Zia Yusuf has vowed to crack down on EU benefits (Image: Getty)
Nigel Farage can use trade as “leverage” to end “insane” benefit payments for European nationals, Zia Yusuf has declared. Reform’s pick for Home Secretary said leaders on the continent are “laughing at us”, before warning “they won’t be when Nigel is prime minister”. And, in a bold declaration, he stated: “It’s insane and unacceptable that Britain should be a food bank for the world”. Mr Farage and Mr Yusuf have vowed to tear up the Withdrawal Agreement with European leaders to prevent the welfare bill for foreign citizens spiralling to more than £20billion.
The businessman-turned-politician claimed handouts have increased “sevenfold”, heaping intense pressure on government finances. Mr Yusuf told the Daily Express: “It was already an unfair deal and now the facts on the ground have completely changed. If you don’t renegotiate that, then I want to reiterate, that number is going to be north of £20billion.
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.
“I know these numbers sound abstract. And I know it might be difficult for people to process because they are so big. But, by 2030, it’s going to be more than the country spends on policing.
“So, we have to go and have this conversation. It is completely unfair. We will stop those payments and we will negotiate. This is ridiculous, it is insane. European leaders are laughing at us. They won’t be laughing at us when Nigel is prime minister.”
Reform has vowed to scrap indefinite leave to remain and replace it with a five-year visa. Anyone already granted settlement rights would also have to reapply. And, as revealed by the Daily Express, Nigel Farage will ban all foreign nationals from claiming any form of welfare.
Only UK citizens will be able to receive benefits under a Reform government. This means Nigel Farage would unpick Boris Johnson’s deal with Brussels that guaranteed EU citizens the right to claim benefits in the UK.
Mr Yusuf told the Daily Express: “If you’re an EU Settled Status in this country, you will continue to have Settled Status in this country.
“Here’s what we are changing – your entitlement to welfare in this country. £15billion of taxpayers’ money has been spent on universal credit payments alone, that is before any other form of welfare. That’s already an insane number. If you extrapolate that through to 2029, that’s well north of £20billion. So, my question is, how big does that number need to be?
Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf and Nigel Farage have big plans (Image: Getty)
“The vast majority of that, by the way, are EU nationals. So, does it need to be £25billion, £50billion, 100billion?
“In terms of what our leverage is, look, we’re a really important trading partner for France, for Germany, for lots of countries in the EU.
“When that Withdrawal Agreement was negotiated, there were already four times as many EU nationals in the UK claiming welfare as the other way around. So, it was already ridiculous. That’s what the Tories did – completely betrayed everybody.
“Since then, the number of EU nationals in the UK claiming welfare payments has increased sevenfold. So, we’ve got to adapt, we’ve got to stand up for the interests of the British people. That’s what Nigel will do for us as prime minister.”
Mr Yusuf said the UK is being “invaded” by migrants as he pitched Reform’s mass deportation programme as the biggest in UK history.
And he declared foreign citizens must “more than pay” their way. Reform’s home affairs spokesman told migrants: “Here’s our ask and what we require. You more than pay your way, economically, you speak English, and you do not commit crime.
“Any serious country would say that’s sensible. Any reasonable person would say that’s sensible.
“It is totally insane and unfair while people are struggling and buckling under the tax burden in this country, and the cost of living crisis, where our military is hollowed out, where our pensioners are being betrayed, where farmers are in some cases committing suicide because of the tax rates on them.
“It’s insane and unacceptable that Britain should be a food bank for the world. That’s why we have to renegotiate that.”
Mr Yusuf, in an exclusive interview, warned that Channel migrants will succeed in carrying out a terror attack.
“It seems like that’s a tragically and devastatingly likely thing to potentially happen. Our security services do an incredible job under extremely difficult circumstances. I believe they’re vastly under-resourced. I don’t think it helps them at all that we’ve had pathetically cowardly political leaders who are just allowing people, as I said, to turn up on our beaches.”
If Reform wins the next election, a new ‘UK Deportation Command’ will use data from banks, the Home Office, HMRC, police, DVLA and NHS to identify every illegal migrant.
They will then be offered £2,500 each to leave the UK during a six-month grace period.
Once the voluntary returns programme comes to an end, immigration enforcement teams will be ordered to carry out raids and detain them.
New laws introduced in a planned Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill will bar illegal migrants from claiming asylum, and the home secretary will have a legal duty to remove them.
Reform will also leave the European Convention on Human Rights, and disapply other pieces of human rights laws, such as the Refugee Convention, to allow five deportation flights every day.
“Insane” Britain Is “Food Bank of the World!” Zia Yusuf Rages Over Migrant Benefits
Zia Yusuf has intensified Reform UK’s attack on Britain’s welfare system, accusing successive governments of turning the country into what he called a “food bank for the world” while British taxpayers struggle with the cost of living.
The Reform UK policy chief made the remarks as the party pushed its proposal to restrict access to welfare benefits for foreign nationals. The plan has become one of the most prominent parts of Reform’s wider attempt to reshape immigration, welfare and public spending.
Yusuf’s language is deliberately political. His description of Britain as a “food bank for the world” is Reform’s characterization of the welfare system rather than an independently established description of how Britain’s benefits system operates.
Nevertheless, the underlying policy proposal is concrete. Reform says that, under a Reform government, most benefits would be restricted to British citizens, with limited exceptions. The party estimates that the changes could save billions of pounds annually by the end of a five-year period.
Reform’s proposed welfare crackdown
Reform formally unveiled its “Making Welfare Work” proposals in August 2026.
Robert Jenrick and Richard Tice presented the policy as an attempt to reduce the welfare bill and ensure that benefits were primarily available to British citizens. Jenrick said the basic principle would be simple: people who were not British citizens would generally not be entitled to benefits, subject to specified exceptions.
Reform estimated that the policy could save approximately £21 billion a year by the fifth year of implementation. The party also argued that the reforms would help protect welfare provision for British citizens who need financial support.
The proposal would represent a substantial change from the current system, in which entitlement can depend on immigration status, residence conditions, contribution records and the particular benefit involved.
It would also affect people who have lived and worked legally in Britain for years but have not acquired British citizenship.
What Zia Yusuf means by “food bank”
Yusuf’s “food bank” language is part of a broader Reform argument about immigration and public expenditure.
In previous statements, he has argued that Britain should no longer provide welfare support to people who come to the country from abroad while British taxpayers face pressure on household budgets and public services.
In September, Yusuf again used the phrase while discussing the position of EU citizens with settled status. He argued that Britain should not continue funding welfare for foreign nationals and said Reform would seek negotiations with Brussels over welfare eligibility.
The argument has therefore moved beyond people who enter Britain illegally. Reform’s welfare proposals potentially affect some people who are legally resident and have established rights in the UK.
That distinction is important because immigration status is not the same thing as illegal entry.
The numbers behind the argument
Reform’s claims about foreign nationals receiving Universal Credit have themselves attracted scrutiny.
Official Department for Work and Pensions figures show that, in May 2026, 84.5% of people receiving Universal Credit were in the Common Travel Area category covering UK citizens, Irish citizens and people with right of abode.
The remaining claimants included 8.9% under the EU Settlement Scheme, 2.8% with indefinite leave to remain, 0.9% with limited leave to remain or family reunion status, and smaller proportions in humanitarian, refugee and other categories.
Those figures demonstrate that a significant minority of Universal Credit claimants have immigration statuses other than British or Irish citizenship.
However, they do not mean that all of those people entered Britain recently or that they are necessarily migrants who have never contributed to the UK economy.
Some have lived in Britain for many years. Some may have worked and paid taxes. Others may have British family members.
The distinction between immigration status and individual contribution is therefore central to the debate.
Reform corrected one welfare claim
Reform’s original presentation of the statistics also received a correction.
The party initially said that the share of Universal Credit paid to foreign nationals had risen to 15.5% in January 2026. Full Fact found that the 15.5% figure referred instead to the proportion of Universal Credit recipients who were not British or Irish citizens or people with right of abode. It was not a measure of the proportion of Universal Credit expenditure paid to foreign nationals.
Full Fact also reported that the proportion had actually been falling since 2024. The figure was subsequently revised to 15.2% in January 2026.
This distinction matters because the number of claimants and the amount of money paid to claimants are different measurements.
A person receiving Universal Credit does not necessarily receive the same amount as another claimant. Payments depend on circumstances such as household composition, earnings, housing costs and other factors.
Consequently, the percentage of claimants who are foreign nationals cannot automatically be converted into the percentage of the welfare budget spent on foreign nationals.
The question of EU citizens
One of the most complicated elements of Reform’s proposal concerns European citizens who already have settled status.
The EU Settlement Scheme was established after Brexit to protect the rights of eligible EU, EEA and Swiss citizens and their family members who were living in the UK.
Reform’s messaging has produced an important distinction here.
Nigel Farage has said welfare should be available to British citizens rather than foreign nationals. Yusuf subsequently clarified that Reform would not simply cancel the settled status of EU citizens, but would seek to renegotiate aspects of welfare entitlement with the European Union.
That creates a significant diplomatic and legal question.
Changes affecting settled-status rights could require negotiations with Brussels and potentially affect British citizens living elsewhere in Europe, depending on the terms of any future agreement.
ITV reported that Reform’s proposal could also create consequences for British expatriates in EU countries if existing reciprocal arrangements were renegotiated.
The relationship with immigration policy
The welfare proposal cannot easily be separated from Reform’s broader immigration programme.
The party has already proposed substantially increasing deportations, creating a UK Deportation Command and changing the legal framework surrounding immigration and asylum.
Zia Yusuf has also argued for stronger action against people who enter Britain illegally by small boat. Reform’s “Operation Fortress” proposal would involve using the Royal Navy to intercept vessels in the Channel and return people to France or Belgium.
The welfare policy extends that approach into legal migration.
Reform argues that immigration should be accompanied by a clear expectation that newcomers should contribute economically before becoming eligible for extensive public support.
Opponents can reasonably focus on a different question: whether people who have worked, paid taxes and established families in Britain should lose access to benefits simply because they do not hold British citizenship.
That is one of the central policy choices at the heart of the dispute.
The argument over taxpayers
Yusuf’s rhetoric is built around taxpayers.
Reform says British workers should not be expected to finance benefits for foreign nationals while public services face financial pressure.
Jenrick similarly argued when launching the policy that money saved from restricting foreign access to welfare could instead be used for public services or tax reductions.
This argument reflects a broader political debate about the relationship between taxation, immigration and public spending.
The Government’s welfare system is funded primarily through taxation and National Insurance alongside other sources of public revenue. Whether a particular group represents a net fiscal cost or contribution depends on factors including employment, earnings, taxes paid, benefit claims, healthcare use and length of residence.
It is therefore difficult to reduce the entire economic impact of migration to welfare expenditure alone.
Potential consequences for the welfare system
If implemented, Reform’s proposal would require significant changes to benefit eligibility rules.
The Government would need to determine which benefits were affected, which categories of foreign nationals were exempt and how existing rights would be treated.
Questions would also arise concerning people with permanent residence, refugees, people with humanitarian protection, spouses of British citizens and foreign nationals who have contributed to the National Insurance system for many years.
Reform has indicated that there would be exceptions, including certain contributory pensions and people who have served in the Armed Forces.
The exact legislative wording would therefore be crucial.
A wider debate about fairness
At the centre of the dispute is the meaning of fairness.
Reform argues that the welfare state should primarily serve the people who fund it and that British citizenship should become the clearest dividing line.
Critics of the approach argue that legal residents can also be taxpayers and contributors, and that citizenship alone does not measure whether someone has paid into the system.
There is also a question about people who were invited to Britain through work or family routes under previous immigration rules and were told that they could eventually obtain permanent residence.
Changing those rules retrospectively could create uncertainty for people who made decisions based on the rules that existed when they arrived.
That issue has already appeared in the wider debate over Reform’s proposal to abolish indefinite leave to remain.
What the proposal could mean
Yusuf’s “food bank” rhetoric reflects the intensity of Reform’s argument, but the underlying policy is more complicated than the slogan suggests.
Official data show that people with non-British or Irish immigration statuses make up a minority of Universal Credit recipients. They include people with a wide variety of legal circumstances, from EU settled status to refugee and humanitarian protection categories.
Reform wants to draw a much clearer line between British citizens and foreign nationals when determining welfare eligibility.
Supporters of the policy argue that this would reduce government spending and ensure the welfare system prioritises British citizens. Critics can point to the legal, diplomatic and practical complications of changing existing entitlements, particularly for people who have lived and worked in Britain for years.
The debate is therefore about more than a single benefits reform. It reflects a much wider disagreement over immigration, citizenship, taxation and the purpose of Britain’s welfare state.
Yusuf’s claim that Britain has become a “food bank of the world” is a political slogan. The policy behind it, however, is a substantial proposal that would alter the relationship between immigration status and access to public support.
Whether the projected savings could be achieved would depend on the precise rules, exemptions, administrative costs and responses from affected governments and individuals. Those details would ultimately determine the real financial and social consequences of Reform’s proposed welfare overhaul.