Nigel Farage says he wants Donald Trump’s border tsar (Image: Getty)
Nigel Farage has said he wants to “hijack” Donald Trump’s ICE tsar to secure Britain’s borders. Reform UK‘s leader, speaking at an event in the US attended by Tom Homan, quipped: “I’ve got terrible news for you. We’re hijacking Tom Homan and taking him back with us to secure our borders.”
Mr Homan is a key ally of US President Donald Trump, who has described him as a “border tsar”. The 64 year old is a staunch defender of Mr Trump’s migrant crackdown and an adviser at US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
He takes a hardline approach to migration, having told GB News previously that he would “turn them around” when asked what he would do to curb small boat arrivals in the UK.
ICE itself has come under scrutiny after the fatal shooting of Minneapolis locals Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good by federal agents.
More than 30 people died in custody last year and 19 ICE officers have died since 2020, according to figures from Congress and ICE respectively.
Reform UK has pledged to take a hardline on both legal and illegal immigration, including by intercepting small boats in the Channel and returning them to France.
Mr Farage‘s outfit also wants mass deportations of anyone who arrives through unofficial routes and revoke the asylum status of claims granted in the last five years deemed irregular.
Reform has said it will bring in new immigration spot checks at the UK-Ireland land border and fine transport firms £10,000 per passenger found to be entering Northern Ireland illegally.
MP Danny Kruger said the move aims to stop “illegal and unvetted dangerous criminals” using the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland as a backdoor route to the UK. He insisted it would not be a border check.
A Home Office spokesperson said “intelligence-led” operations already take place in the Common Travel Area – a long-standing open-border arrangement covering the UK, Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands.
An analysis by the National Crime Agency (NCA) of small boat crossings found that in the first half of 2026, the number of people arriving in the UK by small boat fell 41%.
The number of arrests linked to organised immigration crime in the year to the end of April 2026 rose by more than 55% and since late 2023 more than 1,600 boats or engines have been seized, according to the NCA.
Minister for Border Security and Asylum Anna Turley said previously that the analysis shows the Government is making it harder for people smuggling gangs to operate.
She said: “With crossings down significantly on last year, and the lowest arrivals over the summer for six years, our plan is bearing fruit.
“We have boosted officer numbers on French beaches, seized more than 1,100 small boats and engines and are reducing the pull factors drawing migrants across the Channel.
“This includes making refugee status temporary, cracking down on illegal working and returning more people without the right to be here.
“But we are not complacent. We will continue our relentless efforts to prevent these dangerous crossings and put those responsible behind bars.”
Nigel Farage Wants to Bring Trump’s ICE Tsar to Britain to Tackle the Immigration Crisis
Nigel Farage has sparked fresh debate over Britain’s immigration policies after declaring that he wants to bring Donald Trump’s hardline border adviser, Tom Homan, to the United Kingdom to help secure its borders. The Reform UK leader made the remark during an event in the United States, where he praised Homan’s approach to immigration enforcement and joked that he wanted to “hijack” the official and take him back to Britain.
The comments underline Farage’s determination to make immigration one of the defining issues in British politics. They also raise questions about whether the United Kingdom should adopt elements of the United States’ increasingly aggressive enforcement model, including large-scale deportations, expanded detention capacity and tougher action against people who remain in the country without legal permission.
Farage’s proposal is not a formal agreement to appoint Homan to a British government position. Rather, it signals the Reform leader’s interest in drawing on the experience of an American official closely associated with Trump’s immigration crackdown. Whether such an approach could work within Britain’s legal and political system remains a separate question. <Cite refs={[“turn626418search0″,”turn626418search1”]}/>
Farage’s Message to Washington
Speaking at an event attended by Homan, Farage praised the American official and made his intentions clear.
“I’ve got terrible news for you. We’re hijacking Tom Homan and taking him back with us to secure our borders,” Farage said.
The remark was delivered jokingly, but its political message was unmistakable. Farage wants Britain to take a much tougher approach to irregular migration and believes that the United States’ experience could offer lessons for a future Reform UK government.
Homan has become a prominent figure in Trump’s immigration policy. As an adviser associated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, commonly known as ICE, he has advocated stronger enforcement, increased removals and a more aggressive approach towards people who are in the United States unlawfully.
For Farage, Homan represents a model of the kind of determined enforcement he believes Britain needs. The Reform leader has repeatedly argued that successive governments have failed to control the country’s borders, despite promises to reduce irregular migration.
His latest comments also reflect his wider political alignment with Trump’s administration. Farage has urged European leaders to take a more pragmatic view of the American president, arguing that his administration’s policies should be judged on their results rather than dismissed because of disagreements with Washington.
However, admiration for Homan’s approach does not mean that the United States’ entire immigration system could simply be transferred to Britain. The two countries have different legal frameworks, policing arrangements, detention systems and international obligations.
Who Is Tom Homan?
Tom Homan is a veteran American immigration enforcement official who became nationally prominent during Trump’s first administration. He previously served as acting director of ICE and later returned to a senior advisory role focused on border enforcement and deportation policy.
Homan has become closely associated with the administration’s commitment to increasing removals of people who lack lawful immigration status. He has defended a policy of strict enforcement and argued that immigration laws must have meaningful consequences if governments are to maintain control over their borders.
His approach has attracted strong support among Americans who believe that previous administrations failed to enforce immigration rules consistently. Supporters argue that credible enforcement discourages unlawful entry and demonstrates that legal immigration systems cannot function properly if their rules are routinely ignored.
Critics, however, have raised concerns about the methods used in American enforcement operations, the impact on families and communities, and the treatment of migrants in detention. ICE has also faced scrutiny over the use of force during enforcement activities, including fatal shootings involving immigration officers in 2026. <Cite refs={[“turn626418search0″,”turn626418search3”]}/>
These controversies are relevant to Farage’s proposal because any attempt to draw lessons from the American model would need to consider both its stated objectives and its consequences.
A British immigration system based on stronger enforcement would have to establish clear safeguards, ensure that decisions can be challenged where appropriate and distinguish between people who have committed serious crimes, people whose asylum claims have been rejected and those whose legal status is disputed.
Reform UK’s Deportation Plans
Farage’s remarks fit into a wider Reform UK programme designed to reduce irregular migration and increase the number of people removed from Britain.
The party has proposed creating a new agency called UK Deportation Command, with responsibility for identifying, detaining and removing people who have no legal right to remain in the country. Reform has described its plans as a major expansion of enforcement capacity, arguing that existing arrangements are insufficient to achieve the scale of removals it wants.
In February 2026, the party outlined proposals for a dedicated deportation operation that could hold up to 24,000 people at any one time and carry out large numbers of removals each month. It has also discussed reviewing certain asylum decisions made over the previous five years. <Cite refs={[“turn626418search3″,”turn626418news8”]}/>
Reform argues that the system must become more effective at enforcing immigration decisions. Its representatives say that people who have exhausted their legal rights to remain should not be able to stay indefinitely because removal arrangements are slow or difficult to implement.
The party has also proposed tougher action against countries that refuse to accept their nationals who are subject to deportation. In October 2026, Farage raised the possibility of visa restrictions, flight bans, asset-related measures and, in extreme cases, tariffs against countries that did not cooperate with British removal requests. <Cite refs={[“turn626418search6”]}/>
These proposals would represent a substantial change in the UK’s approach. They would require extensive administrative capacity, international cooperation, detention facilities, transport arrangements and legal procedures.
The central question is not only how many people the system could remove, but whether the government could do so lawfully, safely and at a sustainable cost.
Could Britain’s Immigration System Become More Like ICE?
Farage’s interest in Homan has inevitably prompted comparisons between Reform’s plans and the American ICE model.
There are similarities in the broad objectives. Both approaches place significant emphasis on enforcement, detention and deportation, rather than relying primarily on deterrence through changes to asylum procedures or international agreements.
Yet there are important differences between the two countries.
ICE operates within the American federal system, which has its own immigration courts, detention infrastructure and division of responsibilities between federal and local authorities. Britain’s immigration system operates under a different legal framework, with its own rules governing asylum, detention, deportation and judicial review.
Simply bringing an American adviser to Britain would not resolve those differences. Any new enforcement strategy would have to be designed around British law, available resources and the responsibilities of the Home Office, Border Force, police and courts.
A future government would also need to determine what role an outside adviser could realistically play. Homan could potentially offer experience of enforcement operations and administrative organisation, but decisions about British immigration policy would remain the responsibility of the UK government and Parliament.
The political appeal of the proposal is clear: Farage wants to demonstrate that he is prepared to consider methods used by governments that place border enforcement at the centre of their agenda.
Whether those methods would deliver the promised results in Britain would depend on how they were implemented and the circumstances in which they were used.
The Channel Crossings Problem
One of the main issues driving the British immigration debate is the continued arrival of people across the English Channel in small boats.
Successive governments have struggled to prevent these crossings, which present serious risks to the people making the journey and create difficult operational challenges for border authorities.
Farage has argued that the government must do more to deter crossings, disrupt smuggling networks and ensure that people who do not qualify to remain in Britain are removed.
Supporters of a tougher approach say that a credible deportation system could reduce the incentive for people to make dangerous journeys. If potential migrants believe that arrival will not lead to a long-term stay, they argue, the business model used by smuggling networks could become less attractive.
However, migration decisions are influenced by multiple factors, including conflict, persecution, family connections, economic conditions and the policies of destination countries. The relationship between enforcement and the number of arrivals is therefore complex.
Effective action against smuggling networks also requires international cooperation. British authorities cannot control every stage of a journey that may begin in one country, pass through several others and involve criminal organisations operating across borders.
Any policy aimed at reducing Channel crossings would need to combine enforcement with practical arrangements for processing asylum claims, returning people where legally possible and cooperating with other governments.
The Legal and Humanitarian Questions
A major expansion of deportation operations would raise significant legal and humanitarian questions.
People seeking asylum are entitled to have their claims assessed under the applicable legal framework. Some may ultimately be refused protection, while others may qualify because they face persecution or serious harm if returned to their home countries.
A government cannot assume that everyone arriving irregularly has no valid claim to protection. Nor can it treat a rejected asylum application as automatically resolving every legal question about removal, particularly where circumstances change or there are serious risks in the destination country.
The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning people to places where they face specified forms of serious harm, is central to international refugee protection. Any British deportation programme would have to respect applicable legal obligations and provide appropriate procedures for considering individual cases.
Detention is another important issue. Holding large numbers of people requires suitable facilities, trained staff, access to legal processes and effective oversight. A government would also need to establish how detention decisions would be reviewed and how vulnerable individuals would be treated.
These requirements can increase the cost and complexity of an enforcement programme. Reform has presented its proposals as a means of reducing the financial burden associated with irregular migration, but the overall savings would depend on implementation costs, legal challenges, accommodation requirements and the success of removal agreements.
Consequently, the scale of a proposed deportation operation should not be confused with proof that it can be delivered at the promised cost or timetable.
Political Support and Opposition
Farage’s proposal is likely to appeal to voters who believe the immigration system has lost public confidence. Concerns about border control, pressure on public services and the government’s ability to enforce its own decisions have become prominent features of national debate.
For these voters, the idea of bringing in an experienced American enforcement figure may appear to offer a more direct approach than previous policy announcements.
Critics, however, argue that the American model has generated serious disputes over civil liberties, family separation, detention and the use of force. They question whether importing elements of that system would improve Britain’s immigration arrangements or create new problems.
There is also a practical question about political responsibility. A government that promises large-scale removals must explain how it will identify those eligible for removal, secure travel documents, obtain cooperation from destination countries and manage legal challenges.
The debate should therefore focus on specific proposals and measurable outcomes rather than the symbolic appeal of associating British policy with a high-profile American official.
What Happens Next?
Farage’s comments do not establish that Tom Homan will take up a formal role in Britain. They do, however, make clear that Reform UK is interested in the experience of Trump’s immigration advisers as it develops its own approach to border control.
If the party were to enter government, it would need to turn its proposals into detailed legislation, funding commitments and operational plans. That process would require cooperation between departments, international negotiations and safeguards to ensure that enforcement decisions comply with the law.
The government would also need to define what success means. Reducing dangerous Channel crossings, removing people with no right to remain, disrupting smuggling networks and processing legitimate asylum claims are related but distinct objectives. Each requires its own measures of progress.
Bringing in an experienced adviser might contribute to policy development, but it would not remove the underlying legal, logistical and diplomatic challenges.
Conclusion
Nigel Farage’s desire to bring Tom Homan to Britain reflects Reform UK’s commitment to a tougher approach to immigration enforcement. By praising Trump’s border adviser, Farage is signalling that he wants a British system focused more heavily on detention, deportation and the enforcement of removal decisions.
The proposal has generated interest because it offers a clear contrast with approaches that place greater emphasis on international cooperation and reforming asylum procedures. Yet the American experience also demonstrates why aggressive enforcement policies attract scrutiny over costs, civil liberties and the treatment of migrants.
Britain’s immigration debate is unlikely to be resolved by appointing a single adviser or adopting another country’s methods wholesale. Any government seeking a major change will have to demonstrate that its policies are workable, lawful and capable of achieving their stated objectives.
Farage has made clear the direction in which he wants Reform UK to move. Whether the party’s proposed model could deliver the results it promises remains a question for detailed policy development, legal scrutiny and practical implementation.