Potential return of unpredictable president elevates UK defence spending to primary concern

Politicians frequently assert that current times are the most perilous in decades. This raises the question of how national protection will be funded. Donald Trump has demonstrated less willingness than the incumbent president to contribute to other nations’ defence. As a UK source observed, “it doesn’t make sense for Europe’s defence interests to be dependent on a few thousand votes in Pennsylvania.” Consequently, the prospect of Trump’s return places this issue at the forefront of discussions. The UK government intends, eventually, to achieve the defence spending target of 2.5% of the economy’s size, a commitment made by the Conservatives and last met in 2010. However, a defence review and a comprehensive spending review of all Whitehall expenditures must first be completed. These reviews are anticipated sequentially next spring. John Healey, the defence secretary, received an additional £3bn in the Budget. While a substantial sum, it is not considered transformative for defence spending. Furthermore, it represents a one-year top-up without guaranteed long-term funding. A former minister commented, “It’s very hard to order for the years ahead – how long can we be talking, when the need is now?” The government has not specified when it expects to reach the 2.5% target, nor will it commit to achieving it before the end of the Parliament in 2029, leading to frustration in some circles. A senior source remarked, “you either believe it is the most dangerous time in decades and you fund it properly, or you just don’t really believe it, so you don’t.” Earlier on the Today programme, former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace accused Labour of effectively making “a cut in our defence budget” by incorporating £3bn of Ukraine funding within it. He stated that if Labour were to reach the 2.5% target, he would welcome it, “but it’s got to be real money with a timetable”. There is broad agreement that increased resources are necessary. John Healey himself has acknowledged that the military “have not been ready to fight”. According to Wallace, years of funding constraints have tightened finances, resulting in forces being “hollowed out”. The UK’s support for Ukraine, which enjoys nearly universal political backing domestically, has intensified financial pressure. The National Audit Office reports that the UK has pledged almost £8 billion to Ukraine, encompassing air defence missiles, drones, cruise missiles, tanks, ships, as well as clothing and personal equipment. Another former minister conveyed that funding “is absolutely urgent – it is urgent to help Ukraine but the most urgent is where our forces are in danger – it’s not hypothetical, in the Red Sea the Houthis are firing at our ships.” Shortly before the election, Jonathan Powell, the government’s new national security adviser, wrote that a new administration would be required to strengthen the UK’s defence and security “within the bounds allowed by a struggling economy”. Some insiders contend that escalating global threats necessitate the UK spending considerably more than 2.5% regardless. Another former minister stated, “by any measure we are underspending – if you don’t buy the insurance policy you end up having to pay yourself and the cost of real conflicts would be immense in comparison”. A defence source asserted, “we are going to have to make a move on spending or we can put our fingers in our ears and hope we get through it – the Treasury has to do the maths on this – the way to stop spending 5 percent of GDP in the future is to spend now.” However, the discussion extends beyond the sheer amount allocated to defence; it also concerns how effectively the funds are utilized. Recent history shows numerous instances of Ministry of Defence projects experiencing significant cost overruns and delays. One insider cautioned, “the worst thing we could do is spend more and spend it badly … the number needs to go up but we absolutely need to get a proper grip of procurement.” Several sources noted with a mix of pride and surprise the MoD’s effective and swift collaboration with Ukraine to deliver essential equipment promptly. One source commented that the MoD had “proved it can spend cash well but it needs to show it can do it consistently”. Another suggested the British military should abandon a culture where “only the most exquisitely perfect products may be bought”. The MoD believes it can curb waste and enhance purchasing and payment processes through new, more centralized methods, including the appointment of a new national armaments director to oversee these efforts. As warfare tactics evolve on the battlefield, so too must the military’s approach to equipment. A former minister advised: “forget your big new fantasy regiment – we can make what we have more lethal” instead. The government expresses its desire to overhaul and resolve the complexities of defence procurement. Nevertheless, achieving this is widely acknowledged to be challenging. While the Labour party, as a political entity, feels an inherent discomfort with Donald Trump’s potential re-election, there is some alignment with his stance on European defence funding. An insider remarked, “put on your incontinence pants, don’t listen to the rest of his politics, it’s none of our business.” Another source indicated, “Trump set a challenge to Europe last time and he was in part right to,” noting that after his previous term, the number of NATO countries meeting the target of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defence increased. Currently, twenty-three nations meet the 2% target, a rise from just six countries in 2021. Instead of focusing on potential actions by Trump in office, sources suggested that “a precondition for Trump to take European defence seriously is for Europe to take its own defence seriously.” This implicitly means more European nations dedicating greater financial resources to their defence. “Let’s not kid ourselves, Nato does deter Russia, and we have to make sure that happens,” a defence source stated. The United States’ role in security is crucial. However, government sources acknowledge that Europe, facing conflict on its borders, must contribute significantly financially. Aiming to be perceived as a leader within NATO, the UK is undertaking initiatives to strengthen defence cooperation across the continent, including a recently signed “landmark defence agreement” with Germany. Donald Trump’s potential return to the White House generates apprehension across the Atlantic regarding its implications for NATO and the US commitment to supporting Ukraine, both diplomatically and financially. There is an inherent political unease concerning his conduct, his approach to law, convention, and truth. Yet, as one source put it, “it’s not a rule of law era, it’s a power era”. Even prior to a potential Trump victory, politicians faced significant questions about safeguarding national interests. The urgency to address these questions is now heightened with the anticipated return of the unpredictable president.