In a shocking move, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a drastic 40% cut to the UK’s international aid budget — the largest in the country’s history, plunging British aid to its lowest level in over 25 years. These funds will instead be redirected to boost defense spending, signaling that national security now tops the government’s priorities.

The irony? Not only will this move deprive millions of aid and put hundreds of thousands of lives at risk, it could also undermine the very national interests it aims to protect (a point made by Starmer himself just a few short years ago). Slashing initiatives that support global health, education, conflict resolution, and economic development is likely to create the kind of crises that don’t stay contained — and may well end up back on Britain’s doorstep.

So, why is Labour doing this? Let’s unpack the rationale, and how the UK could — and should — be smarter with its money.

The Cuts By the Numbers

Here’s how this budgeting maneuver breaks down: Starmer announced the UK will raise its defense spending from 2.3% to 2.5% of its Gross National Income (GNI) by 2027. To help pay for it, the country’s international aid (the pot of money set aside to help reduce poverty worldwide) will fall from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI.

That 0.2% shift might sound tiny, but it represents roughly £13.4 billion ($17.6 billion) in increased military spending — and a 40% cut to the UK’s current aid. The impact of that loss will be enormous — some estimates suggest more than 600,000 children’s lives could now be at stake. The blow is even worse considering nearly 28% of that aid (around £4.3 billion in 2023) actually just covers housing costs for asylum seekers in the UK and doesn’t go overseas at all. 

Originally planned for 2027, these cuts are now being rushed forward this year, dashing hopes of a gradual transition. That’s especially galling given Labour’s campaign promise in last year’s election to restore aid to 0.7% of GNI — a UN target enshrined in UK law in 2015. While aides say that this goal still stands, for now, Labour is only adding to the series of UK aid cuts in recent years. 

What’s Behind the Cut?  

Starmer defended the decision as a “painful choice” justified by global security concerns. But many see it as a political calculation tackling three problems at once — pushing back on a potentially emboldened Russian President Putin, placating an isolationist-minded US ally, and appealing to voters at home drifting uncomfortably close toward the right wing, anti-immigration Reform Party. “A generational challenge requires a generational response,” Starmer explained to Members of Parliament (MPs) of his party. 

These cuts also follow sweeping reductions to foreign aid in the US and across Europe. Labour had instilled hopes it would restore the UK’s global leadership and rebuild its partnerships with the Global South, but it’s instead joining the aid-cuts-bandwagon and damaging those relationships further. The country’s leading aid NGOs condemned the decision, calling it “deeply disappointing” from a party that once decried similar cuts by the previous government. Even members of Labour’s own party are up in arms, calling the cuts “nothing short of savage.”

Who Will Be Affected? 

One thing’s for sure — the fallout will be global, and the world’s most vulnerable will bear the brunt. The government claims it will continue to prioritize aid to Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, and climate efforts, but freshly resigned Development Minister Anneliese Dodds warned that it’ll be “impossible to maintain these priorities” given the scale of the cuts.

Some of the hardest-hit areas include: 

• Global Health: Cuts to UK support for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, could result in 37.9 million fewer vaccinations and an estimated 600,000 preventable child deaths over five years from deadly diseases such as polio and measles.
• Conflict Zones: Humanitarian aid in fragile states including Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and Nigeria will suffer.
• Nutrition: 293,000 school children could lose access to food assistance via the World Food Programme. 
• Education: Save the Children projects that nearly 3 million fewer children could be in school compared to just five years ago.  
• Climate Change: The government’s £6 billion climate finance pledge over 2021–2026 now hangs in limbo.

A Strategic Misstep

It’s understandable that Starmer wants to show strength on security, especially as the White House plays fast-and-loose with military aid for Ukraine. But claiming the aid budget was the only route to do so is a false narrative. In reality, it’s more like cutting your nose to spite your face: a short-sighted decision that could ultimately backfire. And many in the government already knew this. Foreign Secretary David Lammy had just warned that the US’s decision to slash its foreign aid was a “big strategic mistake,” only for the UK to follow suit a few weeks later.

Former British Army chief General Lord Dannatt condemned the decision, calling it a “strategic error” that makes Britain “weaker, not stronger.” His argument, drawing on his years at the head of the UK army: Cutting aid increases instability, radicalization, and future military intervention. Investing in development now prevents conflict — and saves money and lives — later.

Put another way, defense and aid are not one-for-one trade-offs. In fact, they’re complementary. Every $1 spent on aid can save up to $103 in future crisis response spending. Even former Tory Prime Minister David Cameron made that case in 2012, saying that without UK aid, “the problems of conflict, the problems of mass migration, the problems of uncontrollable climate change are problems that will come and visit us at home.”

Are There Any Alternatives?

In short, yes — and they’re not all that radical. Former ministers and economists argue that gutting the aid budget was far from the only way to pay for defense increases. Former Deputy Foreign Secretary Andrew Mitchell was “absolutely horrified” and called Labour’s budget a “deeply cynical” political decision to axe an easy target rather than take up contentious budget battles at home that could offer billions in savings.

And progressive policy wonks have long advocated for introducing a modest wealth tax, such as on capital gains or high net-worth individuals. This could generate an extra estimated £24 billion alone exclusively by taxing the country’s richest individuals (just 0.04% of Britons) rather than taking food and medicine from the world’s poorest. 

Instead, the government targeted foreign aid — politically easy at home, but globally devastating.

What Can Be Done Now? 

Aid organizations, advocacy groups, and Labour and Conservative MPs alike are calling to reverse or reduce these cuts. Here’s how you can help: If you live in the UK, it’s crucial to pressure the government to change course. Contact your MPs to oppose the aid cuts and push for them to support smarter budget solutions.

In the meantime, you can also support aid organizations struggling to fill the funding gap. Continue to raise awareness about how these cuts will affect lives — and the UK’s global reputation. 

At a time when countries are stepping back from the world stage, this is a moment to lead. The UK has long prided itself on its powerful role in global development, and this decision puts that reputation at risk. As the old saying goes: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case, British pounds spent on aid could prevent future humanitarian and geopolitical crises — ones that no defense budget alone can fix.