In a move that has ignited both fervent support and fierce opposition, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on September 26, 2025, that a mandatory digital identification system will soon become a reality for every citizen and resident seeking employment in Britain. The announcement, made at the Global Progress Action Summit in London, marks the most significant shift in British identity policy since the post-World War II era, thrusting the nation into a heated debate over privacy, civil rights, and the future of public services.
"You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have a digital ID. It’s as simple as that," declared Starmer during his address, according to reports by CryptoSlate and AP. The digital ID, which will store key personal details—such as name, date of birth, photograph, nationality, and residency status—on an individual's mobile device, is set to be in place before the next general election, anticipated by 2029.
The government’s pitch is clear: the digital ID is designed to curb illegal immigration and reinforce border controls. By requiring proof of legal status for employment, authorities hope to stymie the shadow economy and make it harder for unauthorized migrants to find work. Starmer argued that the move is an “enormous opportunity for the UK” and a way to ensure the immigration system is “fair,” seeking to reassure voters who have cited immigration as one of their top concerns.
But if the government hoped for a smooth rollout, it was swiftly disappointed. Within just 24 hours of Starmer’s speech, a public petition calling for the digital ID plan to be scrapped soared past 1.5 million signatures—a staggering display of public unease, as reported by The Independent. The petition states: “We think this would be a step towards mass surveillance and digital control, and that no one should be forced to register with a state-controlled ID system.” It’s a sentiment that has echoed across the political spectrum and throughout the country.
Civil liberties organizations, including Big Brother Watch, have been quick to ring alarm bells. They warn that the scheme risks establishing a “checkpoint society” that is “wholly un-British,” raising fears of domestic surveillance and unprecedented digital control. Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn minced no words, posting: “This is an affront to our civil liberties, and will make the lives of minorities even more difficult and dangerous. It is excessive state interference — and must be resisted.”
Critics emphasize that the digital ID, while initially limited to employment, could quickly become a prerequisite for accessing everything from benefits and healthcare to online services. Many draw comparisons to China’s internet ID system, which has been used to monitor citizens’ daily activities. “Once introduced, digital credentials risk becoming prerequisites for accessing everything from benefits and healthcare to online services,” warned advocacy groups, as cited by CryptoSlate.
Opposition politicians have also weighed in with sharp criticism. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, dismissed the plan as a “gimmick” that “won’t stop the boats,” referring to the ongoing crisis of migrants crossing the English Channel. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, went further, labeling the digital ID an “anti-British card” in the Daily Express and warning, “The Labour Government’s plan to impose digital ID cards on all adults will do nothing to combat illegal immigration. But it will give the state more power to control the British people.”
Even voices from abroad joined the fray. El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele took to social media, quoting a biblical passage about a mark without which “no man might buy or sell,” drawing a dramatic parallel to the UK’s digital ID proposal. Meanwhile, Bitcoin author and economist Luke Gromen quipped, “If you live in the UK and don’t own any BTC yet, now might be a good time to get you some.”
The government, for its part, insists the system will be user-friendly and not overly intrusive. Officials have stated that people will not be required to carry physical ID cards or be asked to produce them on demand; the digital ID will be held on smartphones, and a free alternative will be available for those without such devices. The government also promises a public consultation to iron out the details, hoping to assuage concerns and win over skeptics.
Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and a key architect of the policy, suggested at the summit that the digital ID could become the “bedrock of the modern state” and pave the way for “really quite exciting public service reform in the future.” He hinted at broader applications beyond employment, a prospect that has only fueled further debate.
For context, Britain has a long and fraught history with identity cards. The last time compulsory IDs were imposed on ordinary citizens was during World War II, and attempts to revive the idea—such as Tony Blair’s biometric ID cards two decades ago—were abandoned after strong public and parliamentary opposition. As Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, told the AP: “There’s always been this feeling that Britain is not a so-called ‘Papers, please’ society, in contrast to continental Europe and other countries where ID cards are very common.”
Yet, as Bale also noted, “given one is forced in some ways to prove one’s ID in myriad circumstances, both in contact with the government and in contact with the private sector in all sorts of ways, that actually a digital ID card would be quite useful.” The tension between convenience and control lies at the heart of the current debate.
The UK’s digital ID rollout comes as the European Union is developing its own digital identity system, anchored in the eIDAS regulation and the digital euro. The EU’s approach, however, is seen by many as more robust, with stronger legal safeguards and mechanisms for public consent. Critics warn that, without similar protections, the UK’s system could morph from a convenience into a compulsory “passport” for daily life, granting the government sweeping digital oversight.
Starmer’s announcement has put Britain at a crossroads. On one side lies the promise of streamlined services, enhanced border security, and a modernized state. On the other, the peril of unchecked digital surveillance and a possible erosion of civil rights that have long defined British society. The debate is far from over, and with more than 1.5 million citizens already voicing their opposition in just one day, it’s clear that the road ahead will be anything but smooth.
As the UK government moves forward with its digital ID plans, the nation watches closely, weighing the balance between security and liberty, and wondering just how much of its cherished privacy it is willing to trade for the promise of progress.
