Robert Jenrick accused Rachel Reeves of an “appalling lack of judgement” over her alleged links to a “fanatic who has repeatedly shown that he holds shocking views”.
It came as Reform’s Treasury spokesman gave a joint press conference this morning with Nigel Farage.
He said: “This is an appalling lack of judgement from Rachel Reeves. She has become very close to a local ‘community leader’ in Leeds in order to save her own political skin. But this man is a fanatic who has repeatedly shown that he holds shocking views.
“Reeves says she is this man’s friend, while he’s said he only votes for her if she does what he demands.
“This comes at a time of renewed concern about sectarian politics seeping into our national life. We don’t want foreign issues and sectarian politics to dictate what happens in our parliament. Reeves must answer for this and explain why she has become so close to this man.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said: “These abhorrent views are clearly not shared by the Chancellor. She was not aware of these allegations.”
Reform Exposes ‘Shocking Scandal’ About Rachel Reeves – ‘It’s Appalling’
A political controversy surrounding Chancellor Rachel Reeves erupted after Reform UK accused her of maintaining a close relationship with a Labour activist who had allegedly expressed deeply offensive views. Reform’s Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick described the situation as an “appalling” failure of judgment and demanded that Reeves explain her relationship with the man.
The controversy centres on Arshad Khatana, a Leeds mosque figure and Labour Party member who has been photographed with Reeves on numerous occasions. Labour subsequently suspended Khatana from the party pending an investigation after allegations concerning comments and material he had allegedly shared online.
The episode has generated a wider debate about the responsibilities of politicians when maintaining relationships with community representatives, particularly in constituencies where MPs regularly meet religious and civic leaders.
Reform’s accusation against Reeves
The controversy intensified in March 2026 when Jenrick published allegations concerning Khatana and his relationship with Reeves.
According to reporting by The Standard and The Independent, Jenrick claimed Reeves had referred to Khatana as a friend and had visited his home for lunch. Reform also highlighted photographs showing Reeves with Khatana on numerous occasions over a period stretching back more than a decade.
Jenrick argued that there was a significant difference between a politician being photographed with someone at a public event and maintaining a longer-standing personal or political relationship.
His criticism focused on allegations that Khatana had shared material relating to conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks, made antisemitic comments and circulated material involving figures associated with proscribed terrorist organisations.
Those allegations were serious, but it is important to distinguish between what Reform alleged and what has been independently established. The reports available at the time described the claims as allegations, rather than findings by a court.
Labour takes action against Khatana
One significant development was Labour’s decision to administratively suspend Khatana while the allegations were investigated.
The Press Association, reported by several news organisations, said Khatana was suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation. A Labour spokesperson said the views attributed to him were not shared by Reeves and that she was not aware of the allegations.
That response became an important part of the political argument.
For Reform, the suspension demonstrated that the allegations were sufficiently serious to warrant immediate scrutiny. For Labour, meanwhile, the suspension showed that the party had acted once the allegations became known.
The distinction matters because the central political question was not simply what Khatana allegedly said or shared, but what Reeves knew, when she knew it and what responsibility an elected representative should bear for the people with whom she interacts.
What did Reeves know?
This became the most politically sensitive question.
Reeves has long represented Leeds West and Pudsey, meaning that meeting community figures is part of the normal work of constituency politics. MPs frequently engage with religious leaders, community organisations, charities, businesses and campaign groups.
Labour’s explanation was that Reeves did not know about the allegations concerning Khatana’s alleged online activity.
That position is different from an admission that Reeves personally agreed with anything attributed to him.
The Labour spokesperson explicitly stated that the views in question were not shared by the Chancellor.
Reform, however, argued that the number of meetings and the reported personal relationship meant the issue could not simply be dismissed as an ordinary photograph taken at a public engagement.
Jenrick therefore focused his criticism on what he characterised as judgment rather than claiming that Reeves herself had expressed the views attributed to Khatana.
That distinction is central to understanding the controversy.
The allegations surrounding Khatana
The allegations against Khatana involved several different areas.
Reform claimed he had shared material relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories and material containing antisemitic themes. It also alleged that he had shared a video featuring individuals associated with militant organisations.
The Independent reported that Reform had also raised questions about speakers who were allegedly hosted at the Leeds mosque with which Khatana was associated.
The accusations attracted significant attention because of the sensitivity of antisemitism, terrorism and religious extremism in British political debate.
However, allegations about an individual’s social-media activity or associations should not automatically be treated as established facts. They require evidence and, where disputed, appropriate investigation.
Khatana’s own position was also relevant. The Times reported that he rejected accusations that he was extremist, antisemitic or supportive of terrorism and described Reeves as a good friend.
That response illustrates why the distinction between allegation and established finding is particularly important in politically charged controversies.
Farage faces an awkward question of his own
The controversy took an unexpected turn when an old photograph emerged showing Nigel Farage meeting Khatana at an interfaith event in Leeds in 2013.
The photograph was used by Labour to challenge Reform’s criticism of Reeves.
Farage responded that he had met Khatana only once, at an event where he had been photographed with many people. Reform argued that there was a substantial difference between a single encounter at a public interfaith meeting and the repeated contact Reform attributed to Reeves.
The exchange shifted part of the political argument away from Reeves and towards the standards that politicians should apply consistently to themselves and their opponents.
Labour argued that it had acted against Khatana after the allegations emerged. Reform maintained that its criticism concerned the nature and duration of Reeves’s relationship with him rather than a single photograph.
A wider debate about community politics
The dispute also raises a broader question about how MPs operate in diverse constituencies.
Politicians routinely build relationships with local community representatives because those individuals can provide information about issues affecting residents. Such relationships can involve attending religious events, visiting community centres, meeting local leaders and participating in interfaith activities.
The difficulty arises when allegations later emerge about someone with whom a politician has maintained contact.
An MP cannot realistically investigate every person encountered at a public meeting before speaking to them. At the same time, sustained relationships can create legitimate questions about due diligence if credible concerns become known.
That is why the chronology of the Reeves-Khatana relationship is important.
If Reeves genuinely did not know about the alleged material before the controversy, then the political question is principally about judgment and awareness. If evidence emerged showing that she knew about specific allegations earlier, the issue would be materially different.
The available reports at the time did not establish that Reeves knowingly endorsed the alleged views.
Reform turns the controversy into a political attack
For Reform, the affair provided an opportunity to question Labour’s approach to community politics and the government’s handling of extremism.
Jenrick argued that Reeves should answer questions about the relationship and explain why she had continued to engage with Khatana.
His language was deliberately strong, describing the situation as an “appalling lack of judgment”.
Such language reflects the political nature of the dispute. Reform was not merely reporting the suspension of a Labour member; it was using the episode to challenge a senior Labour politician and raise questions about the standards applied to political relationships.
Labour, by contrast, stressed that Reeves did not share the alleged views and had not been aware of them.
Why the controversy matters
The episode illustrates the increasingly difficult environment facing British politicians.
Social media means that the historical statements, photographs and associations of political activists can be examined years after they occurred. A photograph from a community event can suddenly become politically significant when allegations concerning one of the participants emerge.
At the same time, politicians must maintain contact with communities without every interaction being interpreted as an endorsement of every view held by every person they meet.
That creates a difficult balance between engagement and scrutiny.
For Reeves, the immediate political issue was therefore not simply whether she had met Khatana. The key questions concerned the extent of their relationship, what she knew about him at different points and whether her conduct met the standards expected of a senior public official.
For Reform, the episode offered a way to press those questions publicly.
For Labour, the suspension of Khatana and the statement that Reeves was unaware of the allegations represented its response.
The bigger political picture
The controversy also arrived during a period of intense competition between Labour and Reform over questions of immigration, integration, national identity and political standards.
Reform has increasingly sought to challenge Labour politicians over relationships with community organisations and individuals accused of holding extremist or controversial views.
Labour, meanwhile, has repeatedly attempted to distinguish between engagement with Britain’s diverse communities and support for unacceptable political or religious positions.
The Khatana controversy demonstrates how quickly that distinction can become politically contested.
Ultimately, the allegations surrounding Khatana require evidence and proper investigation rather than political assertion alone. Labour’s decision to suspend him demonstrated that the party regarded the allegations as serious enough to warrant examination, while Reeves’s position was that she was unaware of them and did not share the views attributed to him.
The political argument is likely to continue because the episode touches on several sensitive issues at once: political judgment, community engagement, antisemitism, extremism and the responsibilities of elected representatives.
What remains particularly important is keeping separate three different questions: what Khatana is alleged to have said or shared, what investigators may ultimately establish, and what Reeves herself knew or believed.
Those distinctions are essential if the controversy is to be understood on the evidence rather than simply through the competing claims of Labour and Reform.