U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey unexpectedly quit on Thursday, saying the government is unwilling to spend enough on the military at a time of “rising threats.” The resignation dealt another blow to embattled Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is already facing demands from Labour colleagues to step down.
Healey told Starmer in a letter that the government’s Defense Investment Plan falls “well short of what is required at this dangerous time.”
Publication of the plan has been delayed amid reports of disagreement between the Defense Ministry and the Treasury.
Starmer said in a letter to Healey that he was sorry to see him go, but insisted that the funding plan would provide the necessary military resources to keep the United Kingdom safe.
“The increases in spending that underpin this plan will be sustainable and fair,” Starmer said. “They will mean significant reallocations of funding from across government departments and the right choices to protect our nation.”
Critics say too little, too late
Starmer has pledged to boost U.K. defense spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027 and 3% by 2035. But many in the military say that isn’t fast enough.
“You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats,” Healey wrote in his resignation letter.
He said that the spending plan put forward by the Treasury, and presented to him on Monday, would see defense spending rise to just 2.68% in 2030, after hitting 2.6% next year.
Healey said that isn’t enough with growing demands on defense and British military commitments, citing the Iran war, Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine and threats from Moscow.
“I am now left with no other option than to submit my resignation,” he said.
Gen. Richard Barrons, who helped lead a defense review that underpins the investment plan, said the government is “actively going backwards” by refusing to fund its own review.
“It diminishes the U.K.’s standing within NATO, weakens our credibility with allies, and increases our vulnerability to the realities of 21st-century conflict,” he said. “Allies and adversaries alike will be paying attention.”
The government said that it was delivering “the largest sustained boost to defense spending since the Cold War.”
“This country is safer because of the decisions Keir Starmer has made and we will continue to act in our national interest,” it said in a statement.
Healey is considered a safe pair of hands
Healey has been U.K. defense secretary since the Labour Party government was elected in July 2024, and he’s regarded as a capable and serious minister.
He has played a key role in bolstering international support for Ukraine and assembling a multinational coalition to help guarantee security if a ceasefire is reached. Healey also has helped spearhead a maritime security force that would help keep the Strait of Hormuz open to shipping if the Iran war ends.
The United Kingdom and other NATO member nations have faced pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to increase military spending. Trump has long questioned the value of the military alliance and complained that the United States provides security to European countries that don’t pull their weight.
The U.K. military is also seeking to reverse years of decline in the face of an increasingly assertive Russia, which fully invaded its neighbor Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, and increasingly tests the defenses of European nations with overt and covert activity.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, informed of Healey’s resignation by The Associated Press during a news conference in Brussels, said that Healey is someone “I respect very much.”
“What we are seeing all over the alliance is countries increasing their defense investments, and of course it is not easy, because in the end there is always a trade-off with other expenses, which are also important,” Rutte said.
Healey’s resignation is likely to further stoke talk that Starmer’s days as prime minister are numbered. Already bruised by a series of missteps since Labour returned to power less than two years ago, Starmer has faced calls within his party’s ranks to stand down.
In a sign of his waning authority, Starmer appears to have been unable to bridge the gap between Healey’s department and Treasury chief Rachel Reeves over defense spending.
Olivia O’Sullivan, head of the U.K. in the World program at the Chatham House think tank, said the resignation “significantly undermines Starmer,” especially since the prime minister has had “a relatively assured track record on defense and foreign affairs.”
Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is widely expected to challenge Starmer for the leadership, if he returns to Parliament in a June 18 special election.
Justin Crump, a former British tank commander who heads security consultancy Sibylline, said that Healey’s resignation “should not have been allowed to occur in a well-run government.”
“It just further underlines a lack of control here, a lack of clarity, a lack of resolution, a gap between words and delivery,” he said.
___
Mark Carlson in Brussels, and Pan Pylas and Brian Melley in London, contributed to this report.
U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey’s resignation on Thursday has sent shockwaves through the government, highlighting significant tensions regarding military spending amid rising global threats. Healey’s departure comes as Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces increasing scrutiny and calls from within the Labour Party for his resignation, as he grapples with internal party dynamics and external pressures.
In his resignation letter addressed to Starmer, Healey expressed deep concerns about the government’s Defense Investment Plan, stating that it is inadequate in addressing the pressing security challenges facing the nation. He noted that the plan falls « well short » of what is necessary to ensure Britain’s safety, particularly in light of escalating tensions involving Russia and ongoing conflicts, such as the war in Ukraine and the situation in Iran.
The publication of the Defense Investment Plan has been postponed due to disagreements between the Defense Ministry and the Treasury, which has compounded the uncertainty surrounding the government’s military funding priorities. Starmer, responding to Healey’s resignation, expressed regret over his departure but maintained that the forthcoming funding plan would be sufficient to meet the military’s needs.
Starmer has committed to increasing U.K. defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% by 2035. However, many military leaders and experts feel this timeline is too slow, particularly given the current geopolitical landscape. Healey pointed out that the Treasury’s proposed plan would only see defense spending reach approximately 2.68% by 2030, which he argues is insufficient considering the growing demands placed on the British military.
General Richard Barrons, who was instrumental in a defense review that supports the investment plan, criticized the government for its lack of commitment to adequately fund its own initiatives. He stated that this reluctance to invest in defense not only diminishes the U.K.’s standing within NATO but also weakens its credibility with allies and increases vulnerability in the face of modern conflict.
The government, however, defended its actions, claiming that it is delivering the « largest sustained boost to defense spending since the Cold War. » A spokesperson asserted that the decisions made by Starmer have contributed to the nation’s safety and that the government remains committed to acting in the national interest.
Healey, who has served as defense secretary since the Labour Party’s victory in July 2024, is regarded as a competent and serious minister. He has played a pivotal role in fortifying international support for Ukraine and has been involved in establishing a multinational coalition to ensure security in the region. His efforts also include spearheading a maritime security force aimed at maintaining the safety of shipping routes in the Strait of Hormuz in the event of a resolution to the Iran conflict.
The backdrop of Healey’s resignation includes pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has long criticized NATO member nations for not meeting their military spending commitments. The U.K. military has been seeking to reverse a trend of decline in defense capabilities, particularly in response to Russia’s aggressive posture following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte expressed his respect for Healey, acknowledging that many countries within the alliance are increasing their defense investments, albeit with difficult trade-offs. Rutte’s comments reflect the broader context of NATO’s commitment to enhancing military readiness in light of contemporary threats.
Healey’s resignation raises questions about Starmer’s leadership, particularly as he navigates a series of challenges that have eroded his authority since Labour regained power. The inability to reconcile differing views between Healey’s department and Treasury chief Rachel Reeves regarding defense funding has been interpreted as a failure of governance.
Olivia O’Sullivan from the Chatham House think tank remarked that Healey’s exit significantly undermines Starmer, especially given the prime minister’s previously strong record on defense and foreign affairs. Speculation is growing about potential leadership challenges, with Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham being mentioned as a likely contender should he return to Parliament in a forthcoming special election.
Justin Crump, a former British tank commander, criticized the circumstances surrounding Healey’s resignation, suggesting that such an outcome should not occur in a well-managed government. He emphasized that the situation underscores a lack of control and coherence within the administration, highlighting the gap between political rhetoric and actual delivery.
Overall, Healey’s resignation not only represents a loss for the defense sector but also poses a significant political challenge for Starmer’s leadership, revealing fractures within the Labour Party and raising questions about the government’s commitment to national security at a time of increasing global instability.
