UK Defence Secretary Resigns in Dispute Over Military Spending Plans
The resignation represents a significant blow to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government, with Healey arguing current spending falls short of NATO targets and emerging security threats.
John Healey has resigned as UK Defence Secretary, citing a fundamental disagreement with the government’s proposed Defence Investment Plan (DIP) extending through to 2035. In a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Healey argued that the current spending plans are inadequate to meet rising security threats and NATO targets, specifically the goal of increasing defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035.
Healey warned that the plan falls short of requirements and could compromise national security, stating he would be forced to take decisions that might make Britain less safe. The resignation is described as a significant blow to the Starmer government, occurring amidst heightened regional tensions involving Ukraine, the Strait of Hormuz, and potential Russian threats.
The dispute centres on the alignment of the DIP with NATO targets. Healey quoted Starmer’s own arguments from the Munich Security Conference in February, noting that the Prime Minister had previously made a powerful case for increased defence power. He highlighted pressure on UK forces in the immediate future, citing ongoing operations in Ukraine and tensions in the Strait of Hormuz.
Healey referenced Starmer’s previous warnings that the UK could face a Russian threat. Regional security tensions are elevated, with Iran threatening to target vessels in the Strait of Hormuz following US strikes, and Israel vowing to strike Iran after Iranian missile attacks. These geopolitical pressures are cited by Healey as context for why the current defence spending levels are deemed insufficient.
The resignation was reported via a podcast interview between The Guardian’s policy editor Kiran Stacey and correspondent Nosheen Iqbal, published on 11 June 2026. The full text of Healey’s resignation letter has not been independently verified in the provided source material, relying on summaries and podcast commentary. The specific details of the decisions Healey claimed he would be forced to make remain unelaborated in the source.
The exact timeline of when the DIP was finalised versus when Healey raised objections is not detailed. However, the departure marks a notable internal conflict within the government regarding the scale and urgency of military investment required to address contemporary security challenges.
