UK sales of Sally Rooney’s books halted as publisher cites UK terror-proscription law and author’s support for Palestine Action
Narrative Snapshot
Across British, U.S., Israeli, and Asian outlets, the through line is consistent: the publisher Faber says current U.K. legislation prevents it from passing on U.K. earnings to Sally Rooney because she pledged to donate royalties to Palestine Action, a group the U.K. proscribed as a terrorist organization in July 2025. On that basis, Faber and Rooney agreed to stop supplying her titles in the U.K., while continuing sales elsewhere. Reports in the New York Times, South China Morning Post, Middle East Eye, Haaretz, BBC, and Al Jazeera converge on these mechanics and timing, with several noting that Palestine Action is appealing its proscription and is not banned in Ireland, where Rooney lives.
Outlets diverge on agency and framing. Most describe a publisher–author decision driven by law; the Times of Israel frames it as a publisher’s move to protest the U.K. proscription regime. Brazil’s Folha de S.Paulo attributes the halt to a Court of Appeal decision, a characterization not echoed elsewhere, where the withdrawal is linked to Faber’s stated inability to remit royalties under current legislation. Italian coverage in La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera emphasizes the U.K. terrorist designation and references to violent actions by the group, while Israeli outlets variously describe Palestine Action as “anti-Israel” or “pro-Palestinian.”
The political stakes are highlighted most explicitly in Middle East Eye’s follow-up, which reports MP Ian Byrne urging the government to de-proscribe Palestine Action, citing “draconian consequences,” arrests, and freedom-of-expression concerns. Parallel reporting in the Guardian, Haaretz, and the Times of Israel on rising anti-Muslim and antisemitic hate crimes, and separate Guardian coverage of a tightly constrained refugee route for Palestinians, situates the episode within a heightened U.K. policy and societal climate around Israel–Palestine.
What Happened
Faber stated that “current legislation in the UK has led to circumstances where Faber cannot pass on UK earnings to Sally Rooney for her work,” given Rooney’s declared support for Palestine Action and prior pledge to donate earnings to the group, which the U.K. government banned as a terrorist organization in July 2025. Calling it “an unconscionable situation,” Faber said, with Rooney’s agreement, it would no longer supply her books “in the UK in any format,” while continuing to sell in other regions. Reports note that Palestine Action is appealing its proscription and is not banned in Ireland, where Rooney resides. Subsequent coverage cited a call by MP Ian Byrne to de-proscribe the group following the sales halt. Multiple outlets quote Rooney as acknowledging the consequences of her stance and support.
Why It Matters
The episode tests the breadth of the U.K.’s proscription regime, which criminalizes support for listed organizations and constrains financial flows linked to them. Here, a mainstream cultural product becomes ineligible for standard commercial treatment because the author publicly committed royalty income to a proscribed entity, creating compliance exposure for the publisher. This illustrates how counterterrorism financing rules can intersect with cultural markets and speech, and how enforcement effects can be extraterritorial in practice when authors reside outside the banning jurisdiction.
It also underscores cross-border friction: Palestine Action is not banned in Ireland, yet U.K. sales are constrained. The case unfolds amid U.K. political scrutiny of policies related to Israel–Palestine, including record rises in anti-Muslim and antisemitic hate crimes and a narrowly scoped refugee pathway for Palestinians already in third countries, according to U.K. and Israeli outlets. For policymakers, the decision space touches proscription policy, civil liberties, and guidance to cultural and media industries on risk under terrorism legislation.
Diverging Narratives
Accounts differ on whether the halt reflects compelled compliance or an act of protest. Faber’s explanation, carried by Middle East Eye and others, centers on legal incapacity to remit U.K. earnings to Rooney because of her stated intent to fund a banned group. The New York Times similarly links the stoppage to Rooney’s pledge to donate royalties to Palestine Action. By contrast, the Times of Israel depicts the withdrawal as a publisher-initiated protest against the law proscribing Palestine Action.
There is also inconsistency over the legal trigger. Folha de S.Paulo attributes the halt to a Court of Appeal decision, whereas the Guardian, BBC, Haaretz, South China Morning Post, and Middle East Eye report it as a publisher–author decision taken in light of existing legislation and the group’s proscription. Descriptions of Palestine Action vary across outlets: Italian coverage foregrounds the terrorist designation and references violent actions; Israeli outlets alternately label it “anti-Israel” or emphasize its proscribed status; others describe it as “pro-Palestinian” or an activist group. Political framing diverges as well: Middle East Eye highlights MP Ian Byrne’s call to de-proscribe on free-expression grounds, while Italian and Israeli reportage stresses the security rationale behind proscription.
What Happens Next
Two decision points emerge from the coverage. First, the legal status of Palestine Action: reports note the organization is appealing its July 2025 proscription. If the ban is upheld, the legal barrier Faber cites to remitting U.K. earnings linked to Rooney’s pledged donations would remain; if overturned or lifted, the publisher’s stated rationale for withholding U.K. supply could fall away. Analysts should watch for court rulings or Home Office actions updating the proscribed list.
Second, political pressure within the U.K.: Middle East Eye reports MP Ian Byrne urging de-proscription and condemning the consequences of the ban. Government responses to such calls, and any parliamentary scrutiny of how proscription interacts with publishing and artistic income, will signal whether policy adjustments are contemplated. Faber’s commitment to continue sales outside the U.K., and the group’s non-banned status in Ireland, define the status quo absent changes to proscription or enforcement.