Washington DC is abuzz with excitement about the return of a political outsider enjoying a seemingly dominant and inevitable rise to power
No, not Donald Trump, but Nigel Farage. Republicans are swarming to meet the Reform UK leader, the media are chomping at the bit to interview him, and there’s even talk of a $10m donation waiting in the wings.
It’s all very different to 2016, when despite speaking alongside Mr Trump at a rally, he remained a relative unknown among the upper echelons of DC’s political and media elite.
This time around, there is simply no ignoring the man who is arguably now the most powerful Brit in America.
No other politician or diplomat, including Keir Starmer, David Lammy or incoming ambassador Peter Mandelson, has anything like the influence over Donald Trump that Nigel Farage enjoys.
I nabbed a ticket to the hottest party in town (Image: Phil Bryant X / Daily Express)
The party was hosted by Gerry Gunster and Arron Banks (Image: Daily Express)
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.
This buzz was seen in full flow last night as influential lobbyists threw a glitzy champagne-fuelled bash for the Clacton MP at one of Washington’s top hotels.
Guests from Britain and the US ascended the nine floors to the top of the Hay Adams hotel for the party, entitled: “Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack”.
It was mainly hosted by US consultant Gerry Gunster and Arron Banks, two figures crucial in helping Britain secure Brexit during the referendum campaign.
Alongside Nigel Farage were other political celebrities from both sides of the Atlantic, including former Prime Minister Liz Truss, peers Matthew Elliott and Kate Hoey, former MPs Nigel Adams and Tobias Ellwood, Ian Paisley Jr – who delighted in taking control of the mic at 10pm to announce the bar was staying open for an extra hour – and Trump advisors Steve Bannon, Ant Middleton and Seb Gorka.
The VIP guests quaffed champagne, and Brits risked taking on G&Ts which in America are lethal owing to the spirits being ‘free poured’ rather than measured out.
Thankfully catering was on hand to soak up the alcohol. US guests were invited to sample British classics including fish and chips (which bore little resemblance to either fish or chips), and roast beef and Yorkshire puddings.
The fish and chips bore little resemblance to our national delicacy (Image: Daily Express)
English guests were able to enjoy local seafood delicacies including oysters and langoustines, served in an enormous ice tray surrounding an ice sculpture White House.
One birdie told me that the party was such a hot ticket that Peter Mandelson had wanted to come, but had been blocked by outgoing ambassador Karen Pierce.
Mr Farage was followed wherever he went by cameras, and entourage of adoring fans and Reform UK treasurer Nick Candy, who revealed that one attendee said he wants to give Reform UK $10 million to help them oust Keir Starmer.
I’ve been to a number of political parties in my time, but I have to say the event was well-behaved and refined. Far away from the sort we get in British political life featuring a sweaty room above a pub and glasses of room temperature white wine.
In the lift down, however, one delighted US reveller exclaimed he had had a fantastic time. I was happy to inform him it must have been down to us Brits.
Major Reform UK Victory as Nigel Farage’s Party Benefits From Huge Donation Boost
Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has received an extraordinary financial boost, giving the party new resources as it prepares for the next general election and attempts to establish itself as a serious contender for power. But the scale of the money involved has also intensified questions about political donations, transparency and the influence wealthy individuals can exercise over British politics.
The headline about a potential $10 million donation needs some context. The most significant recent development is that Reform announced two donations of £36 million each, from cryptocurrency investors Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne, bringing the total to £72 million. The contributions were announced in September 2026 and were described as the largest individual donations ever made to a British political party. <Cite refs={[“turn360001news8″,”turn360001search2”]}/>
Rather than a confirmed new $10 million payment awaiting receipt, the documented story is therefore one of an already announced, much larger funding boost. The donations have placed Reform at the centre of a wider debate about how British political parties raise money and what safeguards should apply to major contributions.
A financial boost for Nigel Farage
For Farage, the donations represent a substantial expansion of the resources available to his party. Reform has argued that it needs funding to build the policy expertise, campaign infrastructure and organisational capacity required to compete with Labour and the Conservatives.
Farage has described the contributions as an opportunity to address what he sees as an imbalance between established political parties and newer challengers. In a statement published on 14 September, he argued that the money would help Reform compete with parties that have longer-established fundraising networks and access to public support for parliamentary opposition. <Cite refs={[“turn175815search0”]}/>
The practical implications could be significant. A well-funded party can recruit policy specialists, strengthen its local campaigning operation, conduct research, improve communications and prepare candidates well ahead of an election.
It can also invest in digital media and public engagement, enabling it to communicate directly with supporters rather than relying entirely on traditional news coverage.
However, money alone does not guarantee political success. Reform will still need credible policies, capable candidates, effective organisation and the ability to explain how its proposals would work in practice. Financial resources can expand a party’s opportunities, but they cannot automatically resolve internal disagreements or persuade voters who remain unconvinced.
Who are the donors behind the £72 million?
The two major contributions came from Ben Delo, a co-founder of cryptocurrency trading platform BitMEX, and Christopher Harborne, an investor with interests in cryptocurrency and aviation.
Each donated £36 million to Reform, according to reporting published in September. The contributions together created an unprecedented fundraising moment for the party and renewed attention on the role of wealthy private individuals in British political life. <Cite refs={[“turn360001search0″,”turn360001news8”]}/>
Harborne was already a major financial supporter of Farage’s political movement. His previous donations included a £9 million contribution to Reform in 2025, while Delo had also made substantial contributions to the party before the latest announcement. <Cite refs={[“turn360001search5″,”turn360001search2”]}/>
The donors’ financial support has prompted questions about what motivates individuals to make contributions of such size. Reform says the donations are intended to help the party prepare for government and compete with its established rivals.
Large political donations do not, by themselves, prove that a donor expects a particular policy decision or benefit in return. Equally, the size of a donation makes transparency and clear safeguards especially important, so that the public can understand who is funding political activity and whether the rules have been followed.
The distinction between a donor’s publicly stated intentions and any evidence of improper influence must remain clear. Questions should be examined through documented facts rather than assumptions based solely on wealth or political affiliation.
How Reform says it will use the money
Reform has presented the donations as an investment in building a party capable of governing. Farage has discussed expanding the party’s policy and campaign operations, while reporting in early October described plans to professionalise its digital output and strengthen its communications infrastructure. <Cite refs={[“turn360001search3″,”turn175815news7”]}/>
The party has also promoted policy commitments on immigration, taxation, energy costs and higher education. Turning those pledges into a detailed programme would require more than campaigning resources: Reform would need to develop costings, identify legal and administrative requirements, and explain how its proposals would interact with existing public services.
That is an important test for a party seeking to move from protest politics into government. A large budget can support research and preparation, but voters will ultimately want to know whether the resulting policies are affordable, deliverable and consistent with the party’s stated priorities.
The money may also allow Reform to expand its local presence and prepare candidates in constituencies where it hopes to compete. Yet candidate selection, local organisation and public trust remain important independent factors. Funding cannot substitute for those responsibilities.
Why the donations have sparked a wider political debate
The contributions have renewed calls for tighter limits on political donations.
Critics argue that contributions on this scale can give a small number of wealthy individuals disproportionate influence over the resources available to political parties. They have called for greater safeguards and limits to reduce the risk that political competition becomes too dependent on the financial capacity of a handful of donors.
The House of Lords has been considering legislation that could change the rules around political funding, including proposals affecting cryptocurrency donations and donations from people based overseas. The debate has gained urgency because of the size of Reform’s recent contributions. <Cite refs={[“turn360001search4″,”turn175815search4”]}/>
Reform’s response has been that the donations comply with the applicable rules and help it compete with established parties. Deputy leader Richard Tice has argued that the contributions are compliant with existing law and the legislation being considered by Parliament. <Cite refs={[“turn360001search4”]}/>
The wider question is whether the current framework provides the right balance between allowing lawful political participation and protecting public confidence in the democratic process.
Supporters of large donations may argue that individuals should be free to support political causes they believe in, provided they follow the law. Critics counter that unusually large payments can create concerns about access and influence even when no specific wrongdoing has been demonstrated.
Those are legitimate issues for public debate. Any changes to the rules should be assessed consistently, regardless of which party benefits from the current system.
Funding scrutiny remains a challenge for Reform
The scale of the donations has arrived at a time when Reform has faced separate questions about its financial procedures.
On 7 October, Reuters reported that an internal Reform investigation into allegations aired in an undercover documentary had identified weaknesses in the party’s handling of prospective donations. The party said the inquiry found no laws had been broken in relation to the footage, while criticising aspects of the conduct and transparency involved. Police investigations into allegations concerning political funding remained ongoing. <Cite refs={[“turn360001news6”]}/>
These matters should not be conflated with the £72 million donations. The fact that a party receives large contributions does not establish that those payments are unlawful, and the existence of a separate investigation does not prove wrongdoing by a donor.
Nevertheless, the timing reinforces the importance of strong procedures. A party receiving unprecedented amounts of money needs clear donor checks, accurate records, well-defined approval processes and effective oversight. Those safeguards protect the organisation as well as the public.
Reform has said it intends to strengthen its internal rules following the inquiry. The effectiveness of those changes will depend on how they are implemented and whether the party can demonstrate that its procedures are followed consistently.
What the donations mean for Labour and the Conservatives
The fundraising boost also has implications for the wider political landscape. Labour and the Conservatives have long benefited from established networks of donors, members and supporters, while Reform has sought to expand from a smaller political organisation into a national competitor.
Farage argues that the money will help narrow the organisational gap between his party and its rivals. However, the size of Reform’s fundraising advantage does not by itself establish how voters will respond or how the money will translate into seats at the next election.
Labour will continue to face questions about its record in government, while the Conservatives must explain their plans for rebuilding support. Reform, meanwhile, must show that its growing resources can be translated into coherent policies and effective campaigning.
The parties will also have to answer questions about political funding more generally. If the rules are changed, the effects could extend beyond Reform to other parties and future campaigns.
A donation is an opportunity, not a guarantee
The £72 million funding announcement is a major development in Reform UK’s preparations for the next general election. It provides the party with resources on a scale rarely seen in British politics and gives Farage greater scope to expand its organisation, research capacity and public communications.
But the donation story is about more than money. It raises questions about how political competition is financed, how donor transparency should work and what safeguards are needed to preserve public confidence.
Reform’s argument is that the money will help it compete with established parties and prepare for government. Critics argue that the scale of the contributions strengthens the case for tighter rules and greater scrutiny of political funding.
Both the party’s claims and its critics’ concerns should be examined against the evidence. The donations are documented; their existence does not establish that donors will control policy decisions, just as claims of good intentions do not remove the need for accountability.
Ultimately, Reform’s challenge is to demonstrate that the money will be used responsibly and that the party can convert financial resources into a credible political programme. Its rivals will have to explain their own fundraising arrangements and make their case to voters on policy and performance.
The unprecedented donations have changed the scale of Reform’s campaign resources. What they will mean for British politics depends on what follows: how the party spends the money, how transparently it operates and whether voters find its proposals persuasive.