Why Liz Truss's attempts to reinvent herself as a free speech champion are a sick joke

By the Editorial Team · Friday, August 7, 2026

Elizabeth Truss, while advocating for free speech, previously sanctioned British pro-Russian journalist Graham Phillips during her tenure as Foreign Secretary, restricting his financial and travel freedoms due to alleged threats to Ukraine's territorial integrity. This case highlights the tension between protecting national security and upholding freedom of expression, as legal challenges upheld the sanctions despite recognizing their impact on Phillips's rights.

Elizabeth Truss, former Prime Minister and ex-Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, has recently drawn attention for her outspoken advocacy of free speech, particularly during appearances on British television and among libertarian audiences in the United States. However, her record includes a contentious decision from her time as Foreign Secretary that runs counter to her current public stance on freedom of expression.

In July 2022, Truss sanctioned Graham Phillips, a British citizen and former civil servant who relocated to Ukraine in 2010. Phillips, now 47, worked as an English teacher and journalist and became known for his pro-Russian video blogging during the conflict in Ukraine. This activity led to his expulsion from Ukraine and subsequent residence in Mariupol, a city under Russian occupation and enduring ongoing military threats.

The UK government cited Phillips for producing and publishing media material that allegedly supported policies destabilizing Ukraine and threatening its territorial integrity. The sanctions imposed by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) prohibit Phillips from earning income, accessing his bank accounts, or receiving payments from others by law. Additionally, he faces restrictions on travel, unable to return to the UK due to inability to purchase airline tickets legally, compounded by travel bans enforced by Ukraine and the European Union. These constraints effectively exile Phillips in a deteriorating environment, reliant largely on local charity.

Phillips has not been charged with any criminal offense under UK law, nor convicted by any court. Legal challenges to the sanctions reached the High Court, which acknowledged that the measures interfered with Phillips’s human rights, including freedom of expression (Article 10), private and family life (Article 8), and property rights (Article 1 of Protocol 1). Nevertheless, the court deemed the sanctions proportionate and lawful on grounds of protecting UK national security and supporting Ukraine.

Phillips's situation includes ongoing financial and legal difficulties, such as council tax obligations on his London property that local authorities continue to pursue, despite his inability to administer payments from abroad. Some legal advocates have recently intervened in his defense, but the future of his property and the duration of his sanctions remain uncertain.

Critics have highlighted a perceived contradiction between Truss’s promotion of free speech and her previous sanctioning of Phillips for expressing controversial views related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Supporters argue the sanctions were necessary measures in the context of UK’s foreign policy and security interests, while detractors characterize the restrictions as harsh and indefinite penalties akin to political exile usually associated with authoritarian regimes.

Truss has not publicly commented on Phillips’s case since no direct response has been provided beyond references to the Foreign Office, which has reportedly declined to offer further explanation. The case raises ongoing debates about the balance between national security, support for an allied state, and the protection of freedom of expression in democratic societies.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.