The Commons: Cuts to Aid, Boosts to Defense, and a Cabinet Resignation.
Maja Smiejkowska - PA Images
Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on 25 February 2025 that defense spending will be increased to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an ambitious target of 3% in the next parliament. To finance this historic boost, an increase of nearly £6–£9 billion annually, the government has decided to slash the foreign aid budget from 0.5% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.3%. While the decision to prioritize national security has had broad political support, it has also ignited fierce debate over the long-term political, economic, and diplomatic implications of cutting overseas development assistance.
The new defense spending, heralded by Starmer as the “biggest sustained increase in defense spending since the Cold War,” comes at a time when global security threats, from Russia’s prolonged invasion of Ukraine to rising tensions with hostile state actors, demand a rethinking of national priorities. The government’s press release from Downing Street outlined that this move is designed to not only strengthen the armed forces but also to drive economic growth by reinvigorating the UK defense industry. According to the official GOVUK statement, defense expenditure in 2024/25 is expected to total around £56.9 billion, with real-terms growth projected to average 2.3% between 2023/24 and 2025/26
This rearmament strategy is broadly welcomed across the political spectrum. Many voters, especially those aligned with Conservative and Reform UK, see the increase as necessary to bolster national security and maintain the UK’s leadership role within NATO. A recent YouGov poll reported that 65% of Britons support increasing defense spending even at the expense of reducing foreign aid, with substantial majorities among Conservative (83%) and Reform UK voters (91%)
However, the decision to cut foreign aid to fund this defense uplift has provoked significant controversy, particularly within the Labour Party. International Development Minister Anneliese Dodds resigned on 28 February 2025 in protest against the drastic cuts to the aid budget. In her resignation letter, Dodds warned that slashing ODA would “remove food and healthcare from desperate people – deeply harming the UK’s reputation” and undermine Britain’s longstanding commitment to global humanitarian leadership
Dodds’ departure marks the first high-profile resignation over policy differences since Starmer took office in July 2024. Her exit has exposed deep ideological fault lines within the party. Prominent Labour MPs on the left, such as Clive Lewis, have called for alternative funding mechanisms, suggesting an introduction of a modest wealth tax, to cover the rising defense expenditure without sacrificing the aid budget. Lewis argued that the current strategy, which prioritizes national security by cutting foreign aid, risks alienating the party’s liberal base and could cost Labour valuable votes in future elections
Critics within Labour have also decried the decision as an abdication of Britain’s global leadership. Former development ministers and international aid advocates have warned that the cuts will damage the UK's reputation and diminish its influence in global institutions like the UN, G7, and World Bank. Many fear that by reducing its commitment to international development, the UK will inadvertently create a vacuum that could be exploited by rival powers such as China and Russia.
Economically, the decision to reallocate funds from ODA to defense spending is a double-edged sword. On one side, increased investment in defense is expected to drive growth in a sector that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. Data from the House of Commons Library shows that in 2023-24, defense spending supported over 430,000 jobs, with 68% of that spending benefiting businesses outside London and the South East. However, the economic benefits of ramping up defense spending come at a significant cost. The reduction in the aid budget, is not merely a reallocation of funds, it is a reduction in the UK's global development commitment. International development charities warn that these cuts will have severe, long-lasting impacts on vital health, education, and humanitarian programs in some of the world’s poorest countries. The Reuters report noted that organizations like ActionAid and Christian Aid have described the move as “short-sighted and appalling,” emphasizing that reducing aid undermines global stability and British soft power
Diplomatically, the decision has drawn sharp criticism from the international community. The reduction in foreign aid is seen by many as a retreat from Britain’s long-held role as a global humanitarian leader. On the contrary, US President Donald Trump, during his recent meeting with Starmer, applauded the defense spending increase, emphasizing that European allies must “do their part” to boost their military capabilities.
As the UK prepares for further fiscal challenges with the upcoming spending review, the long-term impact of these policy decisions remains uncertain. The government has repeatedly stated its intention to eventually restore aid spending to 0.7% of GNI when fiscal conditions allow, but for now, their immediate focus is on bolstering defense capabilities.
As debates continue in Parliament and among international development circles, one thing is clear: the UK's new path is fraught with difficult choices. Balancing the imperatives of national security with the responsibilities of global leadership will require not only robust debate but also innovative thinking about how to finance and sustain a truly secure and just society. In the coming months and years, the effectiveness of this strategy will be judged not only by improvements in defense capabilities but also by the enduring impact on Britain's global reputation and its ability to support those most in need. For now, the government’s decision stands as a stark reminder that in an increasingly dangerous world, the price of security may be paid at the expense of compassion and international solidarity.
