Reform UK has refused entry to at least four journalists who have reported critically on the party and Nigel Farage, prompting accusations that it only supports press freedom when the coverage is favourable.
Guardian City editor Anna Isaac, investigative reporter Peter Geoghegan, broadcaster Michael Crick and DeSmog journalist Sam Bright have all been denied accreditation for Reform’s annual conference in Birmingham.
The decision is particularly awkward for Farage, who travelled to Washington last year to lecture US politicians about free speech and denied that journalists were being excluded from his events.
Asked directly by Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin why he banned journalists who disagreed with him, Farage replied:
“I don’t.”
He added that he could not recall banning anybody during the previous 25 years.
One year later, several reporters known for scrutinising Reform are being kept outside its biggest political event.
The journalist who broke the £5m story
Anna Isaac’s exclusion is likely to attract the most attention.
She was one of the journalists who revealed that Farage had received an undeclared £5 million gift from businessman Christopher Harborne shortly before the 2024 general election.
Farage said the money was provided to help cover his security costs. Harborne has offered a different explanation, describing it as a reward for Farage’s contribution to Brexit.
The parliamentary commissioner for standards is now investigating whether Farage broke Commons rules by failing to declare the gift.
Isaac has also reported on banking alerts concerning transactions linked to senior Reform figures and party donations. Those alerts raised potential money-laundering concerns with the National Crime Agency, although an alert does not establish that any crime has taken place.
Reform did not give The Guardian a reason for rejecting Isaac’s application. A party spokesperson instead said she could watch proceedings on its livestream.
Watching a prepared speech online does not allow a journalist to question politicians, speak to delegates or investigate what is happening away from the main stage.
Reform disputes whether two of them are journalists
Reform offered a different defence for excluding Peter Geoghegan and Michael Crick.
A spokesperson said:
“Mr Crick works for a university and Mr Geoghegan is a Substack blogger. Neither qualify for a media pass.”
The explanation is difficult to square with either man’s record.
Crick has worked in political journalism for more than four decades, including senior roles at Channel 4 News, Newsnight and Panorama. He has covered numerous elections and published biographies of political figures including Farage, Michael Heseltine and Jeffrey Archer.
Geoghegan runs the investigative publication Democracy for Sale and has written for outlets including The Guardian and The New York Times. His work focuses heavily on political funding, lobbying and the influence of wealthy donors.
His accreditation was rejected shortly after he published an investigation concerning Isabel Oakeshott, the journalist and partner of Reform deputy leader Richard Tice.
Geoghegan said the timing did not prove that his investigation caused the decision. However, he argued that Reform wanted favourable attention without accepting the scrutiny that normally comes with it.
The handling of the applications then became even stranger.
After The Guardian contacted Reform for comment, Isaac, Geoghegan and Crick received emails telling them that their passes had been reinstated. Reform subsequently said those messages had been sent in error and confirmed that the journalists were still barred.
Crick’s verdict was concise:
“What cock-up merchants!”
A fourth journalist is also refused entry
Sam Bright later confirmed that he had also been denied accreditation.
Bright writes for DeSmog and covers climate lobbying, political funding and the hard right. His application was rejected after he reported on the campaign organisations and lobby groups due to attend Reform’s conference.
His investigation found that fossil fuel interests and anti-abortion organisations were expected to take part in events around the gathering.
Bright pointed to Farage’s appearance before the US House Judiciary Committee in September 2025, where the Reform leader criticised what he called Britain’s increasingly authoritarian approach to speech.
During that hearing, Raskin repeatedly asked Farage whether his party excluded unfriendly journalists.
According to the published hearing transcript, Farage described himself as “the most open person to any journalist” before denying that he banned reporters from political events.
Bright accused him of failing to practise what he preached.
Reform says nearly every application was approved
Reform has rejected the suggestion that it is broadly closing its conference to the media.
The party says it accepted around 950 of approximately 1,000 applications, including passes for other members of The Guardian’s Westminster team.
That means most political reporters will still be allowed inside the National Exhibition Centre, where the conference is running from September 3 to 5.
However, approving hundreds of applications does not answer why particular investigative journalists were refused. The dispute is about who Reform selected for exclusion and whether their previous reporting played any part in that decision.
The party’s Birmingham event comes after a difficult summer dominated by questions about Farage’s £5 million gift, internal disputes and falling polling figures.
Farage resigned as an MP while the controversy continued, then returned to Parliament after winning the resulting Clacton by-election. The other established parties declined to contest the seat.
Reform will hope its conference shifts attention back towards its policies and preparations for a future general election. The row over press access has instead ensured that scrutiny of its relationship with journalists will follow the party into the venue.
Press union calls on Reform to reverse the decision
The National Union of Journalists has urged Reform to allow the reporters into the conference.
NUJ general secretary Laura Davison said a free press must be able to question parties seeking political power and described the reports as “frustrating and concerning”.
The union also placed the decision within what it called a wider pattern of obstruction involving several political parties.
Its statement noted that Labour and the Conservatives were also criticised for blocking or removing journalists from their conferences last year.
That wider context matters. Restricting access to critical reporters is not acceptable when Reform does it, and it does not become acceptable when another party does the same.
Kemi Badenoch nevertheless seized on the row, accusing Reform of behaving in an authoritarian manner. Her intervention comes despite the Conservatives facing their own criticism over media access during previous conference seasons.
Political parties are entitled to protect private meetings and impose reasonable security requirements. A national conference promoted as a major public political event is different, particularly when the people being excluded are established journalists who have investigated the party’s leadership and finances.
Reform can argue that Crick and Geoghegan do not fit its preferred definition of accredited media. It still has not publicly explained why Isaac was rejected.
Until it does, the obvious question will remain: why do the journalists responsible for some of the most uncomfortable reporting about Reform appear to be the ones left watching from home?
Leave a Reply