Defence or aid, or defence and aid? Both are necessary for national security
BMJ 2025; 389 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r1084 (Published 23 May 2025) Cite this as: BMJ 2025;389:r1084
The phrase “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” is often attributed, probably incorrectly, to Oscar Wilde (it was certainly used by an English cleric some decades earlier).1 Regardless of who came up with it, if Wilde were still alive he might have coined an equally clever and caustic turn of phrase about the relationship between Keir Starmer, UK prime minister, and Donald Trump, US president.
No sooner had Trump announced “liberation day,” imposing a raft of increased tariffs on countries including the UK, Starmer moved rapidly to secure a non-binding “deal” that would alleviate some of the consequences. The online press conference at which it was announced, with much mutual congratulation, confirmed the closeness of the two leaders.2 This has also become apparent as Starmer has adopted many aspects of Trump’s rhetoric on other topics, such as immigration, or imposed severe cuts to spending on aid. This policy mimicry will have devastating consequences, not just for millions of people dependent on UK aid but also for Britain’s standing in the world.
The need to invest in defence has been made clear by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The UK is experiencing the consequences of more than a decade of underinvestment in its armed forces. Yet any increased spending on defence must not be achieved by cuts to aid. Both contribute to national security. As Richard Dannatt, former head of the British army, has argued, “the premise that aid and defence are in competition is a false one. In reality, they are two sides of the same coin.” He added that cutting aid “undermines our ability to stabilise fragile states, reduce the conditions for extremism, and build alliances that enhance our security.”3
There’s also a powerful moral argument. It’s easy to forget that Labour recently came to power in the UK with a commanding majority, promising to break from 13 years of Conservative policy, especially the austerity that has left so many people and places behind.4 Expectations were high, especially on global issues such as climate, health equity, and international cooperation. While Labour’s manifesto, entitled Change, offered limited ambition on development,5 it still committed in due course to take spending on overseas development assistance back to the UN target of 0.7% of gross national income, a figure already enshrined in British legislation.6
The government’s announcement that it would reduce the aid budget to 0.3% of gross national income thus came as a shock to many. This decision led the minister responsible for international development, Anneliese Dodds, to resign in protest at her government’s abandonment of health and human rights commitments. In her letter to Starmer she accepted that he was not ideologically opposed to international development but said that “the reality is that this decision is already being portrayed as following in President Trump’s slipstream of cuts to USAID [the United States Agency for International Development].”7
Soft power
British politicians should also be concerned about what this decision does to the UK’s global reputation. Its development assistance has historically attracted widespread praise for both its quantity and its quality, with notable achievements in areas such as maternal health, pandemic preparedness, and vaccine provision.8 It has supported many global public goods, such as health surveillance, research into health, agriculture, climate, and—in an area where the UK has provided global leadership—action on antimicrobial resistance.9 UK aid has also secured Britain’s reputation as a leader in global health, built painstakingly over decades through the Department for International Development, the NHS, and universities, as well as the soft power that it yields.10
Weakening these commitments sends the message that Britain can no longer be relied on, just when collective action is most needed—not least because of the devastating impact of cuts to US aid, which modelling exercises suggest will lead to deaths on a vast scale.1112 Understanding the rationale for the UK’s cuts becomes very difficult, especially since only a few months previously the foreign secretary, David Lammy, had criticised Trump’s assault on USAID as a “big strategic mistake.”13
Dodds’s replacement, Jennifer Chapman, has dismissed these concerns, saying that “the days of viewing the UK government as a global charity are over.”14 While her words are consistent with Labour’s unsuccessful strategy of competing with the right wing Reform UK party on the territory of its choosing,15 they seriously misrepresent the reason why countries such as the UK give foreign aid.16 Far from being an altruistic indulgence, it’s a strategic investment.
Political identity
There are alternatives. The government is working within self-imposed and arbitrary fiscal rules.17 Countries such as Germany, faced with similar challenges, have chosen to increase borrowing.18 The British government could also close tax loopholes that allow multinational corporations to shift profits abroad, including a digital sales tax that would simultaneously help to level the playing field for hard pressed small retailers based in the UK.19 It could increase taxes further on goods and services that damage health, such as alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. And it could impose windfall taxes on utilities that have seen record breaking profits amid a global cost-of-living crisis.
Cutting aid spending is not just a policy shift: it is a test of political identity. Will Labour be the party that restores Britain’s battered credibility on the world stage or one that deepens cynicism by breaking its word and abandoning global commitments? Labour’s founding ethos, rooted in internationalism, cooperation, and justice, demands more than unquestioning obedience to arbitrary fiscal rules.
The world faces intersecting crises that demand global solutions. We must invest in international development, not retreat. If Labour wants to define itself as a government based on values, it must reverse this capricious change of heart and reaffirm the UK’s moral leadership in health and development.
Footnotes
Competing interests: MM and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have received funding for research over many years from the UK’s aid budget. KB has received funding from the UK’s aid budget. KB is chair of the policy and prevention committee of the World Obesity Federation, which receives funding from industry but not from the food industry.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned, not externally peer reviewed.