How the Home Office TikTok account risks fuelling fear and hate.
The Home Office has come under growing criticism by charities following the launch of a new TikTok account, @SecureBordersUK on 13 January 2026, which posts slick, fast-cut videos of people being handcuffed, detained during workplace raids, and escorted onto planes for deportation. Set to dramatic music and paired with bold slogans about “restoring order and control to our borders,” the videos have gone viral. One clip ends with the message, “And it’s just getting started.”
Since launching earlier this year, the account has amassed around 30,000 followers, more than 100,000 likes and over a million views across its videos. Its current bio reads: “The incentives that draw illegal migrants to the UK are being removed.” The message is unambiguous. Enforcement is not only policy, but also being presented as performance.
What has alarmed charities, academics and campaigners is not simply that enforcement activity is being publicised but how it is being framed. Arrests are edited as spectacle, deportations as victories. Individuals appear briefly, unnamed and voiceless, before the screen cuts to the next statistic or slogan. Charities like Freedom From Torture and both the Refugee and Scottish Refugee Council argue that this approach prioritises engagement over accountability, transforming acts of state power into online entertainment.
Human rights organisations have warned that this style of communication risks dehumanising migrants and fuelling fear, particularly among communities already living with uncertainty and trauma. Freedom From Torture described the videos as an attempt to score “cheap political points” by turning the brutality of immigration enforcement into clickbait, warning that such content can intensify anxiety and hostility rather than informed public debate.
Catriona Forrest, a University of Glasgow Media and Communications Lecturer, weighed in on the development. In February this year, she told the Glasgow Guardian that the TikTok account should be interpreted not as public information or journalism but as political messaging that raises significant ethical and democratic concerns. She believes that there is little control over the use of sensitive content because government-produced social media content is not subject to editorial standards or media codes of practice, in contrast to journalism.
As noted by Forrest, the choice of TikTok as a platform was probably not made by chance. She noted that the app is closely associated with younger audiences and highly emotive, algorithm driven content, suggesting a deliberate attempt to appeal to specific demographics in a specific way. According to her, the account’s main slogan, “restoring order and control to our borders,” makes it seem more like a calculated communications campaign than a policy update.
She also questioned the channel’s political goals and who authorised it, particularly in light of the upcoming elections. Forrest emphasised that the Home Secretary is ultimately in charge of this decision, which was actively made at the highest levels of government and ultimately sits with the Home Secretary. Further concerns regarding accountability in government communications are raised by the approach’s apparent inconsistency with the Home Office’s own 2030 Digital Strategy, which places a strong emphasis on openness and public trust, she continued.
Human rights and refugee groups in the UK like Care4Calais and others have condemned the account, as they argue its content could be used to justify racism and anti-migrant hostility. Such footage, filmed during a raid or deportation of vulnerable people, is what led Sile Reynolds, head of asylum advocacy with Freedom From Torture to say the videos were an act of “performative cruelty.” Forrest said she concurs with that description.
These worries have been echoed by Scottish organisations like the Scottish Refugee Council and members of the Diaspora Group for Global Citizenship across Scotland , which caution that inflammatory messaging is not limited to social media, as they warn that these narratives can have real world consequences for people living in asylum accommodation and migrant communities across Scotland and the UK.
The Home Office has defended its approach, suggesting that this style of communication helps address public concern about migration. Dr. Paul Reilly, Senior Lecturer in Communications, Media, and Democracy at the University of Glasgow, told the Glasgow Guardian in February that there is little evidence that this kind of content will significantly change people’s opinions.
TikTok videos, according to Dr. Reilly, are unlikely to influence people who already favour stricter border enforcement, just as they are unlikely to persuade those who oppose raids and deportations. He pointed out that responses to the account indicate that a lot of people view it as a political gimmick rather than a sincere effort to engage in the migration debate.
He also highlighted the limitations of social media platforms for a thoughtful and nuanced debate, pointing out that algorithms typically serve to support rather than to question preexisting views. Platforms like TikTok reward strong reactions and increased engagement from emotive content, but this does not result in improved public comprehension.
While the videos may not change minds, Dr. Reilly warned they run the risk of spreading false information and eroding social cohesiveness. He cited numerous examples of how the public is frequently misinformed about immigration, such as the pervasive overestimation of small boat arrivals and the unfounded assertion that asylum seekers are given preference when it comes to housing or benefits. He noted that the government would benefit more from correcting misinformation than from spreading narratives that incite fear. As both him and community organisations in Glasgow have similarly warned that the enforcement messaging increases anxiety among people seeking asylum, many of whom already experience isolation, insecurity and trauma.
Opposition politicians have also criticised the account. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told The Guardian described it as a “pathetic gimmick,” arguing that social media posts will not deter irregular migration. Others have questioned whether the account signals a shift in tone from Labour, which has pledged tougher border enforcement while also committing to human rights protections.
As debates around migration continue to intensify in the political landscape, charities and other critics argue that the Home Office’s approach risks normalising the spectacle of state power while sidelining human dignity. While the department has published figures showing a record level of arrests and visits over illegal working since current records began in 2019 to highlight enforcement activity, charities stress that statistics and viral videos do little to address the root causes of migration, including war, persecution and global inequality.
Forrest argued that public institutions have a responsibility to communicate with care, particularly on issues involving vulnerable communities. When the government adopts the language and tactics of viral media without ethical safeguards, she warned, it risks eroding public trust rather than strengthening it.
As the @SecureBordersUK account continues to post content, pressure is growing for greater transparency around its purpose, authorship and alignment with the Home Office’s stated values. For now, critics caution that turning immigration enforcement into social media “clickbait” may just deepen division rather than deliver the improvements the government claims to seek.
