Should charities take sides in culture wars?

The debate in brief

Several of Britain's most prominent charities have found themselves at the centre of polarised public arguments that have little to do with fundraising or service delivery and everything to do with contested social values. The National Trust published research into its properties' connections with colonialism and the slave trade. The RNLI faced a surge of hostility for rescuing people crossing the English Channel in small boats. Stonewall's engagement with gender identity policy drew coordinated opposition. Sex Matters registered as a charity to advocate for sex-based rights. In each case, politicians, commentators, and members of the public demanded the Charity Commission intervene -- and in each case, the question was the same: should the regulator decide which positions are too controversial for charities to hold?

Quick takeaways

The arguments

Charities must follow their purposes, not public opinion

The legal framework for charities in England and Wales is built on purposes, not popularity. If a heritage charity's objects include education and the preservation of places of historic interest, research into the histories of those places -- including uncomfortable histories -- falls squarely within its remit. If a lifesaving charity exists to rescue people at sea, the nationality or immigration status of those people is irrelevant to the charitable purpose.

The National Trust's 2020 "Interim Report on the Connections between Colonialism and Properties now in the Care of the National Trust" examined 93 properties with links to the slave trade and colonialism. The research was consistent with the Trust's charitable objects and its obligations under heritage best practice. The Charity Commission received a substantial volume of complaints about the report and opened a regulatory compliance case. In March 2021, the Commission concluded that the Trust had acted within its charitable purposes and found no evidence of regulatory wrongdoing.

The RNLI's position is even more straightforward. As a charity whose purpose is saving lives at sea, declining to rescue people in the Channel would have been a breach of its charitable objects, not a fulfilment of them. In 2021, following media and political attacks on the RNLI for its Channel operations, the charity received its highest ever total income at that point -- suggesting that public support was broader and deeper than the backlash implied.

Charities risk alienating supporters and straying from core missions

The counterargument is pragmatic rather than legal. Charities depend on public trust and voluntary support. When a charity engages with a socially divisive issue, even one connected to its purposes, it risks losing members, donors, and volunteers who feel the organisation no longer represents them.

The National Trust saw a significant membership backlash. Restore Trust, a campaign group formed by dissident members, mounted a challenge at the Trust's 2021 AGM, proposing that the charity had been captured by a political agenda and should return to its core conservation mission. The motions were narrowly defeated -- with votes close to 50/50 -- demonstrating genuine dissatisfaction among a substantial portion of the membership. The Trust's membership, which peaked at around 5.9 million in 2019-20, dropped to around 5.4 million in 2020-21 before recovering to 5.7 million by 2021-22 according to its annual reports.

There is also a broader question about institutional competence. A heritage charity may have legitimate objects that encompass historical research, but that does not mean its staff have the expertise to navigate contested historiography responsibly. An equality charity may have purposes that include policy advocacy, but wading into a debate as polarised as gender identity requires careful governance, clear evidence, and an appetite for sustained public hostility. The argument is not that charities should never engage, but that many are not equipped for the consequences when they do.

The regulator as referee -- and why it refused the role

A recurring demand in each of these controversies has been for the Charity Commission to act as arbiter -- to intervene when charities adopt positions that complainants find objectionable. The Commission has consistently declined to play this role.

Orlando Fraser KC, who served as Charity Commission chair from 2022 to 2025, was particularly direct on this point. In his 2023 speech to the Charity Law Association, he stated that the Commission would not be "weaponised in polarised debates" and would "robustly defend charities' right to campaign lawfully, even where such campaigning covers sensitive or politically divisive ground." He explicitly rejected the framing that charities engaging with social issues amounted to "wokery," calling such complaints outside the Commission's regulatory remit.

This position reflects a structural reality. The Charity Commission regulates compliance with charity law, not the popularity of charitable activity. If the Commission began adjudicating whether positions on colonial history, migration, or gender identity were acceptable, it would become a censor of ideas rather than a regulator of governance -- a role fundamentally incompatible with the independence the sector requires.

The evidence

The gender identity debate provides the clearest illustration of how charity law handles contested positions. Stonewall, founded in 1989 and registered as a charity since 2003, expanded its remit to include transgender equality and advocacy for self-identification of legal sex. In response, the LGB Alliance was established to advocate for the rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people on the basis of sexual orientation, explicitly opposing Stonewall's position on gender identity. LGB Alliance was registered as a charity in 2021. Mermaids, a charity supporting transgender children and their families, challenged the registration at the Charity Tribunal, arguing that LGB Alliance's purposes were not charitable. In 2023, the Tribunal dismissed the challenge on the grounds that Mermaids lacked standing to bring the appeal, leaving LGB Alliance's charitable status intact.

Sex Matters, founded by Maya Forstater, was registered as a charity in April 2024 with purposes including the promotion of human rights on the basis of sex. The Charity Commission's decision to register it was itself controversial, but the Commission applied the same test it applies to all applicants: whether the stated purposes are exclusively charitable and for the public benefit.

The result is that charities holding diametrically opposed positions on gender identity -- Stonewall and Mermaids on one side, LGB Alliance and Sex Matters on the other -- all hold charitable status. This is not a contradiction. Charity law does not require a single correct position on contested issues. It requires that each charity's activities further its own stated purposes.

Public opinion data underscores the complexity. The Charity Commission's 2023 public trust survey found that 54% of the public said they trust charities, giving charities a mean score of 6.3 out of 10. The decline from a 2014 peak (6.7 out of 10) is driven more by financial concerns -- high CEO pay, fundraising practices -- than by culture war positions. Only 15% of respondents cited "political activity" as a reason for distrust.

Current context

The culture war pressures on charities have not disappeared, but the regulatory environment has stabilised. The Charity Commission's investigations into the National Trust, Stonewall, and related complaints all concluded without findings of wrongdoing, establishing a pattern of precedent that makes future regulatory intervention on similar grounds less likely.

Fraser's departure as Charity Commission chair in April 2025 raised questions about whether his successor would maintain the same stance. The Commission's institutional position, however, is embedded in its regulatory framework rather than in the views of any individual chair. The CC9 guidance on campaigning and political activity, updated in November 2022, remains the operative framework and makes no distinction between popular and unpopular advocacy.

The broader political landscape has shifted. Labour's 2024 election and the Civil Society Covenant launched in July 2025 have moved the conversation toward partnership and recognition of the sector's independence. Culture war attacks on charities continue in some media outlets, but they carry less political weight than during the 2019-2024 period when senior Conservative figures -- including Nigel Farage, who targeted the RNLI specifically -- used charity positions as proxies in wider ideological battles.

Last updated: April 2026

What this means for charities

Charities facing culture war backlash should understand that the legal and regulatory position is significantly more permissive than the public debate suggests. The Charity Commission has repeatedly demonstrated that it will not intervene simply because a charity's position is controversial. The test is purpose, not popularity.

That said, the reputational risks are real and should be managed as governance matters, not communications afterthoughts. Trustees should ensure that any engagement with a socially divisive issue is formally connected to charitable purposes, documented in board minutes, and supported by evidence or expertise relevant to the charity's mission. Reactive engagement driven by staff enthusiasm or social media pressure, without trustee oversight, is where charities get into difficulty.

Charities should also be realistic about the cost. The National Trust's experience shows that even when the regulator finds no wrongdoing, a sustained backlash can affect membership, media coverage, and internal morale for years. The RNLI's experience shows the opposite -- that standing firm on core purpose can galvanise public support. The difference often lies in whether the charity's position is clearly rooted in what it exists to do, or whether it looks like mission drift.

Common questions

Did the Charity Commission find the National Trust broke any rules?

No. The Charity Commission opened a regulatory compliance case following complaints about the National Trust's 2020 report on colonial connections. In March 2021, the Commission concluded its case and found that the Trust had acted within its charitable purposes. The Commission noted that research into the history of properties in its care was consistent with the Trust's objects of preservation and public education.

Is the RNLI obliged to rescue people crossing the Channel?

Yes. The RNLI operates under the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue and has a duty to respond to anyone in distress at sea, regardless of nationality, immigration status, or the reason they are at sea. This is also consistent with the RNLI's charitable purpose of saving lives at sea. The charity has operated in the Channel since its founding in 1824 and has always rescued anyone in danger, including during both World Wars.

Can charities on opposite sides of the same debate both be registered?

Yes. Charity law does not require a single correct position on contested social issues. The Charity Tribunal's 2023 decision — which dismissed Mermaids' challenge on standing grounds, leaving LGB Alliance's charitable status intact — confirmed this principle. Both Stonewall and LGB Alliance hold charitable status despite advocating opposing positions on gender identity. The test for registration is whether the charity's purposes are exclusively charitable and for the public benefit, not whether the regulator or any other party agrees with the charity's position.

Should the Charity Commission prevent charities from being "woke"?

The Charity Commission has explicitly rejected this framing. Orlando Fraser KC, as chair, stated that the Commission would not be "weaponised in polarised debates" and that complaints about charity "wokery" were outside its regulatory remit. The Commission regulates compliance with charity law -- governance, financial management, and furtherance of charitable purposes. It does not assess whether a charity's positions are politically fashionable or unfashionable.

What should trustees do before engaging with a divisive issue?

Trustees should apply the same test the Charity Commission applies: does this activity further our charitable purposes? If the answer is yes, and the activity is evidence-based, proportionate, and within the charity's area of expertise, trustees should document their reasoning and proceed. If the connection to charitable purposes is tenuous, or the charity lacks the governance structures to manage sustained public controversy, trustees should think carefully about whether engagement is an effective use of charitable resources.

Did the RNLI lose donations over the Channel backlash?

No. The opposite happened. In 2021, the year of the most intense public criticism, the RNLI recorded its highest total income at that point, with online donations spiking by over 2,500% during the days of the most intense criticism. The charity's own analysis attributed the increase partly to a wave of public support in direct response to the attacks. This does not mean backlash is costless -- the RNLI invested significant time and resources in responding to abuse directed at staff and volunteers -- but it does suggest that public sentiment was more supportive than media coverage implied.

Key sources and further reading

• Interim Report on the Connections between Colonialism and Properties now in the Care of the National Trust -- National Trust, September 2020. The report that triggered the controversy, examining 93 properties' links to colonialism and the slave trade.

• Charity Commission Regulatory Compliance Case: National Trust -- Charity Commission, March 2021. The Commission's formal conclusion that the National Trust acted within its charitable purposes.

• Orlando Fraser KC's Speech at Charity Law Association Conference 2023 -- GOV.UK. The then chair's defence of charities' right to campaign on contested issues and rejection of the "woke" framing.

• LGB Alliance v Charity Commission (Mermaids Intervening) -- First-tier Tribunal (Charity), 2023. The Tribunal decision upholding LGB Alliance's charitable status and confirming that charities can hold opposing positions on the same issue.

• Speaking Out: Guidance on Campaigning and Political Activity by Charities (CC9) -- Charity Commission, updated November 2022. The regulatory framework governing charity engagement with political and social issues.

• RNLI Annual Report and Accounts 2021 -- Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Documents the record income year during the period of most intense public backlash.

• Public Trust and Confidence in Charities 2023 -- Charity Commission. The most recent large-scale survey of public attitudes toward charities, including data on trust drivers and detractors.

• National Trust Annual Report 2023-24 -- National Trust. Includes membership figures showing recovery following the post-2020 decline.

• Civil Society Covenant -- GOV.UK, July 2025. The framework for the Labour government's relationship with the voluntary sector, including principles on independence and recognition.