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 ICE Tsar to UK’ to Solve Immigration Crisis
Nigel Farage has raised the prospect of bringing one of Donald Trump’s most prominent immigration advisers to Britain, as Reform UK continues to push for a tougher approach to illegal migration and border enforcement.
The Reform UK leader made the remark while attending an event in the United States alongside Tom Homan, the former acting director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and a senior immigration adviser to Trump.
Farage joked that he wanted to “hijack” Homan and take him back to Britain to help secure the country’s borders. The comment captured the close political alignment between Farage’s hardline immigration agenda and the Trump administration’s approach to enforcement. <Cite refs={[“turn868873search0″,”turn868873search1”]} />
But the proposal also raises important questions about what an American-style immigration crackdown would mean in the UK, whether it could be implemented under British law and how it might affect asylum seekers, settled migrant families and the wider immigration system.
Farage’s remarks were not an announcement that Homan had agreed to take up a position in Britain. Rather, they reflected Reform’s interest in the methods and political messaging associated with the US administration’s immigration policy.
Why Farage is looking towards America
Immigration has become one of Reform UK’s defining political issues. Farage has repeatedly argued that successive governments have failed to control Britain’s borders, prevent dangerous Channel crossings and remove people who have no legal right to remain in the country.
His party has promised a substantial expansion of immigration enforcement if it forms a government. The proposals include mass deportations, a new enforcement organisation and changes to the legal framework governing asylum and human rights.
Homan has become a prominent figure in the Trump administration’s immigration strategy. Known for advocating strict enforcement, he has defended the use of detention and deportation to discourage unauthorised migration.
For Farage, Homan represents an example of an adviser who has made immigration enforcement central to government policy. By publicly praising him, the Reform leader is signalling that he wants Britain to adopt a similarly determined approach to removing people who are not legally entitled to remain.
However, the American and British systems are not identical. Immigration enforcement in the United States operates under a different legal framework, with different institutions, powers and constitutional constraints.
Any attempt to transfer aspects of the American model to Britain would therefore require careful consideration of British law, police powers, court oversight and the country’s international obligations.
Reform’s proposed deportation system
Farage’s interest in Homan follows Reform UK’s announcement of plans for a new organisation called UK Deportation Command.
The party has proposed giving the body responsibility for identifying, detaining and deporting people it says have no legal right to stay in Britain. Its plans include expanded detention capacity, dedicated deportation flights and changes intended to reduce the ability of individuals to challenge removals through the courts.
In February 2026, Reform outlined an enforcement system designed to carry out deportations on a much larger scale than the current arrangements. The proposals drew strong criticism from refugee organisations and other campaigners, who questioned their legality, cost and potential consequences for families. <Cite refs={[“turn868873search2″,”turn868873search3”]} />
The party has argued that a more centralised system would improve coordination and make removals more efficient. Supporters say people who have exhausted their legal right to remain should not be able to stay indefinitely because of administrative delays.
Yet the scale of the proposed operation would create considerable logistical challenges. Authorities would need sufficient staff, detention facilities, transport arrangements and agreements with countries willing to receive people being deported.
The government would also have to establish how individuals are identified, how their identities are verified and what procedures apply when someone claims that returning them would expose them to persecution or serious harm.
These are not minor administrative details. They are central to determining whether a mass-deportation programme could operate lawfully and effectively.
The Channel crossings remain a major political issue
Small-boat arrivals across the English Channel have become a recurring source of political controversy. Images of overcrowded inflatable boats and arrivals on British beaches have fuelled demands for more effective action against people-smuggling networks.
Reform has promised to intercept boats and return migrants to France, alongside a wider programme of deportations. The party argues that the prospect of being removed would discourage people from making dangerous journeys and undermine the business model of criminal smuggling gangs.
However, returning people who arrive by small boat is more complicated than simply ordering vessels to turn around. Any operational plan would need to address maritime safety, individual asylum claims, the legal responsibilities of the countries involved and the practical question of whether France would accept those returned.
The government must also distinguish between people who have no legal right to remain and those whose claims for international protection have not yet been determined.
Refugee protection procedures exist partly because some people fleeing war or persecution cannot safely return to their countries of origin. The existence of an irregular route into Britain does not, by itself, establish whether an individual qualifies for protection.
For Reform, the challenge is to show how its proposed system would reduce crossings while dealing with these legal and operational questions.
Controversy surrounding the American model
The prospect of importing elements of the US immigration system is likely to remain controversial because ICE has faced sustained criticism over its detention and enforcement practices.
Supporters of the American approach argue that strict enforcement is necessary to uphold immigration law and discourage unauthorised entry. Critics point to concerns about detention conditions, the separation of families, the use of force and the treatment of people whose immigration status is disputed.
These disagreements matter because Britain would not be adopting a purely administrative system. A new enforcement agency would exercise powers that directly affect people’s liberty, family life and ability to challenge decisions.
Reform has argued that its proposed British organisation would operate within the UK’s policing traditions and would not simply reproduce the most controversial features of American enforcement. Nevertheless, critics have questioned whether the party’s proposed scale of deportations could be achieved without serious legal and humanitarian consequences. <Cite refs={[“turn868873search2″,”turn868873search5”]} />
A British system would need clear rules governing detention, access to legal advice, judicial review and the protection of children and vulnerable people. It would also need effective independent oversight to investigate allegations of misconduct.
The debate is therefore not simply about whether Britain should be tougher on illegal immigration. It is also about how enforcement powers should be exercised and what safeguards should apply.
The legal obstacles facing Reform
Reform has indicated that achieving its proposed immigration programme would require major legal changes. Its plans have included leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, repealing the Human Rights Act and changing the UK’s approach to international refugee obligations.
The Institute for Government has highlighted significant legal and practical obstacles to elements of Reform’s earlier immigration proposals, including questions involving detention, asylum eligibility and the removal of people to other countries. <Cite refs={[“turn868873search5”]} />
Leaving or changing international agreements would not automatically resolve every difficulty. The government would still need workable domestic legislation, administrative systems and arrangements with countries willing to accept deportees.
There would also be questions about the treatment of people who cannot be returned because their home countries refuse to cooperate, cannot verify their identities or are considered unsafe for them.
A deportation policy can set ambitious targets, but its results depend on whether removals can actually be carried out. Diplomatic negotiations, legal proceedings and limited detention capacity can all affect the timetable.
Reform would therefore need to demonstrate how its proposed system could operate at the scale it envisages, how much it would cost and how it would respond when removals were blocked by legal or practical obstacles.
What the proposal means for British politics
Farage’s comments about Homan reinforce Reform’s attempt to present itself as the party most willing to take decisive action on immigration. The approach appeals to voters who believe existing policies have failed and who want clearer consequences for people who enter or remain in the country unlawfully.
At the same time, the proposal gives opponents an opportunity to challenge Reform over civil liberties, public spending and the treatment of vulnerable people.
The government’s own position is different, focusing on enforcement alongside returns agreements, action against smuggling networks and changes to asylum procedures. Reform argues that these measures do not go far enough, while critics of its programme warn that mass deportation on the proposed scale could prove legally and operationally difficult.
Ultimately, bringing an American adviser to Britain would not, by itself, solve the country’s immigration problems. The effectiveness of any policy would depend on the legal powers available, cooperation from other countries, resources for enforcement and the ability to distinguish between cases requiring removal and those requiring protection.
Farage’s remark was deliberately striking, but the more important question is what a British government could lawfully and practically implement.
Reform has made clear that it wants a far more aggressive deportation system. Whether that approach could deliver the results promised without unacceptable costs or legal consequences remains a central issue in the debate over Britain’s borders.