They paid foreign lobbyists to attack the journalists who investigated
In the long and uneasy relationship between political power and the press, a new chapter has opened in Britain: allies of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, through the organisation that built his path to leadership, paid an American lobbying firm to investigate the journalists who were investigating them. The attempt to falsely link Sunday Times reporters to Russia — and the decision to share that material with a signals intelligence agency — raises enduring questions about where the line falls between political self-defence and the suppression of scrutiny. That GCHQ declined to act offers some institutional reassurance, but the impulse behind the operation remains to be accounted for.
- Labour Together paid Washington firm APCO £36,000 to compile dossiers on Sunday Times journalists investigating party donations — targeting the reporters rather than engaging with their findings.
- APCO's work included a fabricated attempt to link two journalists to Russia, a false claim serious enough to be passed along to GCHQ, which reviewed and rejected it.
- The involvement of Britain's signals intelligence agency in what was essentially a press dispute has alarmed observers across party lines, with Labour MP Stella Creasy calling the episode 'shameful.'
- Cabinet Office minister Josh Simons, who ordered the investigation while at Labour Together, now faces scrutiny over the decision's timing and intent.
- Starmer's office has yet to answer whether he knew of the operation or whether he believes it was justified — a silence that is itself becoming part of the story.
Sir Keir Starmer is under pressure after it emerged that Labour Together — the organisation central to his rise to the Labour leadership — paid American lobbying firm APCO £36,000 to investigate British journalists. The reporters in question were from the Sunday Times, and they had been probing donations to the Labour Party. Rather than address the journalism, Labour Together commissioned background dossiers on the journalists themselves, including a false attempt to connect them to Russia.
Some of that material was passed to GCHQ, Britain's signals intelligence agency, which reviewed it and declined to act — effectively finding no basis for the claims. The decision to route a political dispute with the press through a spy agency has prompted immediate questions about judgment and propriety.
Josh Simons, now a minister in the Cabinet Office, ordered the investigation during his time at Labour Together, doing so in the wake of the Sunday Times's donations reporting. The revelation has drawn condemnation from multiple directions: Labour MP Stella Creasy called it 'shameful,' Conservative strategist Nick Timothy said Starmer had 'serious questions to answer,' and commentator Matt Goodwin described it as a 'dirty smear campaign against journalists.'
Starmer's office has not yet offered a detailed account of what he knew or when, leaving open the central question of whether the Prime Minister sanctioned, was aware of, or has any view on an operation that used foreign lobbyists and false intelligence claims against the journalists who were scrutinising his party.
Sir Keir Starmer is facing questions about a decision made by his allies to hire American investigators to scrutinize British journalists. Labour Together, the organization that helped engineer Starmer's rise to the Labour leadership, paid a Washington-based lobbying firm called APCO thirty-six thousand pounds to compile background material on reporters and examine what the group called their "backgrounds and motivations."
The target was specific: journalists at the Sunday Times who had been investigating donations to Labour. Rather than respond to the reporting directly, Labour Together chose instead to commission a dossier on the reporters themselves. APCO's work included an attempt to falsely connect two Sunday Times journalists to Russia—a connection that had no basis in fact.
Some of what APCO produced was then shared with GCHQ, Britain's signals intelligence agency. GCHQ reviewed the material and declined to open an investigation, effectively rejecting the premise that the journalists posed any security concern. The decision to involve a spy agency in what amounted to a dispute with the press raised immediate questions about judgment and propriety.
Josh Simons, now a minister in the Cabinet Office, had ordered the investigation while serving at Labour Together. He did so after the Sunday Times published its probe into party donations—the very reporting that prompted the counterattack on the journalists themselves rather than on their findings.
The revelation has drawn sharp criticism from across the political spectrum. Labour MP Stella Creasy called the episode "shameful" and said she was "genuinely shocked" by what had occurred. Conservative strategist Nick Timothy pointed out that Labour Together had been instrumental in Starmer's path to leadership, and that the group had then paid foreign lobbyists to attack the journalists who investigated the party. "Starmer has serious questions to answer," Timothy said. Matt Goodwin, a television presenter and Reform UK candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election, described the operation as "utterly disgraceful" and said it exemplified a willingness to wage what he called a "dirty smear campaign against journalists."
The episode sits at the intersection of several sensitive questions: how political organizations respond to critical reporting, what tools they believe are appropriate to deploy, and whether the involvement of state security agencies in disputes with the press crosses a line that ought not be crossed. Starmer's office has not yet provided a detailed response to the questions now being raised about his knowledge of the operation and his views on whether it was justified.
Citas Notables
Shameful— Labour MP Stella Creasy on the operation
Starmer has serious questions to answer— Conservative strategist Nick Timothy
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would a political organization commission a dossier on journalists rather than simply respond to their reporting?
It suggests a calculation that attacking the credibility of the reporters themselves was more effective than defending against the substance of what they'd found. It's a common enough instinct, but doing it through a foreign lobbying firm and then sharing the results with a spy agency—that's where it crosses into something harder to defend.
Did APCO actually find anything damaging about these journalists?
No. The most striking claim in their work—that the Sunday Times reporters had ties to Russia—was false. GCHQ looked at it and essentially said there was nothing there. So the dossier didn't accomplish what it was presumably meant to do.
What does it say about Labour Together that they were willing to do this?
It says they saw themselves as operating in a different register than normal political discourse. They had the resources, they had the connections to foreign firms, and they apparently believed that scrutinizing the scrutinizers was a legitimate move. The fact that it didn't work—that GCHQ rejected it—suggests they may have misjudged both the facts and the appetite for this kind of operation.
Why does it matter that GCHQ was involved?
Because it blurs the line between political dispute and state power. Even if GCHQ ultimately declined to investigate, the act of bringing them into a disagreement with journalists sends a message about what's considered acceptable. It normalizes the idea that you can route political grievances through intelligence agencies.
What happens now?
Starmer has to explain what he knew and when he knew it. The people criticizing him—from his own backbenches and from the opposition—are essentially asking whether this reflects his values or whether it was a rogue operation by allies he's since distanced himself from. His answer will shape how this is remembered.