Andrew Gilligan promoting his work for the think tank Policy Exchange on the right-wing outlet GB “News”
Why Muslims (Don’t) Matter: The UK and the Demonization of Sadiq Khan
In September 2024, UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper commissioned a rapid review on extremism, assessing emerging threats and informing Britain’s counter-extremism strategies.
Authorities were concerned that traditional definitions of extremism might not encompass evolving dangers. Weeks earlier, 17-year-old Axel Rudakubana had killed three young girls and wounded 10 girls and staff at a Southport holiday club. He had been referred to the Prevent programme on multiple occasions but had not been classified as an extremist under existing criteria.
See also Making Plans for Nigel: The Politician and TV Networks Stoking the UK’s Far-Right Riots
The leaked findings of the review suggested a paradigm shift in addressing extremism. Instead of focusing solely on specific ideologies, the analysts recommended monitoring of behaviors and activities, such as the dissemination of conspiracy theories; misogyny; and participation in online subcultures like the “manosphere”. This behavior-centric approach aimed to better identify and mitigate threats that do not fit neatly into established ideological categories.
But the recommendations were rejected by the government. Ministers expressed concerns that broadening the definition of extremism to include such behaviors could infringe upon freedom of speech and potentially criminalize non-violent individuals. The Home Office confirmed that there were no plans to expand the current definition of extremism, and emphasized that the leaked document did not represent official government policy.
However, that was not the full story.
The consideration of the report had been prejudiced by its leak to the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange. It swiftly published a rebuttal, Extremely Confused, which dismissed the findings as “confused and potentially damaging”. They then briefed right-wing media outlets such as The Times and The Telegraph, creating political pressure to ensure the report’s recommendations were dead on arrival.
The episode underscores a growing crisis in governance. Rather than engaging with the findings of important studies in good faith, some officials in government have sought to undermine and suppress them. The core issue is not the validity of the report’s conclusions, but the willingness of those officials to sideline evidence-based approaches in favor of ideological position.
The post-Southport report was meant to inform national security strategies, helping policymakers address emerging threats. Instead, the leak to Policy Exchange discredited the initiative before it could shape policy and operations.
Who truly decides what constitutes extremism? And to what extent is policymaking being shaped by unaccountable think tanks rather than evidence and democratic scrutiny? Rather than the national interest, what specific interests might those think tanks serve?
The Think Tank
Policy Exchange was founded in 2002 by Conservative MPs Francis Maude and Archie Norman and by Nick Boles, who later also became a Tory MP. Its first chairman was Michael Gove, a future minister in four Conservative governments.
The think tank’s reports have provided intellectual cover for
a range of controversial policies, from the expansion of counter-extremism measures to market-driven reforms in public services. Its credibility has been repeatedly questioned.
In 2007, BBC Newsnight exposed Policy Exchange’s fabrication of evidence in a report alleging that extremist literature was being sold in UK mosques. The receipts that supposedly proved these purchases were falsified.
The scandal did little to dampen the organization’s influence. Instead of being discredited, Policy Exchange continued to hold significant sway over government policy, largely due to its alignment with the ruling Conservative Party and its network of allies in the media.
One of the most controversial aspects of Policy Exchange is its lack of transparency. Ranked by OpenDemocracy as one of the most opaquely-funded think tanks, it refuses to disclose its donors and remove the concern that foreign or corporate interests are behind its “research” influencing UK policy decisions.
The Journalist
The co-author of the Policy Exchange document attacking the post-Southport report on extremism is Andrew Gilligan, a journalist whose career has been defined by controversy and alleged misconduct.
Gilligan rose to prominence in 2003, when he reported that the British government had “sexed up” intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of
mass destruction. His claims led to the Hutton Inquiry, which found his allegations to be “unfounded” and criticized the BBC’s editorial processes as “defective”. The Inquiry noted that Gilligan had attributed his own inferences to Dr. David Kelly, a weapons expert at the Ministry of Defence. Kelly was subsequently outed as Gilligan’s source, resulting in intense media scrutiny, and committed suicide shortly thereafter. The fallout from the Inquiry led to the resignations of Gilligan, BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies, and Director-General Greg Dyke.
Over the years, Gilligan has repeatedly targeted British Muslim communities with misleading narratives. His articles have been widely criticized for promoting Islamophobic tropes, and he has been accused of exaggerating extremism to fit a predetermined ideological agenda.
In 2014, he played a key role in amplifying the Trojan Horse affair, a moral panic over an alleged Islamist plot to take over Birmingham schools. His reporting for The Telegraph lent credibility, fuelling political hysteria driven by then-Education Secretary Michael Gove. Gove used the claims to justify sweeping counter-extremism measures, leading to heavy-handed government interventions that derailed the careers of innocent Muslim teachers. Multiple reviews found no evidence of a plot, and a New York Times investigation — serialized in a podcast — further exposed the affair as a fabricated narrative. But by then, the damage was done.
In 2016, The Telegraph was forced to apologize and pay damages after Gilligan falsely alleged corruption in the sale of Poplar Town Hall. That same year, he wrongly branded Haras Ahmed as an “Islamist activist” trying to undermine Prevent. The claim was entirely false, and The Sunday Telegraph paid £20,000 in damages.
The Telegraph also had to issue an apology to Ifhat Smith, a British Muslim mother who had spoken out after her son was questioned under Prevent for using the term “eco-terrorist” in class. Gilligan falsely depicted her as an activist linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and claimed she was part of a coordinated campaign against the government’s counter-extremism policy. The newspaper later admitted these claims were unfounded and paid damages to Smith.
In 2018, The Sunday Telegraph paid damages to Mohammed Kozbar, chairman of Finsbury Park Mosque, over a Gilligan article falsely linking him to extremism. Kozbar, who had worked closely with local authorities on community engagement and counter-radicalisation, was smeared through flimsy associations in a case that fit Gilligan’s broader pattern of targeting prominent British Muslims.
Despite repeated legal reprimands, Gilligan remained influential in policy circles, serving as a transport adviser to Boris Johnson and later as a policy adviser to Rishi Sunak. His latest work for Policy Exchange follows a familiar pattern: weaponizing selective information to advance an ideologically driven counter-extremism agenda rather than one based on evidence.
The Government and Think Tanks
Policy Exchange is part of an ecosystem of right-wing think tanks concentrated around Tufton Street in Westminster. Their influence extends across multiple Conservative administrations, from David Cameron’s austerity policies to Liz Truss’s disastrouseconomic experiments.
These organizations, including the Institute of Economic Affairs, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, and the Centre for Policy Studies, operate with minimal transparency yet wield extraordinary influence over public policy. They have shaped economic deregulation, anti-union legislation, climate change denial, and immigration policies such as the Rwanda deportation plan, ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court and condemned by human rights organizations.
James O’Brien, in his book How They Broke Britain, outlines how this network has manufactured outrage to serve their own interests, creating a feedback loop that distorts democratic governance. While proponents argue that think tanks provide independent expertise, the opaque funding and repeated alignment with government priorities suggest otherwise: these groups act less as neutral advisors and more as ideological enforcers.
Ignoring Dangers
The dismissal of an evidence-based approach to extremism in favour of an ideologically-driven one has real-world consequences. Rejecting the recommendations of an extremism policy focusing on harmful behaviors, the government chose ignore emerging dangers in favor of a narrow, politically-convenient definition of extremism.
If the UK is to reclaim evidence-based governance, there must be greater transparency around the funding of think tanks and their role in policymaking. Britain deserves a counter-extremism strategy that is based on facts, not ideological posturing.
Anything less is a dereliction of duty.
