Martin Wrigley, Liberal Democrat MP for Newton Abbot, has raised concerns about future US-UK defence collaboration under the incoming Trump administration, questioning the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on recent discussions with the incoming US Defense Secretary.
In his written query, Wrigley asked: “What recent discussions on future US-UK defence collaboration he has had with the incoming US Defense Secretary.”
Responding on behalf of the Government, Luke Pollard, Minister for the Armed Forces, underlined the enduring strength of the UK-US defence relationship, stating: “The US is our closest security ally. The Government looks forward to working with the incoming US Administration in the months and years ahead.”
Pollard, however, clarified that the Senate confirmation process for members of President-elect Trump’s cabinet is still ongoing.
Pollard’s response also referenced the Prime Minister’s communications with President-elect Trump, revealing that the two leaders have already held introductory discussions.
“The Prime Minister had a warm introductory call with President-elect Trump on 6 November and spoke again with the President-elect on 18 December. The Prime Minister offered his congratulations and said he looked forward to working closely with President-elect Trump across all areas of the special relationship and our shared priorities, including international security.”
While the MoD’s response reflects optimism about continued US-UK defence collaboration, it stops short of providing specifics on planned engagements with the incoming US Defense Secretary.
As the Trump administration prepares to take office, questions remain about how evolving priorities in Washington could impact the longstanding “special relationship” and shared defence commitments.
After most of the Government have slagged off Trump and Labour tried to influence the US elections they then claim that we will have good relations with the US. It is so hypercritical…
The first things about UK Defence that Trump will address with us is our inability to spend 2.5% or even to outline a pathway to that modest figure, and the Chagos/Diego Garcia sell-out.
Am quite concerned that The Donald will demand unrealistic increases In defense expenditures from all ENATO countries (and Canada) in an expedited manner. Most nations will only be able to accommodate realitively modest increases in the short-term. There should be a trans-NATO agreement to reach graduated minimum expenditures by dates certain, but be at least plausibly realistic (e.g., 2.5% by 2028, 2.75% by 2030, 3.00% by 2032, etc., until the geopolitical landscape stabilizes. This should provide respective governments time to enact necessary changes in the social-welfare systems. Believe that ENATO non-compliance would provide The Donald and MAGA movement w/ the pretext to deemphasize NATO cooperation and participation, in preference to investment in the I-P. UK/US defence partnership in less immediate jeopardy due to at least two factors: 1.) The Donald is a substantial landowner in the UK, and will do nothing which jeopardizes his personal financial position, and 2.) AUKUS (an acknowledged benefit for the US). The Donald is by nature a transactional personality. Reciprocity (deal making) will be the guiding light of US foreign policy for the next four years. Recall there was a British (PM?/Foreign Secretary?) in the days of Empire who stated, in paraphrase, that Britain had no permanent enemies or allies, only interests. That vision of Realpolitik would be an advisable guide for the next four years, at least. Everyone should buckle up, it is going to be an interesting ride.
They could all accommodate expedited increases in defence spending if they really wanted to- it’s just a matter of accepting reduced spend elsewhere and adjusting priorities accordingly. What they could not do quickly is translate the increased expenditure into increased capability.
There is a reality of what you can spend it on of value in year….you can’t just dump extra money in year…it has to have a plan attached and capital expenditure has to also match with increased Manpower and or industrial capacity……
F-USAF, Trump of course cannot demand that 31 other sovereign nations are to increase their Defence expenditure.
The UK when chairing a NATO conference in Wales in 2014 set the 2% figure. Trump was right to berate nations who failed to meet it during his first term, and his outbursts did increase the number of ENATO nations to meet that figure. Now 22 ENATO members meet that figure. Shameful that wealthy Germany has been under-spending on Defence for decades.
I hope Trump formerly tables a figure higher than 2% at an official NATO meeting. Your graduated proposal is an excellent one.
Hopfuly Trump tells starmer and our defence Secretary how much damage both Tory and is Labour government has done to our armed forces in the last 30years or so and we are much to small. And wake up time is now and 2.5% on defence is ridicules so out more money in Defence pot 🇬🇧
I’m sure the UK is thrilled to be working with the Donald on defence collaboration, perhaps he needs assistance landing troops in Panama and wants to use near by UK bases in the Cayman islands or Belize.
The Donald recognizes that the UK doesn’t really bring much to the table so he won’t pay it much attention. The last time the US invaded Panama, Maggie was in charge; but now it has Starmer, Lammy, and Healey – Larry, Mo and Curly.
Yet here you are still obsessively commenting on s defence site for a nation you think is insignificant. Strange that.
BTW, what will you have in charge soon but a group of spineless tech bros, oligarchs, maga sycophants and fools. All serving a convicted felon and sex attacker.
You really have been duped.
I always thought it strange as well, he always says the UK is useless yet he spends so much time and effort reading a UK defence journal. 🤔🧐
Bet it makes you feel really good that your president is threatening a number of small countries with conquest, just like the Russians 🇺🇸💪
Two carriers and a couple of hundred nukes qualifies as bringing something to the table.
Some maps perhaps. I recall that when the US invaded Grenada they troops got lost 😂
Jim, the last time we tried to take back our canal located in a foreign land, the US severely sanctioned us….and our collaborator France!
Look on the bright side, the man child Trump will be gone for good in 4yrs.
After that you will have JD Vance to look forward to: won’t that be nice for you.
JD Vance as Republican nominee in 2028 would be a gift to the Democrats, whoever they run will obliterate him in a landslide. I don’t even think he’ll run and if he does he will not win the Republican primary.
Perhaps you could get over to the Ukraine to die for Biden before Trump ends the war?
In his written query, Wrigley asked: “What recent discussions on future US-UK defence collaboration he has had with the incoming US Defense Secretary.”
Surely the incoming US Defence Secretary has not been agreed by Congressional Approval yet.
No doubt they have especially as the Uk, like many other countries, are reliant upon the US defense spending for their own security with little to no ability to operate without US support. The reality is most US tax payers support Trump on set minimum levels for defense for allies, freeloaders have no guarantees with this guy.
With storms on the horizon you had better make sure your insurance covers flooding, if it doesn’t the only person to blame is yourself.
Yeah with out our mighty American protectors we would have Chinese and Russian armies swanning around London. I am aware just how low the education level has become in the US, indeed it’s amongst the lowest attainment level of any industrialised nation, I believe this low level of educational attainment amongst the population explains in part the susceptibility of the populous to propaganda. Indeed this is much the same in many undeveloped nations where autocracy thrives on a mixture of ignorance and nationalism used to hide glaring problems from the populous.
It’s not just low level’s of education, but also the fact that religion also plays a part, in that people who endorse conspiracy theories tend to be more religious.
Yes, it’s such an outlier in many human development metrics compared to most advanced industrialised economies. Although this is nothing new. How many advanced industrialised nations had civil wars in the late 19th century none that I can think of.
Right!! Old Donald and Maga is a religious movement based on Confederacy and conspiracy
It looks like Donald agrees with Alexis de Toqueville who wrote, when he observed the high level of church attendance, that America is great because America is good and the moment America ceases to be good it will cease to be great 🙂
Literally no one is going to invade the UK..almost our entire defence budget is essentially about doing our bit to support western AKA US hegemony…because we recognise that fits our moral compass better than say a sino-Russian hegemony…but be in no double we could easily go do an “Ireland” and say “screw it see if we care if china becomes the dominant power” …because a Sino US War would only affect the Uk if we decided to send our navy to the far side of the world from us…..in reality the US does need to be a little bit carful, because although. It’s got a lot of friends it also got a lot of enemies…and if it pisses of its friends and drives them to neutrality…it will end up in a war with china, because China is just waiting for that one crack.
Jon. Our forces are not orientated or focused on defending the UK, less the QRA Typhoons. Our forces are mostly NATO-assigned and are structured and trained to do our bit in the Euro-Atlantic region. Nothing to do with US hegemony. If we were to do an Ireland, that would mean coming out of NATO, being neutral and dismantling most of our armed forces.
Jon, why do you think the UK has little to no ability to operate without US support?
2.5% now, then 3.5% but it will not stop. How much, maybe until US no longer needs to spend in European Nato.
Fox fake News, You tube, Twitter/X, Facebook, Murdoch Media Empire has undue influence on weak minded Americans, but these outlets only provide exactly what the public demands. Middle America believes facts, data, & science that fits their beliefs anything else is Stolen Election, or Rigged Votes. Even 87 million$ paid to Dominion by Fox News does not matter. Even a convicted felon does not matter for being President. Would UK put up with King Charles behaving like DJT?!
How exactly can we have defence collaboration with a man that will collaborate with Putin?
But then again, we collaborate with India, Turkey, Hungary, Slovakia and several Middle Eastern states that collaborate with Putin.
Is it just pragmatic to hunt with the hare and run with the hounds?
3% GDP across eNATO means you don’t really need the US anymore. Silver lining?
Governments come and go. Trump knows the Starmer Regime doesn’t speak for the UK only the EU/WEF. Trump will be in the White House by the end of 2025 I doubt Starmer will be in No 10 by June.
Labour (with or without Starmer) will be in power until at least 2029, they’ve got a 170 seat majority. Trump will be out of the picture by the next UK General Election.
Whilst I agree with Trump that Europe and that includes the UK needs to spend more on defence about 3-3.5% GDP Trump is really going about it the wrong way. With threats to Canada and Denmark (Greenland) his buddy Musk support of AfD and unhelpful comments into Britain and France, the US could find themselves alone in a world where they have many nations that are unfriendly towards them.
Let just say Trump does reduce their commitments to NATO, in some ways that will be a good thing as it will force Europe to increase their spending. It also means that Europe would reduce their commitments to the US. For the US that could be a bad thing as they could end up facing China, Russia (via Alaska), N.Korea and Iran alone.
From a naval aspect look what Europe brings to the table and the US would not have if the US pulled away from NATO, 13 SSNs, 8 bombers, 3 carrier strike groups, 6 LHD assault groups, 44 SSKs of which 22 are AIP etc etc. As a combined force that is one big navy, big enough to deal with Russia on its own. The combined airforces of Europe have about 1,000 fast combat aircraft they are lacking strategic strike. Again these are numbers to to be sniffed at.
Could European countries increase defence expenditure to 3%, yes, in some ways the UK could do it by shifting the nuclear deterrent and MoD pensions into the Treasury expenditure leaving the 2.2% purely for conventional forces. So its 3% by stealth. For all the European nations it would take possibly to get to the 3% margin 10 years but it could be done.
One of the most effective ways that Europe could get more bang for the buck is by reducing duplication. Europe has for example four types of MBT designs and production, several designs and production of IFVs etc. If Europe would stop thinking at a national level and start working as one then the equipment cost would reduce due to numbers being purchased thereby you can buy more for the same money.
In Europe several nations have national commitments such as France and the UK that other european nations don’t have such as overseas protectiates. So to make everything fair anything that is spent on defence above the minimum European defence of say 3% is for national commitment.
We will have only a further four years of Trump, then again who knows what he will try to do once he has the power.
I do have one question though, Trump is a convicted felon, as such he would not pass the vetting for security material, in fact technically he would not be allowed to enter some countries because he is a criminal in the sense of the law. I suppose nations will get around the travel issue by saying it is the President not the man that is entering the country. So what happens, can say the five eyes brief the US President with top secret securitiy information. Or can nations inform the US on European assets in unfriendly nations. I know I for one would be reluctent to share with Trump sensitive information.
Will you be requiring the USA to meet the 3% or do you think America will be exempt as the Donald seems to want. Current agreed funding in Congress means the US defence budget is to be cut to 2.7% of GDP by the end of the decade.
It’s only above 3% at the moment due to support for Ukraine as well as high cost for veterans welfare.
Budget limitations aside I wonder how Donald’s presidency will direct the shape and emphasis of the SDR
Maybe stop sucking up to the US
Putin has done more to boost European NATO defence than Trump’s exhortations ever did. Sweden and. Finland have announced sizable increases in their budgets and are now full members. Even Germany, the main target for Trump’s accusations of freeloading has committed to an increase, although not much has happened yet. Poland is undertaking a massive increase in capabilities, and Italy has started a big re equipment programme of its land forces as well as ordering additional naval assets. In conventional terms, European NATO is more than a match for Russia. Only in nuclear deterrence do we still rely to some extent on the US, because UK and French nuclear forces are far smaller than Russia’s.
If Britain could somehow find extra money for defence, what should it be spent on ?
It really should be directed at improved self defence- more Typhoons, GBAD, more ASW and undersea asset protection.
The last thing we should do is spend more on expeditionary capabilities for out of area operations. Most recent such interventions have either failed or made matters worse- Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. America’s list of failures is even longer- Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia.