A row over defence spending has exposed deep tensions within government about how to keep the UK safe. Two departing defence ministers have accused Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves of failing to provide the funding needed to meet recent military commitments, while No 10 and the Treasury have pushed back against the sums demanded by the military leadership.
The government currently spends roughly £66bn a year on defence, funding the armed services and the nuclear deterrent. The forces remain well regarded, and the UK benefits from geography and strong alliances. But successive cabinets reduced defence budgets after the Cold War and then struggled to rebuild capacity as global risks rose. Procurement problems and delayed programmes have compounded the squeeze, leaving planning and acquisition weaker than many defence experts say they should be.
What makes this dispute particularly fraught is the changing strategic environment. Threats have shifted from non-state violent groups toward state-on-state competition and coercion, especially by countries such as Russia and Iran. Warfare itself is evolving: the conflicts in Ukraine and the Gulf have highlighted the importance of drones, cyber, space and rapid, mass-produced precision munitions, rather than only large, long-lived platforms.
The US has also signalled it will no longer underwrite European defence, pressing NATO members to meet agreed spending targets. In response, the UK pledged to increase defence spending: it spent 2.3% of GDP on defence last year, aims for 2.5% by next year, and has committed — alongside other allies — to reach 3.5% of GDP by 2035. The prime minister told the Munich security conference: ‘We are going to have to spend more faster.’ He also warned intelligence assessed ‘there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030.’
But translating pledges into budgets has proven contentious. Defence chiefs produced a shopping list after last year’s strategic defence review and expected a defence investment plan to fund it. Earlier this year ministers were told an extra £28bn over four years would be required just to meet existing commitments. That figure was reduced during Whitehall negotiations, first to £18bn and now reported at around £13bn — a level that former defence secretary John Healey said was insufficient and that prompted his resignation. In his letter he warned he was being forced into choices that would ‘reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.’
Analysts note the Treasury’s reported offer of roughly £13bn over four years falls far short of what would be needed to meet the 3.5% GDP target by 2035 on an annualised basis. For some defence figures that shortfall, coupled with a possible near-term threat picture, motivates calls to accelerate and increase spending even further.
The delay in settling a clear investment plan is already causing practical problems. Defence suppliers face uncertainty, some contracts remain on hold and a few firms have struggled financially. Each service faces questions about which programmes will survive any squeeze. Potentially protected projects include the nuclear deterrent and Aukus-related submarines. But there is doubt about whether the Army will fully field new AI-enabled systems or proceed with troubled platforms such as the Ajax armoured vehicle, whether the Royal Navy can complete planned uncrewed vessels and frigate renewals, or whether the RAF will secure the orders it wants for future combat aircraft and F-35 jets. There is also concern about replenishing stocks of missiles and munitions, much of which have been supplied to Ukraine.
Former senior officials and service leaders warn that procurement choices matter for future wars. As one ex-official put it, the forces are ‘still purchasing capability suitable for the last war while our adversaries arm for the next one.’ Decisions about drones, integrated air defence and rapid munitions production will shape the UK’s ability to respond to the kinds of threats now seen in Ukraine and the Gulf.
New Defence Secretary Dan Jarvis will face immediate pressure to clarify the UK’s plans when he meets NATO counterparts in Brussels. Allies will want reassurance about spending trajectories and capability delivery as the UK slips in alliance spending and capability league tables, according to defence insiders. Next month the prime minister himself must explain to NATO leaders in Turkey — including possible discussions with the US president — how Britain will meet its commitments.
In short, the dispute is more than a Whitehall spending row: it reflects a wider strategic dilemma about how quickly and where to shift resources in response to a deteriorating security environment, while managing domestic fiscal limits and a history of procurement challenges. Until ministers set a clear, funded plan, uncertainty will continue to damage suppliers, complicate defence planning and raise hard questions about the UK’s ability to meet both current and future security commitments.
