Nationalism on Fire: Why Far-Right Riots Matter for Security Policy

Far-right political movements in England have grown in recent years as the social, security, and economic landscape has moved toward anxiety and polarization. Large-scale rallies are no longer rare events, but have become more and more common in England’s largest cities; coming to a head most recently in the “Unite the Kingdom” march, where 110,000 people met in Whitehall, London, to oppose both immigration and what they view as an abandonment of the common man [1]. Digital mobilization, the surge of misinformation, and the involvement of controversial figures like Tommy Robinson (head of the English Defence League, a far-right, anti-jihadi group) and Elon Musk have given previously small, fringe groups an unimaginable reach, allowing them to spread their message through mainstream and alternative channels [2].

The far-right surge found a foothold in local grievances and turned them into national movements. In 2024 and 2025, right-wing riots erupted after a mass stabbing in Southport, Liverpool, and sexual assault cases that allegedly involved asylum seekers housed in hotels paid for by the British government [3][4][5]. Far-right activists heard of these incidents and then recruited locals to launch nationwide protests that targeted immigrants and asylum seekers. These riots resulted in violence, arson, and more than 140 police injuries [3]. Rioters and protesters organized around established and well-known far-right groups and personalities using social media platforms like Telegram and X; which, since Musk’s takeover, have restored previously banned accounts (including Tommy Robinson’s account). “Operation Raise the Colours” and other flag-raising campaigns tried to crowdsource anti-immigration activism, which coordinated disorder at asylum hotels and amplified and spread disinformation through digital channels [6].

Groups like Britain First, the Homeland Party, Patriotic Alternative, and other former members of the United Kingdom Independence Party have shifted their online influence into mobilized street action: selling their message as protection against a perceived breakdown of traditional values and the dangers of unchecked immigration. Reform UK, another party in the United Kingdom, has served as a vehicle for far-right grievances, winning nearly 14 percent of the vote in recent elections and seeming ready to win even more parliamentary seats in the next election [7][8][9]. The mainstreaming of far-right politics has expanded beyond protests to legal recognition, ensuring that anti-immigration rhetoric and digital mobilization have entered policy debates and media cycles, frequently managing to overshadow official government responses to escalating violence.

Violent disorder accompanying far-right rallies has become a national security priority as law enforcement tries its best to balance prevention and public trust. Since July, over 140 arrests and 40 police injuries have marked the scale of anti-immigrant activity, with incidents spreading from Liverpool to Newcastle, from Manchester to London [10]. Online platforms and social media sites have been central to far-right coordination, with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue identifying Telegram as a safe space for extremists and X as an amplifier for misinformation that then motivates real-world violence [10]. Elon Musk’s personal activity on his own platform, including inflammatory statements at rallies and content viewed by millions, further fuels tension. A government police review found that misinformation left online for too long directly contributes to the escalation of disorder and hate crimes [11]. The mechanisms that fuel these movements are increasingly professionalized, borrowing tactics from football hooligan firms and using digital anonymity to protect and exacerbate far-right organizing.

England’s far-right mobilization strategy is rooted in a narrative around an existential threat to English identity. This messaging relies on perceived government weakness and betrayal, the washing away of cultural and religious identity, and the idea that censorship of these digital spaces threatens fundamental rights. Members of these groups routinely accuse government and other official institutions of ignoring local crime perpetrated by migrants and claim that traditional media hide similar truths. Protests often revolve around the demand for immediate action against the presence of asylum hotels or increased police patrols. However, they also focus on the desire for broader systemic change in government and law enforcement practices. Inflammatory calls to “stop the boats” or to “ban public expression of non-Christian religions” highlight the ideological extremity underlying mainstream platforms. Many protesters now see themselves as defenders of national security, using rhetoric of civil war or violent uprising to legitimize their actions.

The rise in digital protections and screening practices is a direct response to the complexity posed by far-right networks, but it has become a rallying point for protest leaders. Legislation like the Online Safety Act requires platforms to moderate harmful content, verify age, and track identity more closely than ever, which then, in turn, leads to activist claims that new laws are simply illusions covering authoritarian government [12][13]. They argue that counter-extremism and screening are only selectively enforced against right-wing groups, as opposed to the more lenient approach seen with left-wing organizations [13]. The hyper-partisan nature of enforcement raises suspicions of bias, allowing allegations of government overreach to be spread through various digital platforms. Digital verification and surveillance practices, including facial recognition tools at public rallies and protests, are condemned by protest leaders who say that these tools undermine civil liberties, as they are being used to silence populist voices [14].

The role of misinformation and disinformation fueling far-right mobilization is key. Analysis of the 2025 anti-immigration protests revealed that platform-based organizing, utilizing Facebook, WhatsApp, Telegram, and X, facilitated the rapid dissemination of false claims, which subsequently escalated peaceful assemblies into violence [10]. Official inquiries reveal that this information was not only spread quickly but also reached unprecedented numbers, and was later used as the basis for policy appeals by major political parties [11]. The involvement of foreign actors in spreading false online narratives, as well as that of British far-right leaders and other international figures, further contributed to the spread of misinformation and instability [15]. The ease with which information can be spread online makes counteracting it challenging, often shifting the responsibility of screening from the government to platform moderation, which can occur faster than any official regulatory oversight.

Legal response to far-right violence and digital incitement has been forceful, with hundreds tried and prosecuted for hate crimes, illegal assembly, and racially motivated property damage. Undercover investigations show the extent to which extremist ideology spreads beyond a simple protest, which confirms that many far-right participants openly call for violent solutions like arming themselves and pushing for Nazi-like strategies for political gain [16]. Leaders publicly deny responsibility, while research evidence suggests a deep integration between propaganda, group identity, and national identity, as well as operational planning among groups [17]. The judicial system then faces two key issues: addressing the growing radicalization through established legal precedent while maintaining fairness in accordance with existing procedures, and preventing the perception of persecution based on political affiliation [18]. Continuing trials and exposure of group networks continue to demonstrate the need for the state’s willingness to enforce consequences, while also highlighting the importance of community intervention and international cooperation.

National security implications extend beyond immediate violence and disorder. Far-right movements are becoming more capable of undermining political and democratic norms, manipulating election outcomes, and harming public trust in how justice is administered. Intelligence reports note the presence of cross-border connections and the adaptation of tactics learned from anti-immigrant activism in Australia, the United States, and continental Europe [19]. The concentration of activity in these areas, which consistently face socio-economic difficulties, including inner-city London, the north of England, and the West Midlands, demonstrates how local grievances are leveraged for a larger national impact. The mainstreaming of violent extremism, with Reform UK acting as a bridge between radical ideology and electoral legitimacy, makes denial and dismissal impossible for current policymakers [7]. The growing number of terrorism-connected offences tied to extreme-right offenders highlights the expanded reach of these groups [11].

The roots of far-right appeal are found in alienated individuals, economic hardship or uncertainty, and the erasure of faith and trust in public institutions [20]. Mainstream responses have failed to address the underlying causes of far-right radicalization, inadvertently perpetuating the recruitment of individuals seeking stability, protection, community, and purpose [15]. Policy makers need to look at and confront the symptoms like riots, protests, and increased hate speech, but they also need to look at what is perpetuating these issues. Factors such as disconnected communities, unresolved economic hardships, and the perceived loss of national identity drive individuals to seek answers in places that are becoming increasingly perilous. Counter-messaging and legal action are struggling to combat digital echo chambers on social media. When they do try and fail, that failure is then used as evidence by far-right groups of how institutions are coming after them unfairly and how they are being silenced. The cycle then continues as new events create new rounds of state mobilization and response.

Societal resilience requires a multi-faceted approach with solutions to multiple problems. Direct investment in community trust, continued educational reform, and targeted interventions for at-risk populations address factors that drive individuals to these far-right groups [21]. Civic groups and independent media play a stabilizing role, offering people alternatives to the narrative being pushed now, which accuses leaders and media of spreading fake news and betraying the nation [22]. Without efforts like these, the trajectory remains headed toward further polarization and instability, as law enforcement alone cannot stop a movement that draws strength from actual grievances and systemic failures [23].

The far-right threat in England is unlikely to stop without structural changes at both the community and policy levels. The resilience of these movements, their ability to push past legal setbacks and moderating crackdowns from government institutions, and the acceleration of digital organizing tools all point towards a long-running struggle for the future of national security, free speech, and civic order. England’s experience will continue to serve as a warning and lesson for democracies facing similar issues worldwide.