The National Trust did not breach charity law by publishing a report that found itself at the centre of a “culture war” after it made links between its country house properties and the UK’s history of colonialism and slavery, the charity regulator has ruled. In effect exonerating the trust of claims that it had acted outside of its charitable purposes, the Charity Commission confirmed that the trust had acted legally and responsibly at all times and would face no regulatory action. The trust’s publication of the report, which considered how the lucrative proceeds of Britain’s imperial past had helped build and furnish 93 trust properties, provoked furious headlines in the autumn, with some Tory MPs and media accusing the trust – one of the UK’s biggest charities – of perpetuating “Marxist” or “woke” views. A commission’s statement published on Thursday said that while the concerns raised about the trust had the potential to damage the charity’s reputation, it found the charity had acted appropriately in its commissioning of the report, and had “provided a well-reasoned justification” for why the report furthered the charity’s purposes. “The National Trust has been able to demonstrate that its work to examine links between its properties and histories of colonialism and slavery was carefully considered, and that it fitted within its charitable objects,” said the commission chief executive, Helen Stephenson. “I understand that this conclusion will not satisfy everyone. But I hope it is reassuring to those who raised concerns about the charity’s report, who said it made them feel uncomfortable and concerned that the charity had lost its way, that the commission has examined the trust’s actions very close.” A National Trust spokesperson said: “We welcome the Charity Commission’s conclusion that there are no grounds for regulatory action against us, following complaints the commission received about the report we published on historic slavery and colonialism links at the places we care for.” Among the measures the trust had taken prior to publishing the report included consulting a panel of 2,000 trust members, among which it found “considerable support for research into challenging histories provided the findings were appropriately researched and contextualised”. Despite being cleared by the regulator, the trust will be counting the cost of being at the centre of a bruising culture war tussle. There have been countless newspaper articles, social media rows and two parliamentary debates on the issue since the autumn, amid reports of a supposed “revolt” among the trusts’s 5.6 million members. There are wider concerns across the voluntary sector, with many charities fearing that the hounding of the National Trust reflects a wider hostility from some rightwing politicians designed to create a chilling effect on campaigners. It is understood some trust staff received death threats as a result of the furore. A freedom of information request published in November by Third Sector magazine revealed the commission had received just three complaints about the trust report. The trust said it had received 771 complaints – or 0.05% of its 5.6 million members – and many in support of the trust’s decision to publish the report. The trust acknowledged that many of its supporters had been genuinely concerned about the report. But its director general, Hilary McGrady, suggested in a blog post on Thursday that the trust would not shirk from exploring the history of its houses and properties even where this was contentious or challenging. She wrote: “It is surely a sign of confidence, integrity and pride that while we can celebrate and enjoy history we can also explore and acknowledge all aspects of it. “The National Trust is at its best when we capture this complexity – when we present facts and material evidence in ways that inspire curiosity, inquiry, learning and sharing.” Another household-name charity, Barnardos, remains subject to a Charity Commission compliance inquiry after Conservative MPs complained about the publication on its website of a blog examining the issues of “white privilege” in the context of the Black Lives Matter movement.