “friends-only, closed event”.
Queercircle’s report concludes that political pressures are “structural” across the UK cultural sector, mirroring a broader narrowing of civic spaces. It calls for stronger legal protections, clearer institutional policies, collective action to defend artistic freedom and reform of the Charity Commission complaints process to prevent frivolous and vexatious complaints against organisations.
One respondent concluded: “I wish for a better understanding that pressure on and attempts to curtail freedom of expression is bad for business here. Ultimately, the more restrictive things get, the less relevant and pioneering art will come out of the UK.”
