The UK seeks to send a message to Moscow as it outlines higher defense spending
LONDON (AP) — The U.K. is about to see the biggest increase in defense spending since the end of the Cold War as it seeks to send "a message to Moscow," the British defense secretary said Sunday.
John Healey said the Labour government's current plans for defense spending will be enough to transform the country's military following decades of retrenchment, though he does not expect the number of soldiers — currently at a historic low — to rise until the early 2030s.
He said plans for defense spending to hit 2.5% of national income by 2027, which amounts to an extra 13 billion pounds ($17 billion) or so a year, were 'on track' and that there was 'no doubt' it would hit 3% in the next parliament in the early 2030s.
The government will on Monday respond to a strategic defense review, overseen by Healey and led by Lord George Robertson, a former NATO secretary general and defense secretary in a previous Labour government.
It is expected to be the most consequential review since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, and make a series of recommendations for the U.K. to deal with the new threat environment, both on the military front and in cyberspace.
Like other NATO members, the U.K. has been compelled to take a closer look at its defense spending since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
'This is a message to Moscow,' Healey told the BBC. 'This is Britain standing behind, making our armed forces stronger but making our industrial base stronger, and this is part of our readiness to fight, if required.'
U.S. President Donald Trump has also piled pressure on NATO members to bolster their defense spending. And in recent months, European countries, led by the U.K. and France, have scrambled to coordinate their defense posture as Trump transforms American foreign policy, seemingly sidelining Europe as he looks to end the war in Ukraine. Trump has long questioned the value of NATO and complained that the U.S. provides security to European countries that don't pull their weight.
Healey also said Russia is 'attacking the U.K. daily' as part of some 90,000 cyber attacks from state-linked sources that were directed at the U.K,'s defense over the last two years. A cyber command to counter such threats is expected to be set up as part of the review.
'The tensions are greater but we prepare for war in order to secure the peace,' he said. 'If you're strong enough to defeat an enemy, you deter them from attacking in the first place.'
While on a visit to a factory on Saturday where Storm Shadow missiles are assembled, Healey said the government would support the procurement of up to 7,000 U.K.-built long-range weapons and that new funding will see U.K. munitions spending hitting 6 billion pounds in the coming years.
'Six billion over the next five years in factories like this which allow us not just to produce the munitions that equip our forces for the future but to create the jobs in every part of the U.K.,' he said.
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary for the main opposition Conservative Party, welcomed the government's pledge to increase defense spending but said he was 'skeptical' as to whether the Treasury would deliver. He called on the government to be more ambitious and raise spending to 3% of national income within this parliament, which can run until 2029.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal officials identify two 'sanctuary cities' in NH
A federal Department of Homeland Security report identified the city of Lebanon and adjacent town of Hanover as the only communities in New Hampshire it identifies as being 'sanctuary' communities for immigrants in the country illegally. The report comes less than two weeks after Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed two bills (SB 62 and HB 511) to outlaw sanctuary city policies in the state and to block local officials from preventing police departments or county jail administrations from reaching cooperative agreements with federal immigration authorities. DHS officials said its report complies with President Donald Trump's executive order titled, 'Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.' The report listed the 35 states and the District of Columbia where at least one community had an ordinance blocking or altering cooperation with federal officials about suspected, illegal immigrants. Maine and New Hampshire are the only states in New England not identified as sanctuary states. In Maine, the sanctuary status exists in two counties and the city of Portland, according to the report. A federal court order created the sanctuary treatment in Rhode Island while officials in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont adopted their own language, DHS officials said. The Franconia Board of Selectmen earlier last month endorsed a sanctuary community ordinance. Ayotte said the bills she signed would nullify that town's actions. Legislative critics charged the legislation would worsen the relationship local law enforcement has with legal immigration advocates in their hometowns and was an unfunded mandate as it could impose unreimbursed costs on communities. The new laws the governor signed take effect Jan. 1 except for one anti-sanctuary city provision that would apply starting in late July. Legislative leaders sent out letters last Friday thanking the sheriffs in Rockingham and Hillsborough Counties for signing so-called Section 287G agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Two other counties, six towns and New Hampshire State Police have applied for their own agreements. klandrigan@
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge grants preliminary injunction to protect collective bargaining agreement for TSA workers
SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge on Monday granted a preliminary injunction to stop Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from killing a collective bargaining agreement for Transportation Safety Administration workers. U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman of Seattle said in her order that an injunction is needed to preserve the rights and benefits that TSA workers have enjoyed for years while being represented by the American Federation of Government Employees. In their lawsuit, Pechman said, the union has shown that Noem's directive to end the agreement 'constitutes impermissible retaliation against it for its unwillingness to acquiesce to the Trump Administration's assault on federal workers.' It also likely violated due process and AFGE is likely to succeed in showing that Noem's decision was 'arbitrary and capricious," she added. 'Today's court decision is a crucial victory for federal workers and the rule of law,' AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a release. 'The preliminary injunction underscores the unconstitutional nature of DHS's attack on TSA officers' First Amendment rights. We remain committed to ensuring our members' rights and dignity are protected, and we will not back down from defending our members' rights against unlawful union busting.' Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Kipnis declined to comment on the judge's ruling, according to Emily Langlie, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office. AFGE had entered into a new, seven-year collective bargaining agreement with agency last May, but Noem issued a memo Feb. 27 rescinding that agreement. One week later, TSA informed the union about Noem's directive, saying the contract was terminated and all pending grievances would be deleted. AFGE filed a lawsuit against Noem, claiming the move was retaliation against the union for pushing back against the Trump administration's attacks on federal workers. AFGE had filed a separate lawsuit Feb. 19 against the Office of Personnel Management to stop the firing of probationary workers. A judge issued a temporary restraining order Feb. 27 stopping the firings — the same day Noem issued her memo. Abigail Carter, representing AFGE during oral arguments before Pechman on May 27, said Noem's move was retaliation and a violation of the union's First Amendment right to protected speech and its Fifth Amendment right to due process. 'The administration has made it clear that if you don't disagree with it politically, you and your members can keep your rights, but if you do disagree, you lose them,' Carter said. She also argued that the collective bargaining agreement was necessary because TSA workers are not covered under the federal labor-management code. The agreement protects them from dangerous working conditions and unreasonable hours. Kipnis denied the retaliation claim and said it was simply a difference in management styles. Pechman questioned that contention. Not all unions are banned by the administration, Pechman said, only the ones oppose the administration. 'Isn't this a pattern that you see?' Pechman asked Kipnis. 'Attorneys who take opposition stances get banned. Those who don't, don't have those restrictions. Isn't this the pattern that the White House has set up?" Kipnis said tension between unions and management are common and this conflict doesn't signal a violation of the workers' First Amendment rights, but instead reflects a confrontational relationship. But Pechman wasn't convinced. Previous TSA managers have found unions to be beneficial and renewed their contracts for years, she said. They found they made a happier workforce, and 'they wanted their employees to feel that they were well-treated,' she said. What has changed is this administration's attitude, she said. To that, Kipnis replied: 'Or you could characterize it as a different management style. The former administration apparently saw that as a better way to do business. ... But this administration sees a different way of doing business. And the same statute affords them the same amount of discretion.' Pechman said she understood that the administration has the right to exercise that discretion, 'but to abruptly cancel doesn't seem well reasoned, so I'm having trouble with that." She also noted, "But why the United States gets to back out of contracts that it's made is harder to accept.' In Monday's order, Pechman said TSA workers would suffer 'irreparable harm' without the injunction, noting that if they lose their collective bargaining agreement, they will lose the benefits it provides. 'While the loss of money alone does not show irreparable harm, the total harms here are more than monetary,' Pechman said. 'They include the loss of substantive employment protections, avenues of grievance and arbitration, and the right to have a workforce that can unite to demand benefits that might not be obtainable through individual negotiation.'
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
The Trump administration is fighting to pause a second court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping and so-called reciprocal tariffs, the signature economic policy of his second term. The administration's new appeal, filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes less than a week after a very similar court challenge played out in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. At issue in both cases is Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariff plan. The plan, which Trump announced on April 2, invokes IEEPA for both his 10% baseline tariff on most U.S. trading partners and a so-called "reciprocal tariff" against other countries. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify Trump's use of the emergency law to invoke widespread tariffs was struck down unanimously last week by the three-judge CIT panel, which said the statute does not give Trump "unbounded" power to implement tariffs. However, the decision was almost immediately stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, allowing Trump's tariffs to continue. But in a lesser-discussed ruling on the very same day, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, determined that Trump's tariffs were unlawful under IEEPA. Read On The Fox News App Since the case before him had more limited reach than the case heard by the CIT – plaintiffs in the suit focused on harm to two small businesses, versus harm from the broader tariff plan – it went almost unnoticed in news headlines. But that changed on Monday. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Lawyers for the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – a Washington-based but still separate court than the Federal Court of Appeals – to immediately stay the judge's ruling. They argued in their appeal that the judge's ruling against Trump's use of IEEPA undercuts his ability to use tariffs as a "credible threat" in trade talks, at a time when such negotiations "currently stand at a delicate juncture." "By holding the tariffs invalid, the district court's ruling usurps the President's authority and threatens to disrupt sensitive, ongoing negotiations with virtually every trading partner by undercutting the premise of those negotiations – that the tariffs are a credible threat," Trump lawyers said in the filing. Economists also seemed to share this view that the steep tariffs were more a negotiating tactic than an espousal of actual policy, which they noted in a series of interviews last week with Fox News Digital. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify The bottom line for the Trump administration "is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic," William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. Cline noted that this was the framework previously laid out by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. "I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America's Rust Belt jobs and that they'll collect money while they're doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth," said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance. "Those are both fantasies." What comes next in the case remains to be seen. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. Counsel for the plaintiffs echoed that view in an interview with Fox News. But it's unclear if the Supreme Court would choose to take up the case, which comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain. In the 20 weeks since the start of his second White House term, lawyers for the Trump administration have filed 18 emergency appeals to the high court, indicating both the pace and breadth of the tense court article source: Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
