The money – what we know about
The i Paper’s analysis of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests identifies four specific payments from anti-abortion linked groups:
£25,000 for a speaking engagement in 2024 with the AZ Liberty Network, a coalition that includes groups focused on restricting abortion rights in Arizona. At the ‘Keep Arizona Free Summit’ that August, Farage told the assembled lobby groups they were “saving western civilisation.”
£44,300 for a single speech – plus £9,500 in flights and accommodation – from the Club for Growth in March. The Club for Growth provides financial support to anti-abortion political candidates.
£4,360 from the New York Young Republicans Club for flights and hotels. The organisation supports New York legislation that would restrict abortion access.
£280 for accommodation at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2025, an organisation that has stated it “considers every abortion a human tragedy.”
The figure is £83,000 in total from declared sources. Given that Farage is currently under parliamentary investigation for failing to declare a £5 million gift from Christopher Harborne – as we have covered extensively in our 50 questions piece and related coverage – there is no particular reason to assume £83,000 represents the complete picture.
ADF International – tripling its UK presence
Separate analysis by Good Law Project reveals the scale of the US anti-abortion infrastructure being built in Britain. ADF International (UK), the UK arm of Alliance Defending Freedom, spent more than £1.4 million on its activities in the UK last year – more than three times its 2020 spending. It has received more than £4 million in funding from its US parent since 2018. Its UK staff has grown from two employees to eleven.
ADF International is not a peripheral organisation. The parent Alliance Defending Freedom played a key role in the 2022 US Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v Wade, stripping millions of American women of the federal right to abortion. In the past year in the UK, ADF International has defended four people charged with breaching safe access zones around abortion clinics – zones that prohibit handing out anti-abortion materials or obstructing access – two of whom were convicted. It has framed these prosecutions as free speech violations.
Last year the New York Times reported that ADF supplied the Trump administration with attack lines casting the UK as hostile to free speech in private briefings. JD Vance – who as we reported in our Lammy and Vance piece made false claims about Henry Nowak’s murder in the same week – later raised one of the buffer zone cases as an example of the UK “backsliding” on human rights.
ADF reportedly orchestrated Farage’s appearance before the US House Judiciary Committee, where he accused the UK government of clamping down on free speech – and the cases he described as censorship included the prosecution of UK anti-abortion campaigners for violating those buffer zones. ADF also reportedly brokered a secret meeting between Farage and senior US State Department officials in London.
Reform’s newly appointed head of policy, Cambridge professor James Orr, was invited to speak at ADF International’s London event in February 2025. Orr opposes abortion at any stage of foetal development – including in pregnancies resulting from rape.
What Reform says – and what it does
Reform has no official abortion policy on its published policy pages. Farage describes himself as “pro-choice.” These positions require examination alongside the record.
When Farage ran the Brexit Party, the organisation had no stance on abortion and the New York Times could find no record of his having one. Then, as the i Paper’s analysis notes, as if by magic, in November he wanted to talk about rolling back the abortion time limit. By May this year the current 24-week limit was “absolutely ludicrous” and “totally out of date.” When the New York Times asked him about his apparent new interest in reproductive rights, he called it “bollocks.”
The parliamentary record tells a different story from the rhetoric. In April, Parliament voted to decriminalise abortion in England – repealing Victorian-era laws that had allowed the state to investigate and prosecute people for obtaining an abortion. Four Reform MPs voted against the move. They voted instead for a further restriction requiring in-person consultation for abortion medication.
Richard Tice, Reform’s deputy leader, described the decriminalisation as “abortion carnage.” Laila Cunningham, the party’s London mayoral candidate and the same Laila Cunningham who appeared on the Newsnight panel we reported in our Nowak Newsnight piece, called the move “the ending of life as a policy solution.” Suella Braverman – now Reform’s equalities spokesperson – stated that Reform would reverse the decriminalisation of abortion.
Robert Kenyon, the Makerfield byelection candidate Reform continues to fully support despite everything, has described abortion as “the cowardly act of women murdering a defenceless baby” and said women have abortions “so they can shag anyone they want.” He refused to discuss or withdraw the comment on Question Time.
The 86% problem
YouGov polling suggests that 86% of Reform UK voters support the right to abortion. This is the specific gap between what Reform’s voter base believes and what Reform’s financial relationships, parliamentary votes and senior figures’ public statements point toward.
Reform keeps its abortion position deliberately vague. There is no policy on its published pages. Its manifesto contains no specific commitment to restrict or reverse abortion rights. But its head of policy opposes abortion in cases of rape. Four of its MPs voted against decriminalisation. Its deputy leader called decriminalisation “abortion carnage.” Its equalities spokesperson says it should be reversed. Its leader has taken over £83,000 from groups organised specifically around restricting or eliminating abortion access. And the organisation that helped overturn Roe v Wade in America has tripled its UK spending and is deepening its ties with the party.
The argument that Reform “has no plans to alter UK abortion law” is the argument a party makes when it has not yet won power. The personnel, the money, the votes and the rhetoric all point in the same direction.
Jordon Scott is a digital media specialist and editor at The Daily Britain. He focuses on political coverage, platform strategy, and ensuring journalism remains accessible without compromising editorial standards.
He oversees publication structure, reach, and transparency across the site.
Nigel Farage Has Taken Over £80,000 from US Anti-Abortion Groups. That’s Just What He’s Declared
Nigel Farage is facing fresh questions about his financial relationships with American political organisations after revelations that he has received more than £83,000 in earnings and expenses from groups linked to the US anti-abortion movement.
The disclosure has created another uncomfortable political moment for the Reform UK leader, particularly because the money represents only payments recorded in Parliament’s Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The figures have raised questions about Farage’s connections with influential American conservative organisations, their political priorities and the extent to which these relationships could influence debates about abortion rights in Britain.
The controversy comes at a particularly sensitive time for Reform UK.
Farage has been attempting to present his party as a serious alternative to Labour and the Conservatives, while increasingly positioning himself as a defender of individual freedoms and traditional values.
However, the financial revelations have prompted critics to examine whether his political relationships overseas are consistent with the positions he presents to British voters.
More than £83,000 from American organisations
According to an analysis of parliamentary financial disclosures reported by the i Paper, Farage received more than £83,000 in payments and expenses connected to several American organisations associated with conservative and anti-abortion politics.
The declared payments include speaking fees, flights and accommodation.
One of the largest payments was £25,000 for a speaking engagement with the AZ Liberty Network in 2024.
The organisation is a coalition that includes groups campaigning for restrictions on abortion rights in Arizona.
Farage attended its Keep Arizona Free Summit in August 2024, where he addressed an audience of conservative activists and political campaigners.
During the event, he praised the organisations represented there, telling attendees that they were helping to save Western civilisation.
The appearance has attracted renewed attention because of the political objectives pursued by some of the groups involved.
Another substantial payment came from the Club for Growth.
Farage received £44,300 for a speaking engagement in March, alongside approximately £9,500 in flights and accommodation.
The Club for Growth is an influential American conservative organisation that supports candidates and campaigns promoting lower taxes, limited government and conservative economic policies.
It has also provided financial support to political candidates opposed to abortion rights.
The New York Young Republicans Club was another organisation connected to payments disclosed by Farage.
The group provided approximately £4,360 for flights and hotel accommodation.
It has supported political initiatives seeking restrictions on abortion access in New York.
Farage also received approximately £280 in accommodation expenses associated with the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2025.
Although this final amount was relatively small, the organisation has publicly described abortion as a human tragedy.
Taken together, the payments and expenses identified in the parliamentary disclosures total more than £83,000.
Why the declared money matters
The most important detail in the latest revelations is that the figure comes from publicly declared financial interests.
This means the reported £83,000 represents payments and benefits identified through the parliamentary register rather than an estimate of every possible financial relationship Farage may have had with American organisations.
The register exists to provide transparency about MPs’ financial interests and other benefits they receive.
Politicians are required to disclose relevant payments and interests according to parliamentary rules.
The purpose is to allow voters and journalists to understand the financial relationships that could be relevant when assessing an elected representative’s activities.
The disclosures do not automatically establish that Farage has acted improperly.
Receiving payment for a speaking engagement is not, by itself, evidence of misconduct.
Nor does accepting hospitality from an organisation necessarily mean that a politician agrees with every position it supports.
However, the political priorities of the organisations involved are relevant when examining the wider picture.
The question being raised is whether British voters have been given enough information about the relationships between Farage and influential American conservative networks.
The American anti-abortion movement’s growing influence
The controversy extends beyond Farage’s personal earnings.
Attention has also focused on Alliance Defending Freedom International, the UK arm of the American conservative Christian legal organisation Alliance Defending Freedom.
The organisation has played a prominent role in American legal battles involving religious freedom, abortion and other social issues.
ADF was among the organisations associated with the wider legal campaign that ultimately helped overturn the constitutional protection for abortion established by Roe v Wade in the United States.
Its international activities have also attracted increasing attention in Britain.
Research published by the Good Law Project has highlighted a substantial increase in ADF International’s UK spending and organisational presence.
According to the reported analysis, its UK expenditure rose to more than £1.4 million in the latest year examined, over three times its 2020 spending.
Its UK operations have also expanded, with staffing reportedly increasing from two employees to eleven.
The figures have prompted questions about the growing presence of American conservative organisations in British political debates.
Supporters of these organisations argue that they are entitled to campaign on issues involving religious freedom, human rights and freedom of expression.
Critics, however, fear that organisations with substantial overseas funding could seek to influence British debates on abortion and other sensitive social questions.
The distinction between legitimate advocacy and political influence has consequently become an important part of the discussion.
Reform’s position on abortion comes under scrutiny
The financial revelations have also renewed attention on Reform UK’s approach to abortion.
The party has attempted to avoid making abortion a defining issue in its national political programme.
Its published manifesto has not established a detailed commitment to reversing Britain’s existing abortion framework.
Nevertheless, several prominent Reform figures have expressed strong opposition to recent changes involving abortion law.
Richard Tice, the party’s deputy leader, has criticised the decision to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales.
Suella Braverman, who joined Reform after leaving the Conservatives, has also expressed opposition to the changes.
Four Reform MPs voted against the decriminalisation measure when it was considered in Parliament.
The vote has become particularly significant because it demonstrated differences between Reform politicians and the wider parliamentary majority.
The controversy has also been intensified by comments previously made by Robert Kenyon, Reform’s candidate in the Makerfield by-election.
His past remarks about women who have abortions attracted considerable criticism and placed further pressure on the party to explain its position.
For Reform, the challenge is to convince voters that its approach reflects the views of the electorate rather than the priorities of particular political organisations.
A potential gap between Reform and its voters
One of the most striking aspects of the debate concerns public opinion.
Polling cited in the reporting suggests that 86 per cent of Reform UK voters support the right to abortion.
If that figure accurately reflects the party’s electorate, it highlights a potential disagreement between many supporters and some of the political figures and organisations associated with Reform.
This could become an important problem for Farage.
Reform has attracted voters from a wide range of political backgrounds.
Some are motivated by immigration, others by taxation and economic concerns, while many simply want to punish the established parties for what they see as years of political failure.
These voters do not necessarily share identical views on social issues.
Farage has therefore had to balance the priorities of conservative campaigners with the expectations of a broader electorate.
A clear move towards more restrictive abortion policies could create divisions among supporters who otherwise agree with Reform’s economic and immigration agenda.
At the same time, failing to explain the party’s position could leave voters uncertain about its future intentions.
Pressure mounts on Farage to explain the relationships
For the Reform leader, the latest disclosures create a difficult communications challenge.
Farage has frequently criticised political opponents for their financial arrangements, associations and perceived lack of transparency.
He has also built his reputation around challenging established institutions and demanding that politicians answer difficult questions.
Those principles are now being applied to his own financial relationships.
Critics want to know why organisations associated with restrictive abortion policies have paid him substantial sums for speaking engagements and travel.
They also want greater clarity about whether these relationships involve anything beyond ordinary professional appearances.
It is important to emphasise that the disclosed payments do not establish that Farage has received money in exchange for supporting particular legislation.
There is no basis for treating the existence of a speaking fee as proof of a political agreement.
Nevertheless, transparency is essential when politicians develop financial relationships with organisations pursuing specific political objectives.
The public has a legitimate interest in understanding who pays politicians, why they are paid and whether those relationships could be relevant to their public responsibilities.
Another financial controversy for Reform
The latest revelations have also emerged against the background of a separate parliamentary investigation involving Farage and an alleged £5 million gift from cryptocurrency billionaire Christopher Harborne.
That matter concerns questions about whether the financial benefit was properly declared under parliamentary rules.
It remains a separate issue from the payments received from American anti-abortion organisations.
The existence of multiple financial controversies has nevertheless increased scrutiny of Reform’s leadership.
Farage has repeatedly insisted that his party is committed to challenging the political establishment.
But the party’s growing influence means that its finances and professional relationships will receive increasingly detailed examination.
The same standards of transparency that Reform demands from its political opponents will inevitably be expected of its own leadership.
What happens next?
The immediate question is whether Farage will provide further explanations about the organisations involved and the nature of the speaking engagements.
The parliamentary register provides an important starting point, but the wider political implications require careful examination.
Reform must also decide whether it intends to clarify its position on abortion rights.
Avoiding a detailed policy commitment may help the party maintain unity in the short term, but it could become increasingly difficult as questions about its senior figures and financial relationships continue.
For Labour and the Conservatives, the controversy offers another opportunity to challenge Farage on issues involving transparency and political priorities.
However, the ultimate judgement will belong to voters.
Some may see the payments as ordinary professional earnings from speaking engagements.
Others may regard the organisations’ political objectives as sufficiently important to demand a clearer explanation.
What makes the story particularly significant is the distinction between what has been publicly declared and what the public still does not know.
The reported £83,000 is the amount identified through the disclosed payments and expenses.
It should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing or as proof of additional undeclared payments.
But it does provide a substantial basis for questions about Farage’s connections with American conservative organisations.
As Reform continues its campaign to become a major force in British government, its leader will face growing pressure to explain those relationships.
For a politician who has built much of his reputation on demanding accountability from others, the latest revelations represent another important test.
And the question facing Farage is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid: how much should British voters know about the organisations funding his political appearances, and what do those relationships reveal about the future direction of Reform UK?