U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey resigned, citing inadequate funding for Britain’s armed forces amid heightened international security threats. In his resignation letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Healey stated the Labour government entered office acknowledging a new era of threat requiring a corresponding defense strategy, but failed to provide necessary resources.
He wrote that the government’s Defense Investment Plan (DIP), detailed in a meeting on Monday, “falls well short” of what is needed for both defense and national security. This resignation follows months of debate over the DIP, which Healey said was discussed extensively due to the significant challenges posed by national and international threats.
In February last year, Starmer proposed raising defense spending to 3% of GDP within a few years. NATO leaders later agreed on a target of 3.5% by 2035. Starmer is scheduled to meet NATO counterparts in July to discuss defense commitments.
Healey criticized the DIP for not meeting current needs, stating it would reduce force readiness and increase risks to personnel. He resigned, citing inability to accept a settlement that doesn’t provide necessary resources.
His criticism comes as Britain plays an increasingly significant role in NATO and Western security missions. The U.K. is leading operations in the Middle East and Arctic, amid heightened Russian activity and escalating attacks on Ukraine following the Paris Agreement on Ukraine.
Healey’s departure adds to challenges for Starmer’s government, which faces swift criticism from opposition parties. Green Party leader Zack Polanski called the government “in chaos,” while Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch said she was glad Healey agreed with her assessment of the government’s approach as “shocking.”
Since returning to power, President Trump has criticized NATO members for insufficient contributions and threatened withdrawal. Britain has pledged to strengthen NATO’s deterrence and expand its role in European security, but Healey’s resignation suggests these promises may be more difficult than expected to implement.”