Sir Keir Starmer has unveiled a significant reduction in Britain’s international aid budget to help finance an accelerated increase in defence spending, citing growing security concerns linked to Donald Trump’s approach to European defence. The Prime Minister confirmed that the UK would raise defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, three years ahead of the previous target, with a longer-term ambition of reaching 3% in the next parliamentary term.
Justifying the decision, Starmer stressed that global threats, particularly from figures such as Vladimir Putin, required a show of strength. However, this commitment comes at a cost, with the government reducing the aid budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP—a move expected to free up approximately £13.4 billion annually from 2027. Acknowledging the difficulty of the decision, Starmer told MPs that while the government hoped to restore development funding in the future, national security had to take precedence.
The plan, initially reported shortly before Starmer’s address in the Commons, has triggered an internal leak inquiry. It has also sparked backlash from Labour MPs and international development organisations, who warn that slashing aid could undermine Britain’s global standing and long-term security interests.
Defence spending, including intelligence services, will amount to 2.6% of GDP from 2027, though this still falls short of the 3.4% committed by the United States. The decision comes as Starmer prepares for a high-stakes visit to Washington, where he will meet Trump amidst rising tensions over Ukraine and concerns about the future of US support for European security. With Trump’s administration scaling back assistance for Ukraine, pressure has mounted for the UK and its allies to increase their own military capabilities.
Despite the defence uplift, some experts question whether the projected £13.4 billion figure is realistic. Ben Zaranko of the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted that the methodology assumes a frozen defence budget until 2027, potentially inflating the estimated increase. Critics argue that even with the aid cut, the additional funding may fall short of what is needed to modernise Britain’s armed forces.
Labour had previously pledged to restore the aid budget to 0.7% of GDP when financial conditions allowed, but officials have since explored reductions as a means of covering rising defence costs. Foreign Secretary David Lammy recently cautioned that deep cuts to US international aid could allow China to expand its influence, a concern that is also relevant for Britain’s own global standing.
The government has indicated that the remaining aid budget will prioritise Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, climate initiatives, and multilateral programmes, though some existing commitments will continue. However, critics argue that cutting development assistance in favour of military spending could prove counterproductive. Sarah Champion, who chairs the international development committee, warned that reducing aid could destabilise global security by exacerbating conditions that lead to conflict.
Former head of the Foreign Office, Simon McDonald, cautioned that the policy shift could damage Britain’s diplomatic reputation, while Conservative MP and former International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell described the move as “short-sighted and damaging.” He argued that using aid cuts to balance the budget risked undermining Britain’s security in the long run.
Despite concerns over the impact on Britain’s influence, the increase in defence spending is expected to strengthen Starmer’s position in upcoming discussions with Trump. Richard Dannatt, former head of the British Army, welcomed the additional investment but expressed disappointment that it would come at the expense of development funding. He noted that Britain’s international influence has traditionally relied on a balance of military strength, diplomacy, and development support.
Aid organisations have also condemned the decision, with Bond chief executive Romilly Greenhill calling it “a reckless decision with devastating consequences for millions.” She argued that aligning with US policies would not only weaken Britain’s credibility but also undermine its national security.
As Starmer embarks on a diplomatic mission to the White House, he faces the challenge of navigating Britain’s security interests while managing domestic criticism over the government’s shifting priorities.
