Reform UK has reported ITV to the police following an undercover investigation by the broadcaster. Reform’s home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf said the party would also launch a legal challenge against the multiple ITV journalists and the broadcaster’s board of directors.

The expose by ITV revealed racist remarks by members of the party. In a video posted on X, Mr Yusuf said Reform was now reporting individual journalists to the police, as it believes they have breached fraud and election law in the course of making the documentary.

He said: “We have reported multiple ITV journalists and their board of directors to the police, and will be taking legal action against all of them.

“Journalists are supposed to report the news. These ones set out to create it.”

Mr Yusuf claimed that the undercover ITV reporter who became employed as a Reform press officer had “doctored” her passport to gain the job.

He also said two undercover reporters who joined Reform members campaigning in Portsmouth had been reported to the police, as it is illegal to pay someone to canvass for a candidate.

Reform has also reported ITV’s board to the police as the organisation that paid the two reporters, he said, adding that the party would bring “civil proceedings” against them, too.

He said: “We will pursue this through the courts relentlessly. I want to be frank about why we feel so strongly: Many Reform staff members and volunteers were psychologically manipulated and damaged by ITV’s undercover reporters.”

Mr Yusuf later claimed ITV had engaged in “a form of psychological warfare”.

He added: “It was designed to demoralise, to inject paranoia into our volunteers, our activists, and our employees, and to make ordinary people afraid to take part in politics.”

It was unclear which police force, or forces, Reform made the report to.

An ITV spokesperson said: “ITV stands by its journalism. The programme Undercover: A Year In Reform was produced in compliance with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, relevant laws, and its broadcast is in the public interest. All journalists were instructed to operate within this framework and did so under the supervision of the programme’s producers. Should the police get in touch we would fully cooperate.”

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK Reports ITV to Police Over Undercover Investigation

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has escalated its confrontation with ITV after reporting the broadcaster and several journalists to the police over an undercover investigation that captured party councillors and candidates making racist, sexist and otherwise offensive remarks. The move has opened a new chapter in an increasingly heated dispute over journalism, political accountability and the standards expected of people seeking elected office.

The controversy intensified on October 21, 2026, when Reform’s home affairs spokesperson, Zia Yusuf, announced that the party had reported multiple ITV journalists and members of the broadcaster’s board to the police. Yusuf also threatened civil proceedings, arguing that the methods used during the investigation may have breached the law. ITV rejected the allegations and said the programme had been produced in accordance with relevant laws and broadcasting rules. <Cite refs={[“turn482487news9″,”turn482487news18”]}/>

The dispute centres on ITV’s documentary, Undercover: A Year in Reform, which examined the behaviour of Reform representatives and campaigners during political campaigns across England and Wales. The programme has raised difficult questions for Farage, whose party has built much of its appeal around promises to change British politics and establish itself as a serious alternative to the established parties.

For Reform, the immediate priority is challenging what it regards as improper journalistic conduct. For its critics, the central question is whether the party has adequately addressed the remarks captured by the investigation. The confrontation has therefore developed into a wider debate about political standards, investigative reporting and the responsibilities of political organisations.

Why Reform UK Took the Dispute to the Police

Yusuf announced the party’s decision in a video published on social media, alleging that the undercover journalists had crossed legal boundaries while gathering material for the documentary.

One of his central allegations concerned an undercover reporter who obtained employment as a Reform press officer. Yusuf claimed that the journalist had altered her passport to secure the position and argued that this conduct warranted police scrutiny.

He also alleged that two undercover reporters had participated in campaigning activities in Portsmouth in circumstances that could raise questions under election law. Reform claimed that payments connected with those activities might have breached legal restrictions.

These are allegations made by the party, rather than established findings of criminal wrongdoing. Whether any law was broken would depend on the available evidence and the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.

Yusuf argued that the investigation had manipulated party staff and volunteers, damaging their trust and creating an atmosphere of suspicion. He said Reform intended to pursue the matter through the courts.

The party’s decision represents a significant escalation because it moves the dispute beyond public criticism of the documentary and towards possible legal proceedings. However, reporting allegations to the police does not establish that an offence has occurred, and any investigation would need to examine the evidence independently.

ITV Defends Its Investigative Journalism

ITV has stood by its reporting, rejecting the suggestion that the investigation was unlawful. The broadcaster said the programme was produced in compliance with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, relevant legislation and the public interest. It also indicated that it would cooperate with police if contacted. <Cite refs={[“turn482487news9″,”turn482487news18”]}/>

Undercover journalism can involve difficult ethical and legal questions. Reporters may use concealed identities to gain access to information that would otherwise remain unavailable, particularly when investigating the conduct of people in positions of influence.

However, such methods are not automatically justified simply because a story attracts public interest. The circumstances in which information is obtained, the conduct of the journalists involved and the reliability of the resulting evidence can all be relevant when assessing a particular investigation.

In this case, ITV maintains that its reporters operated within the applicable legal and regulatory framework. Reform disputes that position and has said it wants the police to examine the circumstances.

The competing claims leave several questions unresolved. These include whether the alleged conduct breached any legal requirements, whether the journalists’ methods were proportionate and whether the material broadcast accurately represented the people involved.

Those questions should be determined through evidence and the appropriate legal processes, rather than assuming that either side’s account has already been proven.

What the Undercover Documentary Revealed

The investigation generated widespread attention because it included secretly recorded comments attributed to Reform councillors and candidates in different parts of the country.

According to ITV’s published investigation, some individuals made racist remarks about ethnic minorities and Muslims, while other recordings contained sexist comments and statements involving violence. One councillor described Asian families in his area in explicitly dehumanising terms, while another recording showed a party representative making offensive comments about Black children. <Cite refs={[“turn482487search1”]}/>

The findings created an immediate challenge for Reform because the party has repeatedly promised to improve candidate vetting and distance itself from individuals expressing extremist views.

Reform responded by saying that investigations into the individuals involved had commenced and that some people had been suspended. The party argued that no organisation could guarantee that every candidate would behave appropriately after being selected.

Farage also questioned the circumstances surrounding the recordings. He suggested that the journalists had sought to provoke controversial statements and argued that other political parties could face similar scrutiny if their members were investigated in the same way. <Cite refs={[“turn482487search2″,”turn482487search10”]}/>

That response has not ended the debate. Critics argue that the content of the recordings requires serious attention regardless of how the conversations began. They contend that people who represent political parties should be held accountable for their own words, particularly when those words concern ethnic minorities or other groups in society.

The distinction between investigating the journalists’ conduct and examining the recorded comments is important. Even if questions were raised about the methods used to obtain the footage, those questions would not automatically resolve the separate issue of whether the comments were acceptable.

Farage Faces Questions About Party Standards

The controversy places Farage under pressure to explain how Reform selects candidates, supervises elected representatives and responds when members are accused of serious misconduct.

Reform has expanded its political presence and won support from voters dissatisfied with the traditional parties. That growth has increased the importance of its internal procedures, particularly where councillors and candidates exercise public responsibilities.

A larger organisation must manage recruitment, training, complaints and disciplinary procedures across many different local areas. Candidate vetting can identify some risks, but it cannot guarantee that every individual will behave appropriately in every situation.

Nevertheless, the investigation has renewed scrutiny of Reform’s earlier promises to professionalise its candidate selection process. ITV reported that several people featured in its investigation had held positions within the party or stood for elected office. <Cite refs={[“turn482487search1″,”turn482487search2”]}/>

Farage has argued that the party cannot predict everything an individual might say in the future. That point raises a practical question about the limits of vetting, but it does not eliminate the need for effective disciplinary procedures once concerns emerge.

The party must decide how to balance due process for those accused of misconduct with the need to demonstrate that unacceptable behaviour will have consequences.

Its response could influence how voters assess its claims to offer a different approach to political leadership. The issue is not simply whether Reform can attract new members, but whether it can maintain consistent standards as its organisation grows.

Political Reactions Intensify the Dispute

The controversy has drawn attention from politicians beyond Reform, with critics arguing that the party’s response has not adequately addressed the substance of the documentary.

During Prime Minister’s Questions, Andy Burnham said political parties had a responsibility to root out racist and discriminatory behaviour and argued that firm action should follow the revelations. His comments placed the emphasis on the standards expected of elected representatives rather than the legal dispute between Reform and ITV. <Cite refs={[“turn482487search0”]}/>

Other political figures have also questioned whether Reform’s candidate selection procedures are sufficient. The party, meanwhile, has maintained that the investigation’s methods deserve scrutiny and that the allegations against the journalists should not be ignored.

These competing positions reflect a broader disagreement about the relationship between political journalism and public accountability.

Supporters of undercover investigations argue that concealed recording can reveal conduct that powerful individuals would otherwise keep private. Critics may counter that deception can compromise fairness or encourage behaviour that would not otherwise occur.

Neither argument settles the facts of this particular case. The legality and ethical justification of the reporting must be assessed against the evidence, while the behaviour captured in the recordings remains a separate matter for political and public scrutiny.

Could the Dispute Lead to Legal Action?

Reform has said it intends to pursue civil proceedings against the journalists and ITV’s board. Whether such proceedings are filed, and whether they succeed, will depend on the legal claims advanced and the evidence supporting them.

A police report is not the same as a criminal charge, and a threat of civil action does not mean a court has accepted the party’s allegations. The relevant authorities would need to assess any complaint within their jurisdiction before deciding what, if anything, should happen next.

The allegations concerning election law could require particular care because the legal treatment of campaign activity depends on the precise circumstances, including the nature of the work performed, the payments involved and the applicable rules.

Likewise, the claim that a passport was altered would need to be supported by evidence before any conclusion could be drawn about whether an offence occurred.

ITV’s stated willingness to cooperate with police provides a route for the allegations to be examined if the relevant authorities decide to investigate them.

Until more information becomes available, it would be premature to predict the outcome. The legal process must establish the facts rather than treating accusations from either side as proof.

A Wider Debate About Media and Democracy

Beyond the immediate confrontation, the case raises questions about the role of investigative journalism in British democracy.

Political reporting can expose misconduct, examine claims made by parties and provide voters with information about people seeking public office. Investigations involving concealed identities can be particularly controversial because they may involve deception, but they can also reveal behaviour that would be difficult to document through conventional interviews.

The public interest in political accountability must be balanced against the need for responsible reporting, fair treatment and compliance with the law.

Political parties also have responsibilities. They must ensure that allegations of misconduct are investigated fairly, that appropriate standards are enforced and that the public can distinguish between substantiated findings and accusations that remain unresolved.

For voters, the case presents two separate questions: whether the journalists acted properly in obtaining the material, and whether the conduct revealed by the investigation reflects a wider problem within Reform. Evidence concerning one question cannot automatically settle the other.

A transparent process would help establish the facts and reduce the risk that the dispute becomes dominated by competing political narratives.

Conclusion: A Dispute With Consequences Beyond Reform

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has taken its confrontation with ITV to the police, alleging that the broadcaster’s undercover investigation involved unlawful conduct and threatening further legal action. ITV has rejected those allegations and defended the programme as lawful journalism conducted in the public interest.

The controversy has placed renewed attention on the standards expected of political representatives, the methods used by investigative reporters and the safeguards governing election campaigns.

For Reform, the immediate task is to substantiate its claims and explain how it will address the conduct revealed by the documentary. For ITV, the challenge is to defend its methods and the accuracy of its reporting. The police and courts, if involved, must assess the relevant evidence independently.

The outcome could have implications for the individuals concerned and for the wider relationship between political parties and the media. It may also influence public discussion about how political organisations should respond when serious allegations emerge from their own ranks.

Ultimately, neither a police complaint nor a televised investigation should be treated as the final word. The facts must be established, legal standards must be applied fairly, and political accountability must remain grounded in evidence.

As the dispute develops, the central issue will be whether the competing claims can be tested through transparent procedures that protect both the integrity of journalism and the public’s right to scrutinise those seeking political power.