In a dramatic escalation of political tensions, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has seen his taxpayer-funded security detail slashed by 75%—a move that has triggered accusations, denials, and a fierce debate about the safety of public figures in Britain. According to Reform UK’s head of policy, Zia Yusuf, the decision was made by parliamentary authorities just two weeks before October 2025, for what Yusuf described as “inexplicable reasons.” The cut, which reportedly left Farage without round-the-clock government-funded protection, has forced party donors to step in, covering security costs understood to exceed £1 million per year.
The timing of the security downgrade could hardly be more contentious. It came as Labour leader and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and his colleagues repeatedly attacked Reform UK’s flagship immigration policy—scrapping indefinite leave to remain—at the Labour conference in Liverpool. Starmer described the policy as “racist,” and accused Farage of not liking Britain, comments which Reform UK claims have contributed to a climate of vilification and even incitement to violence against their leader.
Yusuf did not mince words in his interviews with the BBC and Times Radio. He accused Starmer of orchestrating “the most extraordinary, unprecedented, vicious, and coordinated set of demonisation attacks and incitements of violence” against Farage. He went so far as to invoke the concept of “stochastic terrorism,” explaining it as “the incitement of violence against an individual by publicly demonising and vilifying that person, knowingly encouraging random acts of violence against the target.” Yusuf argued, “Given the stakes, I will not mince my words… if anything were to happen, we would hold Keir Starmer squarely responsible.”
Farage, for his part, echoed these concerns. In a live-broadcast rebuttal, he warned, “This language will incite the radical left, I’m thinking of Antifa and other organisations like that. It directly threatens the safety of our elected officials and our campaigners. And frankly in the wake of the Charlie Kirk murder I think this is an absolute disgrace.” Farage’s reference to the assassination of American political commentator Charlie Kirk and the attempted assassination of Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico underscored the Reform UK leader’s sense of personal risk and the potential consequences of heated political rhetoric.
Reform UK’s allegations of a coordinated campaign were not limited to Labour’s leadership. Yusuf claimed that 11 cabinet ministers had been deployed to promulgate the “racist” attack line, further intensifying the party’s sense of siege. He told Sky News, “I have stood next to Nigel as he has been attacked by masked lunatics from Antifa. I’ve seen them try to attack Nigel, I’ve seen them try to attack our supporters, our volunteers, our activists. That’s why we’re so appalled by this. The Prime Minister is supposed to be a human rights lawyer, should know far better than this. He knows he can’t beat Nigel at the Ballot Box, so he’s resorted to inflammatory vilification to incite violence against him.”
For Reform UK, the security downgrade and the accompanying rhetoric have combined to create a perfect storm. Yusuf stated, “That’s why so many of us around Nigel are so worried now.” The party has accused the government of putting the safety of Reform’s politicians and activists at risk, a charge that Labour and government officials have firmly denied.
Cabinet Office Minister Pat McFadden dismissed the idea that security decisions were political, stressing it was an operational matter “for the police and the security authorities.” Health Minister Stephen Kinnock went further, rejecting Yusuf’s claims about incitement: “We live in a world where there is very robust political debate, that has been going on for a long time.” A spokesperson for the House of Commons reiterated that “any assessment of an individual MP’s security arrangements or advice is subject to a rigorous risk-based assessment, conducted by security professionals and with input from a range of professional authorities. Whilst these are naturally kept under continuous review, we do not comment on specific details so as not to compromise the safety of MPs, parliamentary staff or members of the public.” The Home Office also emphasized that “decisions on MP security are made independently of ministers.”
This is not the first time Farage has clashed with parliamentary security services. Last year, he claimed he was advised not to hold in-person advice surgeries for his constituents in Clacton for safety reasons, a suggestion the security services denied. Farage has long voiced concerns about his personal safety, once remarking, “Do I have an office in Clacton? Yes. Am I allowing the public to flow through the door with their knives in their pockets? No, no I’m not.”
The row over Farage’s security has unfolded against a backdrop of rising political tensions and a polarized electorate. A YouGov survey revealed that 47% of Britons consider Reform UK to be “generally racist,” with 46% believing its policies are racist and 43% saying its voters are racist. These numbers reflect the deep divisions over immigration and identity that have come to define British politics in recent years.
Reform UK’s polling fortunes have been on the rise since last year’s general election, adding further fuel to the fire. Yusuf claimed that internal Labour polling showed party members wanted Starmer to step down as leader, arguing, “He’s responded by co-ordinating the most unprecedented vilification and campaign of incitement to violence against the man who, frankly, he knows he cannot beat at the ballot box.”
Despite the heated rhetoric and mutual accusations, the process for determining MPs’ security remains, at least officially, apolitical. The Parliamentary Security Department manages security within Parliament and works with police forces outside the parliamentary estate. MPs are provided with security based on their risk, and a £31 million package was announced in May 2024 to increase security provision for MPs and candidates, including dedicated police contacts for elected officials.
For now, Farage’s security is entirely privately funded, with Reform UK donors stepping in after the party deemed a mixed public-private arrangement unworkable. Yusuf assured supporters, “Thankfully, we’ve had generous donors step in to shore up that security. So I can assure you, Nigel is safe and he is well protected.”
As Britain heads towards its next round of elections, the controversy over Farage’s security—and the broader debate about political rhetoric, risk, and responsibility—shows no sign of abating. Both sides remain entrenched, each accusing the other of crossing dangerous lines, while the public watches closely, wondering just how far the country’s political discourse might go.
