On 11 June 2026, Defence Secretary John Healey resigned, accusing Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the Treasury of failing to commit the resources needed to defend the country. The resignation turned a long-simmering argument over funding for the armed forces into a full-blown political crisis. At the heart of the row is the Defence Investment Plan (DIP), a long-delayed blueprint for how the UK will pay for new equipment and defence infrastructure over the next decade.
The DIP was first expected to be published in autumn 2025, but it has been repeatedly delayed by wrangling between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury over how much extra money should be allocated. The Ministry of Defence reportedly asked for an extra £28bn over four years; reports suggested the government was preparing to announce an increase of about £13.5bn, prompting concerns from defence officials. Healey said the final settlement he received on Monday 8 June fell “well short of what is required”, with extra support “backloaded” after 2030 when the need to speed up readiness is greatest in the first two years.
“Explains the UK defence spending row over the Defence Investment Plan (DIP) and why it matters.”
The background to this dispute is a decade-long decline in real-terms defence spending, which fell by 22 per cent between 2010 and 2020, according to The Independent. Successive governments have promised to reverse that trend. The current government has committed to spending 3.5 per cent of GDP on “core defence” by 2035, and 5 per cent on “national security” (which includes intelligence and other spending) by the same year. Healey wanted a faster timetable: 3 per cent of GDP by 2030, in line with some European allies. But the plan he was presented with would only reach 2.68 per cent in 2030, after hitting 2.6 per cent in 2027. He warned that without a proper DIP, he would be forced to make decisions that “could make the country less safe”.
Why does this matter for UK readers? Defence spending directly affects the country’s ability to respond to threats. The prime minister warned in a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2026 that Russia could attack a Nato member by 2030. The UK has also taken on new commitments in the Arctic and Ukraine, including acting as a peacekeeper. The hollowing out of Britain’s defences has left the country “underprepared” and “underinsured”, according to former defence secretary George Robertson, who was appointed by Starmer to lead the Strategic Defence Review. The continued delay to the DIP has also been described by unions and defence firms as a threat to British jobs, skills and national security.
Key questions answered: Q: What is the Defence Investment Plan (DIP)? The DIP is a government blueprint that sets out how new military equipment and defence infrastructure will be funded over the next ten years. It was called for by the Strategic Defence Review, published in 2025, and was supposed to explain how the UK will meet its defence commitments amid rising global threats. Q: Why did John Healey resign? Healey resigned because he believed the financial settlement for the DIP was too small and too slow. He said it would only raise defence spending to 2.68 per cent of GDP by 2030, well short of his target of 3 per cent, and that the extra money would come too late to address urgent operational needs. He accused Starmer of being “unable” and the Treasury “unwilling” to commit the necessary resources. Q: What are the UK’s current defence spending targets? The government has committed to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2026 (already achieved), then 3.5 per cent on “core defence” by 2035, and 5 per cent on “national security” by 2035. Healey wanted a faster interim target of 3 per cent by 2030.
What happens next? The DIP was due to be published before a Nato summit in July 2026, but the resignation of the defence secretary throws that timetable into doubt. Armed Forces Minister Al Carns – who has not resigned – described the DIP as “not fit for purpose” and said Starmer “has got to sort this out”. The prime minister must appoint a new defence secretary and decide whether to revise the spending offer to avoid further resignations and protect the government’s credibility on defence.