Reform UK has accused authorities of slashing Nigel Farage’s personal security just weeks after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Zia Yusuf claimed Reform UK’s leader has had his security detail cut by 75% ahead of an “extraordinary 48 hours of demonisation” by senior Labour Party figures.
Mr Yusuf said: “I thought very long and hard, even on the car journey here, about whether to share this because of its sensitivity, but I think given the stakes, I think it does need to be shared. Two weeks ago, the authorities cut Nigel’s security detail by 75%. Two weeks ago, the authorities cut Nigel Farage‘s security detail by 75%, and then we have seen the most extraordinary 48 hours of demonisation, and I’m going to say it again, incitement of violence against the man who is the bookmaker’s favourite to be the next Prime Minister, and this comes two weeks after the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, the most high-profile political assassination in recent memory. The Prime Minister knows exactly what he is doing.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Nigel Farage’s security at risk, Zia Yusuf warns (Image: Getty)
Speaking to Times Radio, he added that “donors have stepped in, thankfully, to shore up that security and make sure that Nigel is well protected,” but “if anything was to happen to Nigel, we will hold Keir Starmer squarely responsible.”
Charlie Kirk, an American right-wing political activist, was assassinated while addressing an audience on a university campus on 10 September.
The central theme of the Labour conference in Liverpool this week has been taking the fight to Reform UK, which is leading in UK-wide opinion polls.
Throughout the event, Labour ministers and MPs have attacked Reform and framed its fight with the party in existential terms.
Sir Keir Starmer warned during his conference speech that the politics of Mr Farage and Reform, which he said would threaten the livelihoods of thousands of legal migrants, was “racist” and said anyone who argues that people who have lived here for generations should now be deported is “an enemy of national renewal”.
When Mr Yusuf was asked whether the reduction in security was a deliberate attempt by the state to not protect Nigel Farage, he answered: “Well, the claim I’m making is exactly what has happened, which is that it is the Parliamentary Security Department that is responsible for security in both houses, frankly, for what I can tell, inexplicable reasons, decided to materially downgrade Nigel Farage’s security. Those are the facts of the matter. And I think that they place into context everything that we have just seen. Now, again, I want to be very clear that donors have stepped in, thankfully, to shore up that security and make sure that Nigel is well protected.
“So people who support Nigel and worried about him. And again, even all right thinking people in this country, I want to reiterate this, who believe that the battle of politics, to the degree that there is a battle, should be about ideas, should be about policies, and not labelling people as flirting with Nazism. Again, they know exactly what they are doing. And if the fact that this has all happened in such a short period of time, I want to reiterate, in the most extraordinary, coordinated way, coming onto programmes like yours, the BBC, Sky, the most powerful megaphone in the country, they know exactly what they’re doing.”
A House of Commons spokesman said: “The ability of members and their staff to perform their Parliamentary duties safely, both on and off the estate, is fundamental to our democracy.
“Any assessment of an individual MPs’ 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.”
Nigel Farage’s security cut by 75% as Labour calls him ‘enemy’ and Nazi sympathiser
Nigel Farage’s security arrangements became the centre of a political row after Reform UK claimed that his taxpayer-funded protection had been reduced by 75 per cent, at the same time as senior Labour figures launched a series of highly personal attacks on the Reform leader.
The controversy emerged during Labour’s annual conference, when Prime Minister Keir Starmer described Farage as an opponent in a wider “fight for the soul” of Britain, while Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy made a controversial reference to allegations concerning Farage’s schooldays.
Reform argued that the timing of the events was deeply concerning. The party claimed Farage’s parliamentary security had been downgraded shortly before Labour politicians intensified their criticism of him.
However, the security decision itself was not publicly attributed to Starmer or Labour. Parliamentary authorities have said that security arrangements for MPs are determined through professional, risk-based assessments rather than political considerations.
Zia Yusuf, Reform’s head of policy, claimed that Farage’s security detail had been cut by three-quarters in the two weeks before the controversy erupted.
Speaking to Times Radio, Yusuf said the decision was “inexplicable” and claimed that Reform donors had subsequently stepped in to help cover the cost of additional protection.
He connected the security issue directly to what he described as an unprecedented campaign of “demonisation” against Farage.
Yusuf’s comments came only hours after Farage accused Starmer of encouraging hostility towards Reform by describing one of the party’s immigration policies as racist.
The Reform leader argued that the language used by the prime minister and his colleagues could have consequences for the safety of politicians and campaigners.
Starmer rejected that accusation.
Asked whether he had put Farage at risk by his comments, the prime minister said that was not the case. He maintained that his criticism was directed at Reform’s policies rather than intended to encourage violence against individuals.
The security controversy nevertheless became increasingly intertwined with the political argument.
The House of Commons has previously explained that security arrangements for MPs are kept under continuous review and are based on professional assessments of individual threats. Authorities do not normally disclose the precise details of individual security packages because doing so could itself create risks.
That makes it difficult to independently assess Reform’s claim that Farage’s security had been reduced by exactly 75 per cent or to determine the reasons behind any change.
What is established is that Reform publicly made the allegation and that parliamentary security officials were responsible for assessing the protection available to Farage.
The political backdrop was unusually hostile.
During his Labour conference speech, Starmer launched one of his strongest attacks yet on Farage.
He accused the Reform leader of not liking Britain and not believing in the country, while describing the coming political struggle as a “fight for the soul” of Britain.
Starmer also referred to Farage as a “snake-oil salesman” and attacked Reform’s immigration proposals.
At one point, while discussing racist violence and political extremism, Starmer said: “You are the enemy and we will fight you.” The Guardian reported that the immediate context was his condemnation of those who believed a person’s ability to be British or English depended on skin colour.
The wording generated considerable political debate because of its proximity to Starmer’s attacks on Reform.
Reform figures interpreted the broader speech as evidence that Labour was deliberately demonising Farage and his party.
Labour’s position was different.
Starmer subsequently made clear that he did not regard Farage himself or Reform voters as racist.
Asked directly whether Farage was racist, Starmer replied: “No, nor do I think Reform voters are racist.”
He said Reform supporters could be concerned about Britain’s borders and frustrated with the pace of change, stressing that he was not suggesting that such voters were racist.
His distinction was between Reform’s supporters and a particular immigration policy that he regarded as discriminatory.
The dispute became even more complicated after David Lammy referred to Farage as someone who had “once flirted with Hitler Youth” when he was younger.
The comment referred to allegations dating back to Farage’s time at Dulwich College.
Those allegations have been publicly disputed for years. Farage has denied that he sang Nazi songs as a schoolboy and has rejected claims that he belonged to any extremist organisation.
Lammy later clarified his remarks, saying that Farage had denied the allegations and that he accepted the denial.
“I wasn’t at school with Nigel Farage,” Lammy said. “I don’t know what songs he sang at school.”
The Guardian reported that the original allegations came from recollections concerning Farage’s schooldays and were first widely reported more than a decade ago. Farage has acknowledged being a provocative teenager but denied the specific allegations involving Hitler Youth songs.
This distinction is important because the headline description of Farage as a “Nazi sympathiser” goes beyond what can be established from the available evidence.
There have been allegations about offensive and extremist-sounding comments attributed to Farage as a teenager, but there is also his explicit denial and the subsequent clarification by Lammy.
The historical allegations should therefore be treated as disputed claims rather than established facts.
The security row also cannot automatically be attributed to the political language used by Labour.
Parliamentary officials have repeatedly stated that security assessments are conducted by professionals and involve input from police and other relevant authorities.
A House of Commons spokesman said MPs’ security arrangements were subject to rigorous risk-based assessment and that the ability of MPs and their staff to carry out parliamentary duties safely was fundamental to democracy.
The authorities have declined to discuss individual cases in detail.
That creates an important gap between the political claims being made and the evidence publicly available.
Reform believes the reduction was unjustified and said private donors had to intervene.
Parliamentary authorities maintain that security decisions are based on threat assessments.
There is no publicly established evidence showing that Starmer personally ordered or influenced a reduction in Farage’s protection.
Nevertheless, Farage’s concerns about personal security are not occurring in isolation.
British politicians have faced increased security concerns in recent years. The murders of Labour MP Jo Cox in 2016 and Conservative MP Sir David Amess in 2021 demonstrated the potential dangers faced by elected representatives.
Farage himself has previously been the target of physical attacks while campaigning. In 2024, he was struck by objects including a milkshake during campaigning in Clacton.
The security debate therefore has a genuine public-interest dimension, regardless of the competing political interpretations surrounding the latest dispute.
There is also a broader question about the language used by politicians.
Starmer has argued that political leaders must confront policies they believe could damage social cohesion. Reform argues that describing its immigration policies as racist crosses a line and risks encouraging hostility towards its representatives.
Neither position automatically establishes a connection between political rhetoric and physical violence.
Indeed, former government adviser Lord Walney argued during the controversy that it was not credible to suggest Starmer’s comments would necessarily incite political violence.
At the same time, political figures across the spectrum have increasingly recognized that heated rhetoric can have consequences, particularly when individual politicians become targets of intense online campaigns.
The Farage security row therefore sits at the intersection of two separate issues: the professional assessment of risks faced by an elected politician and the increasingly confrontational language being used in Britain’s political debate.
For Reform, the 75 per cent figure has become evidence of what the party describes as an alarming reduction in state protection.
For parliamentary authorities, security arrangements are matters of risk assessment rather than political preference.
For Labour, the argument is primarily about the substance of Reform’s policies and the government’s right to criticize them.
The dispute over Farage’s schooldays adds another layer.
Lammy’s reference to the Hitler Youth allegations was subsequently qualified after Farage’s denial, while Starmer himself explicitly rejected the idea that Farage or Reform voters were racist.
That makes the political landscape more complicated than the headline suggests.
It is accurate to say that Reform alleged a 75 per cent reduction in Farage’s security and that Labour figures used unusually strong language against him during the conference.
It is not established that Labour ordered the security reduction, nor is the historical allegation concerning Farage’s schooldays established as fact.
The controversy nevertheless demonstrates how quickly questions about political rhetoric, personal security and historical allegations can become intertwined.
Farage has made security a significant part of his political narrative, arguing that he faces threats because of his public profile.
Labour, meanwhile, has chosen to confront Reform rather than ignore it, particularly over immigration.
As the political competition develops, the debate over Farage’s security is likely to continue alongside arguments over immigration, patriotism and the limits of political rhetoric.
The central factual question remains who made the security decision and on what professional assessment it was based.
Until those details are made public, claims that the reduction was politically motivated remain allegations rather than established facts.