Zia Yusuf and Nigel Farage stand next to a replica dinghy (Image: Victoria Jones/Shutterstock)
Nigel Farage has warned that Labour is letting terrorists, serious criminals and dangerous sex offenders into the country as he vowed to shut the asylum system. Standing in front of a replica mega dinghy at a press conference in Kent, the Reform UK leader warned that Britain is facing its biggest security emergency linked to an asylum crisis in history.
And he said his party would deport “north of one million people” if it wins the next election. Mr Farage’s home affairs spokesman, Zia Yusuf, told the Daily Express that “evil” people are among the thousands crossing the Channel on small boats. Reform vowed to close the asylum system for five years and order food safety investigators, environmental health teams and trading standards to help immigration officials snare illegal migrants living in the UK. They would carry out “basic” immigration checks, it is understood.
In an alarming assessment of the small boats crisis, Mr Farage said in Kent: “What is happening is a national security emergency. We are letting terrorists come into the country.
“We are letting serious criminals come into the country. We’re letting dangerous sex offenders into the country. And our primary purpose is to stop that from happening. We have got to be very, very careful about not letting any more of our enemies into the country.”
Mr Farage declared he wanted Britain to return to being a “normal country”. He said: “Nothing radical or crazy. We want to get back to being a normal country, a country that puts national security at the top of the agenda, a country that does everything it can to protect its own citizens, and a country that detains and deports people that come illegally, as virtually every other country in the world does, and indeed, as we used to do.”
Reform would review the status of anyone who has been granted asylum since 2024, with those coming from countries deemed safe by the home secretary losing their permission to remain in the UK. All legal resettlement routes would also be abolished, except for those set up for Ukrainians in the wake of the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022.
And the asylum system will be closed to all new applicants for five years. Those with outstanding claims will be automatically rejected.
Reform’s Zia Yusuf warned Britain will disappear without mass deportations. He confirmed a Nigel Farage government could remove more than one million people.
“If we fail to do that, if we fail to uphold the law, if we fail to say that Britain’s borders mean something … in very short order, we will not have a country at all,” said Mr Yusuf.
And Reform’s home affairs spokesman insisted he will not send anyone to their death or to face torture. He told the Daily Express: “The first thing we’ve got to acknowledge is the enormous amount of fraud that goes on inside the system, right? So, a lot of the people claiming that their life would be in danger, their lives would not be in danger.
“The vast majority of people will end up going back to their countries of origin. As I said, there will be some edge cases.
“As home secretary, I’m not going to send people back to be tortured or killed. But those are going to be very, very few people. For those people, we’re going to work with third countries to resettle them.”
Mr Yusuf admitted opponents and sections of the media will try to spin Reform’s plan. But he told the Daily Express: “The asylum system, clearly, has been a large-scale scam perpetrated against the British people. We have to take that seriously.
“The system was built for a post-World War 2 world. It’s totally unfit for purpose today – not just the scale of the fraud, but the sheer number of people now in this country who shouldn’t be.
Zia Yusuf speaks to the Daily Express (Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)
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.
“We’ve already got north of a million people illegally in this country who we are going to need to deport. We don’t want to make that problem even worse.
“We’re just being really honest with the British people about what our plan is. And I do think there is a moral obligation to be candid and clear and frank with the British people about what our plan is, so that if we’re successful and we win a mandate from the British people, we have the moral high ground.
“If you haven’t been honest with the British people about what your plan is, you won’t have that mandate, you won’t have the moral high ground to do some things that, absolutely, will be challenging to do, and you’re going to need to take the public with you.”
And housing officers, food safety investigators, environmental health teams and trading standards will help immigration officials by checking whether foreign nationals living in the UK are here legally.
Outlining the proposals, Mr Yusuf told this newspaper: “If you go through life in Britain, there’s already a lot of regulatory inspections that happen. We will point every organ of state at ensuring that people who break the law in this country are caught and held to account. And immigration law will be no exception.
“So, when trading standards are visiting a premise, they will check whether the workers have the right to work there, for example. We will do that on something called a strict liability basis. And what that means is the prosecutor does not need to prove intent.”
Asked if employees may be concerned about the huge expansion of their roles, Reform’s home affairs spokesman said: “I’m not too concerned about the quote ‘comfort level’ of government employees who are asked to uphold the law. There are some great people who work at the Home Office – I know some of them. There are also some people who are, frankly, far-Left, open-borders activists literally working inside the Home Office.
“If they don’t like it, they still need to do that job. And if they don’t do the job of ensuring these people are marked for deportation and we ensure that they’re removed from our country, they will be fired for gross misconduct, and they won’t receive any notice pay.
“It’s actually morally far worse because these people are paid from the taxes from nurses, from teachers, from people who go to work every day and work hard. So I think it’s actually morally repugnant for civil servants to say, ‘we’re not going to do that thing’.”
And Reform’s home affairs spokesman slammed the Home Office’s accommodation providers for effectively fuelling a housing crisis by bidding against families who need the homes.
Nigel Farage warned of a national security emergency (Image: Victoria Jones/Shutterstock)
He said: “There’s a 29-year-old teaching assistant who’s trying to move out of her parents’ home, her childhood home, at the age of 29. She’s struggling to do that. Every time she tries to bid on a flat that comes up near her child’s school, she gets outbid. And it’s suddenly off the market again.
“What she didn’t realise was that her own government, via a government contractor, was outbidding her on terms that she could never compete with.
“It’s insane. With her own tax money. And that’s when we talk about betrayal, a colossal betrayal. That’s what it is. And then we wonder why, as I said, we have such a high proportion – a third of young adults aged 19-30, still living at home with their parents. And this is one of the key reasons why.”
Reform has vowed to deploy the Royal Navy in the Channel to intercept every small boat crossing. Royal Marines will also be authorised to use lethal force and take migrants back to France. But former paratrooper Major Andrew Fox warned that some elite troops will refuse to open fire.
Mr Yusuf dismissed this and outlined the party’s position. He said: “Our armed forces will be authorised to use lethal force where necessary to protect innocent life, where, for example, if a people smuggler is armed. We know agents operating at the behest of the Iranian regime are using the English Channel and using boats like this to come to our country.
“In that scenario, our position is our armed forces will be authorised, if necessary, to protect innocent life. It would be foolish, and you would put our own boys in harm’s way, if you did not take into account the evil of some of the people coming across – again, not everybody.
“But fundamentally, it is a humanitarian mission. We’ll be ready for anything.”
Reform Just Revealed Its Rules on When Military Can Use ‘Lethal Force’ on Small Boats
Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has faced intense scrutiny after senior party figures set out when British military personnel could be authorised to use lethal force during operations against small boats crossing the English Channel. The controversy has exposed disagreements within the party over how far its proposed immigration crackdown should go, what troops would be expected to do and where the limits of military intervention must lie.
The dispute erupted after Reform MP Robert Jenrick said the Royal Marines would be deployed into the Channel and could use lethal force if necessary to stop migrant crossings. Farage subsequently sought to clarify the position, insisting that his party was not proposing routine shootings and that troops would be entitled to respond if they came under fire. Reform chairman Zia Yusuf also said lethal force would be permitted only in extremely limited circumstances where necessary to protect innocent life. <Cite refs={[“turn986149search1″,”turn986149search4″,”turn986149search6”]}/>
The disagreement has placed one of Reform’s most prominent immigration policies under the spotlight. The party wants to intercept small boats at sea and return passengers to France, but the prospect of armed troops confronting crowded inflatable vessels raises serious questions about safety, law and operational practicality.
How the Controversy Began
The immediate trigger was Jenrick’s appearance on TalkTV, where he described Reform’s proposal to deploy the Royal Marines into the Channel. He said the troops would be able to use lethal force if required, while presenting the prospect of a tougher military response as a deterrent to people attempting the crossing.
His remarks attracted criticism from political opponents and raised questions about whether the party was proposing that soldiers might fire on migrants aboard small boats.
Farage responded by saying Jenrick’s comments had been “utterly misconstrued”. Speaking to LBC, the Reform leader said he would not authorise the routine use of lethal force against migrants. He argued that military personnel who were fired upon would have the right to defend themselves.
Yusuf offered a similar clarification, saying the use of lethal force would be limited to circumstances in which it was necessary to protect innocent life, such as a situation involving armed people who posed a serious threat. <Cite refs={[“turn986149search1″,”turn986149search4”]}/>
The distinction is significant. Reform is not publicly presenting the policy as permission to shoot people simply because they are attempting to enter Britain without authorisation. Its stated position is that force would be considered in exceptional circumstances involving a threat to life.
However, the statements have left important operational questions unanswered. What would count as an imminent threat? Who would authorise a response? How would troops distinguish armed smugglers from passengers caught up in a dangerous crossing? And what rules would govern a rapidly developing confrontation at sea?
Those details would be essential to any credible plan involving military personnel.
What Is Operation Fortress?
The lethal-force controversy is connected to Reform’s broader immigration proposal, known as Operation Fortress. Announced in August 2026, the plan envisages a Royal Navy-led operation involving the armed forces, Border Force, the Coastguard, police and intelligence agencies.
Reform says the operation would seek to detect and intercept every small boat attempting an unauthorised crossing, take passengers aboard suitable vessels, provide necessary assistance and return them to France under escort. The party argues that a consistent policy of interception and return would undermine the business model of people-smuggling networks. <Cite refs={[“turn986149news13″,”turn986149search2″,”turn986149search5”]}/>
Farage has claimed that the crossings could stop within a fortnight of a Reform government taking office. That is a political pledge, however, rather than an established forecast. The outcome would depend on whether the operation could be implemented safely, whether France would accept returned passengers and whether smugglers and migrants changed their tactics in response.
The plan would also require substantial coordination between civilian and military authorities. Naval vessels are designed for particular maritime and defence tasks, while Border Force officers have specific responsibilities under immigration law. Bringing those capabilities together would require clear command arrangements, adequate personnel and rules defining each organisation’s powers.
The proposed operation is therefore much broader than a simple instruction to send soldiers into the Channel. It would represent a major change in the way Britain seeks to prevent irregular migration by sea.
Why the Rules on Lethal Force Matter
Military personnel operate under strict rules governing the use of force. Any authorisation to use potentially lethal force must be assessed against the circumstances of the incident, the threat faced and the applicable law.
The fact that a person is attempting to cross a border illegally does not, by itself, justify shooting them. Nor would the presence of a suspected criminal automatically mean that lethal force was lawful.
A situation in which armed smugglers fire at British personnel would be fundamentally different from one involving passengers refusing to cooperate with an interception. Even then, the legality of a response would depend on the actual threat and the circumstances in which force was used.
Defence Readiness Minister Luke Pollard condemned the proposal following Jenrick’s comments, describing the suggestion as illegal and contrary to British military values. He said armed forces personnel should not obey an unlawful order and emphasised that unarmed civilians should not be shot. <Cite refs={[“turn986149news10″,”turn986149search1”]}/>
The government’s criticism highlights a basic issue: political leaders cannot simply declare that troops may use lethal force without considering the legal framework that governs their actions.
Any future administration seeking to change the military’s role in Channel operations would need to establish the legal authority for its actions, define the circumstances in which force could be used and provide suitable training and oversight.
The Risks of Confrontation at Sea
The physical environment of a Channel interception presents another challenge. Small boats are often overcrowded, may be poorly equipped and can be difficult to manoeuvre safely. Passengers may include children and people who cannot swim, while many may be unfamiliar with maritime procedures.
A confrontation could therefore become dangerous very quickly. Sudden movements, panic, rough weather or damage to an inflatable boat could put everyone aboard at risk. The presence of armed personnel could add further complexity, particularly if passengers misunderstand an instruction or fear that they are about to be arrested.
Maritime law places obligations on those operating at sea to assist people in distress. Reform’s published plan presents its proposed approach as interception, rescue and return rather than simply forcing boats back across the water. Nevertheless, the details of any operation would need to ensure that vessels were not placed in greater danger and that passengers could be transferred safely. <Cite refs={[“turn986149search2″,”turn986149search5”]}/>
Critics have also questioned whether the Royal Navy has the right vessels and enough available personnel to carry out the proposed mission while maintaining its other responsibilities. A former naval commander previously argued that specialist warships would not necessarily be the most suitable assets for what is primarily an immigration-enforcement task. <Cite refs={[“turn986149search2″,”turn986149search3”]}/>
The practical question is not merely whether the military could intercept boats. It is whether it could do so consistently, safely and lawfully across a busy international shipping route.
France Remains Central to the Plan
Reform’s proposal depends heavily on returning intercepted passengers to France. But Britain cannot assume that French authorities would accept every person brought back by a British vessel.
Any large-scale operation would need workable arrangements with France covering disembarkation, responsibility for passengers, medical emergencies and the legal status of people being returned. Without French cooperation, the proposed return mechanism could face significant obstacles.
The issue is particularly important because British forces cannot simply treat French territorial waters or ports as if they were under UK jurisdiction. The legal and diplomatic arrangements governing where vessels can operate and where passengers can be landed would need to be resolved in advance. <Cite refs={[“turn986149news13″,”turn986149search2”]}/>
Reform argues that a more determined approach would persuade France to cooperate and discourage future crossings. Critics say that relying on a foreign government to accept large numbers of returned passengers creates uncertainty at the heart of the proposal.
Even if an agreement were reached, authorities would need to determine what happens when a person claims protection, disputes their identity or cannot lawfully be returned to the proposed destination.
These issues would have to be addressed alongside the rules governing military force, rather than treated as separate details to be settled later.
Would the Threat of Force Stop the Boats?
Reform’s argument is that a credible interception-and-return policy would change the incentives facing migrants and people-smuggling gangs. If crossing the Channel no longer offered a realistic prospect of reaching Britain, the party believes fewer people would attempt the journey.
But whether the proposed policy would produce that outcome remains uncertain. Smuggling networks could change routes, adapt their methods or seek different ways to transport people. Some migrants might continue attempting the journey despite the risks, particularly if they believed they had no viable alternative.
The effectiveness of the policy would depend on more than the threat of force. It would require intelligence, maritime surveillance, cooperation with France, safe handling of passengers and a lawful system for determining what could happen to each individual.
There would also be a distinction between stopping boats from reaching British shores and resolving the wider asylum and migration challenges. A successful interception would not, on its own, settle questions about protection claims, international responsibilities or the conditions driving people to leave their homes.
Reform has promised a decisive change in policy. Whether that change could be delivered as described would need to be demonstrated through operational plans and evidence, not simply through political assurances.
A Major Test for Farage’s Immigration Strategy
The argument over lethal force has revealed a need for greater precision within Reform’s proposals. Jenrick’s original statement suggested a broad permission to use lethal force when necessary, while Farage and Yusuf subsequently emphasised exceptional circumstances involving a threat to life.
That clarification narrows the party’s stated position, but it does not answer every question about how the operation would work. The rules of engagement, legal authority, command structure and arrangements with France would all need to be specified before troops could be deployed for the proposed mission.
For Reform, the challenge is to show that its plan can deliver the promised reduction in small-boat crossings without exposing passengers, service personnel or the public to unnecessary danger. For its critics, the concern is that a military-led approach could create serious legal and humanitarian risks while failing to address the underlying causes of irregular migration.
The debate is likely to continue as the party explains its plans and opponents scrutinise their feasibility.
Conclusion
Reform UK has clarified that it does not propose the routine use of lethal force against migrants crossing the Channel. Farage says troops would be entitled to defend themselves if fired upon, while Yusuf has described lethal force as permissible only in extremely limited circumstances necessary to protect innocent life.
Those statements are important, but the practical details remain central. Any military operation would need lawful rules of engagement, clear command arrangements, safeguards for people in danger at sea and workable cooperation with France.
Operation Fortress is intended to transform Britain’s response to small-boat crossings through interception and return. Whether it could achieve that objective would depend on far more than a tougher public stance. It would require a detailed, legally sound and operationally realistic plan that protects life while enforcing the law.
The controversy has therefore exposed the central question facing Farage’s immigration strategy: not simply how forcefully Britain should act, but how any proposed action could be carried out safely, lawfully and effectively.