Nigel Farage’s Reform UK was the subject of an undercover sting about donations (Image: Getty)
The Metropolitan Police has launched a criminal investigation into Reform UK donations following an undercover sting.
Two senior figures – long-term Nigel Farage aide Dan Jukes and head of policy James Orr – have been suspended after claims the Party breached foreign donor rules.
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.
A force spokesman said it had received “a number of reports relating to donations and polling involving a political party”.
He added: “All allegations under investigation relate to potential offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
“Detectives continue to liaise closely with the Electoral Commission and Crown Prosecution Service as enquiries progress.”
No arrests have been made.
Rival parties had reported Reform UK to the police over claims by Channel 4 News that Mr Farage’s party took funding from a US firm for three polls it commissioned earlier this year, costing £32,500.
In the film, Mr Jukes and Mr Orr appear to suggest a way around electoral law to secure foreign party donations, one of which would have totalled £500,000.
The purported donors that appeared in the footage broadcast last Thursday were in fact undercover reporters from investigative group Verbatim posing as an American financier and his UK-based son.
Foreign companies are not a permissible source of funding for parties, including for payments for studies and research, and accepting donations from them could constitute a criminal offence.
Reform UK “denies any wrongdoing” and will “fully co-operate” with the Metropolitan Police investigation, a spokesman said.
He added: “We won’t be commenting further while a live investigation is underway.”
On Friday, Mr Jukes said in a statement: “This was entrapment over a prolonged period of nearly a year by foreign-funded, climate change activists.
“I totally deny any wrongdoing but have stepped back from politics in order to clear my name.”
The Met had already been investigating whether payments to Reform UK in the weeks before the last election complied with donation laws.
The probe is examining donations given directly to the party by Fiona Cottrell, mother of longstanding Farage ally, George Cottrell.
It is also examining payments from a company controlled by Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice, which received £1million from Ms Cottrell in June 2024.
Reform UK Donations Being Investigated by the Metropolitan Police After an Undercover TV Sting
The Metropolitan Police has opened a criminal investigation into Reform UK following an undercover investigation broadcast by Channel 4 News in September 2026. The investigation has raised questions about political donations, foreign funding and whether electoral laws may have been breached. Reform UK has denied wrongdoing and said that it will cooperate with the police investigation. At this stage, it is important to distinguish between allegations shown in an undercover investigation and offences that have been established by the police or a court. The investigation is ongoing, and no conclusion about criminal liability has yet been reached.
The controversy began with an undercover operation carried out by investigative journalists from Verbatim, working with Channel 4 News. The journalists created a scenario in which an undercover reporter presented himself as a potential supporter of Reform UK and claimed to have a wealthy American father who wanted to support the party. Under British electoral law, political parties are restricted in the types of donations they can legally accept. Foreign individuals who are not eligible donors cannot simply provide money directly to British political parties. The undercover investigation therefore focused on whether party representatives would consider ways of receiving financial support from an impermissible foreign source.
One of the most significant allegations concerned a potential donation of approximately £500,000. According to reports of the undercover footage, Dan Jukes, a senior adviser to Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, appeared to discuss a possible method by which money from the supposed American donor could be channelled through his UK-based “son”. The person presented as the son was actually an undercover journalist. The footage therefore created the impression that a Reform representative was discussing a possible way of circumventing restrictions on foreign donations.
Another part of the investigation involved James Orr, who was Reform UK’s head of policy. He was filmed discussing the possibility of an American company paying for opinion polling that would benefit Reform UK. Reports said that the polling had already been commissioned and that its funding had not been publicly attributed to Reform UK. This raised a separate question about whether political benefits provided by a foreign source should have been reported under electoral rules.
The allegations became particularly significant because political parties in the United Kingdom are subject to rules governing donations and campaign expenditure. These rules are intended to provide transparency about who financially supports political parties and campaigns. The principle behind the restrictions is that British elections should not be improperly influenced by money from people or organisations that are not legally entitled to make political contributions.
However, discussing a possible donation is not necessarily the same as actually receiving an illegal donation. This distinction is important in understanding the current situation. The undercover footage shows conversations that journalists interpreted as evidence of attempts to find ways around electoral restrictions. Reform UK, however, has rejected the suggestion that the party accepted illegal money. Nigel Farage has described the conversations as inappropriate or exaggerated discussions and has argued that no unlawful donation was actually received.
Following the broadcast, two senior Reform UK figures stepped down from their positions. Dan Jukes and James Orr were removed from their roles pending further investigation. Their departure demonstrated the seriousness with which the party treated the allegations, although it should not itself be interpreted as proof that either individual committed a criminal offence. The party said that it would cooperate with investigations into the matter.
The Metropolitan Police subsequently confirmed that it was conducting a criminal investigation. According to the police, officers had received several reports concerning donations and polling involving a political party after the Channel 4 programme was broadcast. The investigation is being conducted by the Met’s Special Enquiry Team and is connected with an existing inquiry into other donations to Reform UK. Police investigators are also seeking relevant footage from the undercover programme.
The Electoral Commission is also involved in the wider process. The Commission is responsible for regulating political finance and electoral law in the United Kingdom. It has said that it is considering relevant information and is communicating with the Metropolitan Police. The involvement of both organisations reflects the distinction between regulatory questions and potential criminal offences. The Electoral Commission can investigate compliance with political-finance rules, while the police can investigate suspected criminal conduct.
Reform UK’s response has been strongly defensive. The party has denied wrongdoing and said that it will fully cooperate with the investigation. Farage has also argued that the undercover operation was designed to provoke party representatives and described the conversations as essentially informal or exaggerated. Reform has criticised the journalists behind the investigation and characterised the operation as a political attack. These are claims made by the party, rather than established findings of the investigation.
The controversy is significant partly because Reform UK has become an important force in British politics. The party has gained substantial electoral support and has made immigration, national sovereignty and political reform central themes of its political programme. As a result, questions about the party’s finances can attract considerable public attention. At the same time, the allegations demonstrate the wider importance of transparent political funding regardless of which party is involved.
Political donations can have a legitimate role in democratic politics. Parties need financial resources to organise campaigns, employ staff, conduct research and communicate with voters. However, financial transparency is important because voters have a legitimate interest in knowing who provides significant financial support to political organisations. If foreign individuals or organisations were able to secretly finance British political activity despite legal restrictions, this could raise concerns about the transparency and independence of the electoral process.
The undercover investigation also raises questions about journalistic methods. Undercover journalism can reveal information that might otherwise remain hidden, particularly when journalists investigate potential wrongdoing. However, undercover operations can involve deception, staged scenarios and people being encouraged to discuss hypothetical situations. Consequently, evidence obtained through such methods needs to be examined carefully. The police and relevant regulators must determine what actually happened, what was intended, whether any money changed hands and whether any conduct breached the law.
Another important issue is the difference between political embarrassment and criminal responsibility. A recording of a politician or political adviser making an inappropriate statement may have serious political consequences, but criminal law requires specific evidence of an offence. Investigators therefore need to establish facts rather than simply relying on interpretations of individual conversations. This is one reason why the Metropolitan Police investigation is important: it provides a formal process through which the allegations can be assessed.
The case could also have implications for public confidence in British politics. Political parties depend on voters believing that elections are conducted fairly and that financial rules apply to everyone. If the investigation establishes that electoral rules were deliberately circumvented, it could lead to further scrutiny of political-finance regulations and their enforcement. On the other hand, if investigators find insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the case could demonstrate the importance of allowing due process to take place before conclusions are reached.
It is also worth considering the broader political context. Reform UK has been involved in intense competition with other British political parties, particularly over immigration and government policy. Rival politicians have called for investigations into the allegations, while Reform has argued that it is being unfairly targeted. The political disagreement surrounding the case means that claims from different sides should be treated carefully. Independent findings from the police and Electoral Commission will be more important than partisan statements when determining what actually occurred.
In conclusion, the Metropolitan Police investigation into Reform UK represents a significant development in the debate over political donations and electoral transparency in Britain. The investigation followed an undercover Channel 4 and Verbatim report in which senior Reform figures were filmed discussing potential foreign funding arrangements and polling. Two senior officials subsequently stepped down, while Reform UK denied wrongdoing and said it would cooperate with investigators.
At present, the most important fact is that the investigation is ongoing. The undercover footage has raised serious questions, but allegations should not automatically be treated as proven criminal conduct. The Metropolitan Police and Electoral Commission now have the responsibility of examining the evidence and determining whether any laws or regulations were breached. Whatever the eventual outcome, the case highlights the importance of transparent political funding, effective enforcement of electoral rules and careful distinction between allegations, political claims and established facts.