- The U.K. government is advancing plans to ban ransomware payments across the public sector and critical national infrastructure, such as the NHS, local councils and energy providers, expanding an existing ban on government departments.
- Despite a 35 percent decline in ransomware attacks in 2024, the National Cyber Security Centre warns the threat remains serious, citing recent attacks on Synnovis and the British Library as examples of ongoing disruption.
- The proposal includes a mandatory reporting system requiring victims to report ransomware incidents within 72 hours, as well as a potential prevention regime requiring non-covered entities to notify authorities if they intend to pay a ransom.
- Nearly 75 percent of respondents to a public consultation supported the ban and 63 percent backed mandatory reporting. However, opinions were divided on the appropriate penalties, with concerns about criminalizing victims.
- While penalties for non-compliance received general support, the Home Office is still evaluating whether they should be civil or criminal, aiming to balance enforcement with fairness to affected organizations.
(Natural News)—The U.K. government is pushing forward with plans to ban ransomware payments across the public sector and operators of critical national infrastructure.
Ransomware, a malicious software that locks users out of their systems until a ransom (often in cryptocurrency) is paid, remains one of the most disruptive cyber threats facing the United Kingdom. While recent data shows a decline in attacks, the threat persists. Blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis reported a 35 percent drop in ransomware incidents last year compared to 2023. However, the National Cyber Security Center has warned that the threat remains immediate and disruptive.
The Annual Cyber Security Review, released in December 2024, cited several high-profile attacks as examples. A June 2024 ransomware incident targeting pathology lab Synnovis led to delays in elective procedures and outpatient appointments. A separate attack in October 2023 severely compromised the British Library’s digital systems.
Ransomware may have declined in volume, but the financial toll of cybercrime remains significant. A report in June by blockchain security firm CertiK found that wallet compromises and phishing attacks now account for the bulk of crypto-related losses. (Related: Ransomware gang claims responsibility for recent hacking incident against conservative newspaper The Washington Times.)
In line with this, the U.K. government proposed a plan on July 22 that would prohibit organizations such as the National Health Service, local councils and energy providers from paying ransoms to cybercriminals. The move, which follows a public consultation, was built on an existing ban already in place for central government departments.
The proposals include a new threshold-based reporting system. Under this system, any victim of a ransomware attack would be required to file an initial report within 72 hours, including key details of the incident, followed by a more detailed account within 28 days. The Home Office is also considering new requirements for businesses and organizations not covered by the ban. These would include a mandatory “prevention regime” obliging victims to notify the government if they intend to pay a ransom.
“Ransomware preys on businesses and disrupts vital public services like schools and hospitals. We must protect our economy against the criminals who hold organizations to ransom. I’ve announced our plan to target these criminal networks and smash the ransomware operating model,” said U.K. Security Minister Dan Jarvis.
U.K. ransomware payment ban gains broad support, but penalties spark debate
A clear majority supports the proposal to ban ransomware payments across public sector bodies and critical national infrastructure, but opinions are split on whether and how to penalize those who violate the rules. The consultation, which ran from Jan. 14 to April 8, drew 273 responses. Of those, 57 percent came from organizations, 39 percent from individuals and the remaining four percent from other groups.
According to the results, nearly 75 percent of respondents backed the proposed targeted ban, citing the need to curb the profitability of ransomware attacks that continue to disrupt vital public services. The consultation also revealed varying levels of support for related proposals.
A majority of 63 percent backed the introduction of a threshold-based mandatory reporting system. In contrast, only 41 percent supported retaining the current voluntary reporting framework. Opinions were more divided on the proposed prevention regime, with nearly half of respondents expressing support for an economy-wide ransomware payment ban, rather than limiting the measure to specific sectors.
However, views diverged sharply on what enforcement should look like. Respondents generally supported penalties for breaches across all three proposals, including the ransomware payment ban, a prevention regime for non-covered entities and mandatory reporting, but concerns were raised about the risk of “criminalizing victims.” Some respondents questioned whether penalties should be criminal or civil in nature, and warned of unintended consequences for businesses already grappling with cyberattacks.
The Home Office acknowledged the complexity, saying it would “continue to explore the most appropriate and proportionate penalties” in light of the mixed feedback.
Visit CyberWar.news for more similar stories. Watch the video below that talks about ransomware attacks, where victims are left without water or money access.
More related stories:
- Ransomware attack on Dole causes SHORTAGE of salad in groceries.
- Food giant Dole temporarily halts U.S. production following ransomware cyberattack.
- Costa Rican government under siege from massive ransomware attack; hackers threaten to overthrow regime.
- Was the FAA’s nationwide ground stop on flights last week the work of ransomware hackers?
- Ransomware attack on blood bank forces hundreds of hospitals in southeastern U.S. to activate blood shortage protocols.
Sources include:
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.