Humanitarian organizations who are stunned and appalled have slammed the UK government’s decision to cut its international aid budget in favor of increased defense spending. The move, announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has been described as a “day of shame for Britain” by campaigners who warn of its devastating consequences for millions relying on aid globally.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on Tuesday that he would increase Britain’s annual defense spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, with a target of hitting 3 per cent later. He said this move was necessary to support Ukraine and Europe in a dangerous new era where national security must always come first.
To fund the move, Britain will reduce its aid budget from 0.5 per cent of gross national income to 0.3 per cent. David Miliband, a former foreign secretary from the governing Labour Party and now the head of the International Rescue Committee, described the move as” a blow to Britain’s proud reputation as a global humanitarian and development leader”.
UK’s aid cut raises alarm
Britain is the fifth largest international aid donor, giving over 19 billion dollars in 2023. According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States tops the ranking, followed by Germany, European Union institutions, and Japan.
Starmer will meet with U.S. President Donald Trump this week, whose adviser Elon Musk has boasted of gutting Washington’s foreign aid agency by feeding USAID into the wood chipper.
“To appease Trump, he will cut aid to its lowest level in a generation. It is a day of shame for Britain,” said Nick Dearden, director of the campaign group Global Justice Now.Â
The United Nations Children’s Agency (UNICEF) said that the British aid cut would undoubtedly risk lives. Oxfam accused Starmer of bending to populist pressures.
When reporters asked about humanitarian concerns over aid reduction driving global instability and furthering insecurity, Starmer said during a news conference that it was not a decision he wanted to make but that the government would continue to support areas such as Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine. This commitment is essential for countries like Ukraine, where the Cork charity founder is bringing a lifeline to Ukraine war victims.
A shift in Britain’s global role
Britain used to devote 0.7 per cent of its gross national income to overseas development. However, the previous Conservative government cut this to 0.5 per cent in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Starmer’s government had pledged to restore the aid budget to 0.7 per cent before it abruptly changed course.
“This is a short-sighted and appalling move; slashing the already diminished UK aid budget to fund an uplift in defense is a reckless decision,” said Romilly Greenhill, CEO of London-based Bond, a network for humanitarian organizations.
Action Aid reported it as a political choice that could have catastrophic consequences for people affected by humanitarian crises, such as in Gaza, the Democratic Republic of Congo and even Ukraine. The foreign minister, David Lammy, said the government would protect Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan’s most vital programs in the world’s worst conflict zones.Â
However, there can be no hiding from the fact that many programs doing vital work will have to be put on hold, Lammy continued, adding that tough program choices will proceed quickly over the weeks and months ahead. Starmer’s announcement on the aid cut was met with a quiet response in the House of Commons.Â
Sarah Champion, a Labour lawmaker and chair of the International Development Select Committee, was a rare voice opposing the move. She said aid spending could prevent wars and that aid vs defense isn’t a realistic narrative for keeping the world safe.
As Starmer prepares to meet U.S. President Donald Trump—whose advisor Elon Musk has boasted of dismantling Washington’s foreign aid agency—many believe this move signals a troubling shift in Britain’s international priorities. For millions relying on UK-funded aid programs, the consequences could be catastrophic.