PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
US National Security Strategy - 11 December 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the United States national security strategy and its implications for the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States.

I thank my hon. Friend for his urgent question. I am sure that the whole House will agree that the UK-US relationship has delivered security and prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic for more than a century. The special relationship we share with the US is built on a foundation of deep defence, security and trading links, and unique cultural and people-to-people ties. Both the Prime Minister and President Trump have repeatedly emphasised their commitment to continuing to strengthen it.

Of course, it is for the United States to set its own national security strategy, as it is for any Government. The strategy contains many shared objectives: resolving conflicts, tackling migration and ensuring economic security. However, it will not surprise the House that on some areas we take a different view. When it comes to European security, what we see is a strong Europe coming together to defend Ukraine, with the UK helping to lead the coalition of the willing of more than 30 countries. We see a Europe that is stepping up on defence spending, with the UK committed to reach 5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035. It is right that Europe steps up. That is in our interests. Europe is united behind Ukraine and united behind our long-standing values of freedom and democracy, and we will always stand up for those values.

Our bond delivers on both sides of the Atlantic. Our trading relationship is worth over £330 billion annually, we have over £1.2 trillion in mutual investment, and our businesses support over a million jobs in each other’s countries. The UK will continue to work closely with the US to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security through NATO, to support Ukraine, and to deepen our co-operation on emerging technologies and economic security. The strength of our relationship allows us to discuss and debate areas where we disagree, so we continue to strengthen this vital and mutually beneficial relationship with the United States. During the state visit, we announced over £250 billion in two-way investment, which was a powerful demonstration of the deepening economic ties between the UK and the US, and we signed a UK-US technology prosperity deal—the first of its kind—that will supercharge our co-operation across areas including AI, quantum and nuclear.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Last weekend, the US Administration published its national security strategy, and it is the clearest articulation yet of President Trump’s ideological foundation. The whole House should be under no illusion. The United States consensus that has led the western world since the second world war appears shattered. The strategy refers to Europe facing “civilisational erasure” and states that it will be “unrecognisable in 20 years”. It vows

“to help Europe correct its current trajectory”

and to promote “patriotic European parties”.

The prospect of United States interference in the democratic politics of Europe is, I believe, chilling. The President’s comments on Tuesday further demonstrate that. He called European leaders “weak” and singled out one of the United Kingdom’s mayors as “horrible, vicious” and “disgusting”. But sometimes what is not said is as important as is what is said. In this case, the absence of condemnation of Russia is extraordinary, though not surprising. Given certain UK dependencies on the United States, this leaves the UK especially vulnerable.

I do not expect the Government to reorient their entire economic and security strategy here today, nor do I expect them to publicly condemn President Trump’s strategy, but will the Minister assure the House that the Government will continue to update their national security approach to reflect the changing strategic and geopolitical context? Will the Government prioritise sovereign capabilities, and ensure that a clear definition is provided of which capabilities the United Kingdom seeks to onshore, to provide clearer signalling to our industry?

As my hon. Friend and the House will know, national security is our first priority. It is important that we continue to discuss all national security issues on an ongoing basis with all our allies, and particularly with the United States. Ultimately, it is for the United States to set its strategy. When it comes to Europe, there are some things in the strategy that we agree with, such as the importance of sustaining freedom and security, and there are elements that it will not surprise the House to hear that we disagree with.

It is important that we maintain our close relationship with the United States, with which we work on a whole range of issues, including our economic security and our security in terms of migration. It is also important that we recognise some of the issues raised, including on migration. It is essential that we have a migration system that is controlled, fair and managed. That is what the public rightly expect.

My hon. Friend mentioned the comments about the Mayor of London. The Mayor of London is doing a great job delivering for London, and it will not surprise the House to hear that I disagree with the comments made about him.

I call the shadow Minister.

The US strategy makes it even more important that the UK remains a cornerstone of European and global defence. With threats to us and our allies only growing, the Conservative party is clear that it would hit 3% of GDP on defence spending by the end of this Parliament. As it is abundantly clear that we need to step up against the threat posed by Russia, and that we need a Government who are serious about spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, will the Minister confirm whether it is only the Government's ambition to reach 3%, or whether the Treasury has a funded plan to do so?

The US strategy is particularly clear about the nature of the Chinese Communist party regime, whereas our Government seem to be going cap in hand to Beijing, asking it to bail out their failed economic policies. We have seen reports that the Government are likely to approve China’s super-embassy spy hub. Will the Minister confirm whether the US has expressed a concern to the Government about the potential approval of that application?

On Ukraine, all of us want the war to end—it is an unjust and illegal war started by Putin—but an end to the conflict, or any potential settlement, has to involve the Ukrainian people, and secure justice and lasting peace for them. A lasting peace is not about ceding territory. Will the Minister therefore update the House on what specifically the UK Government are doing to leverage British influence, in Ukraine’s interests, at this critical time?

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. He was right to say what the Prime Minister has also stated: that the UK-US relationship has been the cornerstone of our security and prosperity for over a century, and it is one that we will never turn away from. During President Trump’s historic state visit in September, he praised the “unbreakable bond” between the UK and the US.

The House has heard our commitment to increasing spend on defence as a percentage of GDP, and we stand by that. More broadly, the Prime Minister has been clear about the need for Europe to step up and increase defence spending. That is why we have committed, as part of our NATO agreements, to increase defence spending. The hon. Gentleman will have heard that on the record, and we stand by that commitment.

It is absolutely right that we seek to secure peace in Ukraine. That could be done tomorrow if Russia chose to end its illegal invasion of Ukraine. At the moment, it seems that only one side is serious about peace—Ukraine —but we commend and fully support President Trump’s efforts towards securing peace. On Monday, the Prime Minister welcomed President Zelensky, President Macron and Chancellor Merz to Dowing Street to discuss the latest progress. As Secretary of State Rubio has said, we need a just and lasting peace, and a sovereign Ukraine.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is far too discreet to set out honestly her assessment of President Trump’s contribution to civilisation, but can she reassure my constituents—be they angered, insulted or just plain bemused by the pronouncements in the US national security strategy—that although we celebrate our cultural and economic ties with the United States and our relationship with its people, our sovereignty is not dependent on the US? Specifically, can she confirm that any capability that is dependent on the United States—whether it is to do with artificial intelligence, quantum or defence—is not a sovereign capability?

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I am incredibly proud of my country, and migration is an essential element of Britain’s national story. We are a thriving multicultural society, and I am proud of that. We respect the US as a democracy, and friends and allies should respect each other’s choices and traditions. We must work together in a spirit of respect, recognising our mutual interests and long-standing relationship. Robust political debate can always take place in an environment of respect.

The shadow Minister mentioned the proposed Chinese embassy. The US is our closest ally, and we liaise with it closely on a wide range of issues, including China. A final decision on this case will be made in due course by Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the timing of the decision is a matter for them.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

With this statement, Trump’s White House has driven a coach and horses through the UK’s national security strategy and strategic defence review. Trump has stated that the US has no enduring commitment to NATO, no support for fair and open international trade, and no willingness to co-operate in international organisations or abide by international law. The document shows derision for Europe, including the UK, for failing to share Trump’s divisive nationalist ideology, whereas Russia is seen as a great power with which the US intends to carve up Ukraine. No wonder the Kremlin said it was “consistent with our vision”.

Will the Government commit to an urgent review of the UK’s approach, and to making a statement to the House in January on the Government’s strategic response to this new Trump doctrine? Will the Minister take the opportunity to state clearly that her Government will not tolerate interference by America in the domestic politics of the UK, and will she commit that the forthcoming elections Bill will restrict funding to UK political parties from sources outside the UK?

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I disagree with some aspects of what he said. It is important to say that national security is our first priority. We discuss matters of interest around the world regularly with the US, and we work on this security partnership through NATO, Five Eyes and a range of other international institutions.

It is important to recognise President Trump’s efforts to secure peace around the world, whether it is his role in Gaza or his work, in a process that we support, to secure peace in Ukraine. While we disagree with some aspects of the national security strategy, it is for the US to set its own strategy, and for us to have our own strategy and values. Indeed, friends and allies should respect each other’s choices and traditions.

The language of the US national security strategy is deeply regrettable. Frankly, it is not hard to see the rhymes with some extreme right-wing tropes that date back to the 1930s.

The publication of this document came at the same time as the collapse of talks about the UK joining the European Union Security Action for Europe programme to help boost rearmament, so it is now essential that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said, the Government specify the sovereign capabilities that we have decided to adopt in this country. It is essential that we now implement the recommendations of the Business and Trade Committee’s report on economic security. I am afraid that it is vital that we begin opening talks with our closest neighbours in the European Union about the kind of economic security union that could draw our countries closer together, and help provide the economic support and growth that rearmament will require.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he does on his Committee, which very much informs the work of Government. I agree that it is important for the UK to continue to develop its own capabilities, and to work closely with allies on security, not just to make sure that the UK is strongly defended, but in the interests of prosperity and security across the world.

I spent about five years, on and off, working in the Ministry of Defence, and we had a saying: plans without resources are hallucinations. On 8 September, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry told my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) that the Defence investment plan would be published “in the autumn.” Some people think autumn ends on 30 November; others, being generous, say it ends on 21 December. Will the Minister tell us today when the defence investment plan will be published, given that, in her words, national security is the Government’s “first priority”?

I thank the hon. Member for his question. This matter will, I am sure, be brought to the House by the relevant Ministers. We recognise the importance of boosting our defence and security co-operation, including with European allies who are strong in their defence of Ukraine. We do that through bilateral partnership agreements with France, Germany and Poland; our security and defence partnership with the EU; and our continued leadership of the joint expeditionary force and the coalition of the willing in support of Ukraine. As I have said, I am sure that the House will be updated on this matter by the relevant Ministers.

At the heart of this strategy, laid out in black and white, is Trump’s explicit revival of the reactionary idea that Latin America is a United States backyard. We have already seen the consequences of that mindset in the US’s escalations against oil-rich Venezuela. Trump is adopting a similar approach to European countries, including our own, making it clear that he will be stirring up far-right forces here to serve US objectives. Is it not more urgent than ever that, instead of blindly following US foreign policies, as we have done so often, to disastrous effect, we forge an independent foreign policy of our own, based on peace, co-operation, mutual development, and respect for sovereignty and international law, as envisaged in the United Nations charter?

That is our foreign policy and it will always remain so.

Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments, there is profound shock and confusion not just in this place but among the public about what Trump’s statements mean for our future defence and the future defence of our democracy. We have parliamentary elections in Scotland next year. Is he going to be promoting something in Scotland that is not necessarily in our national interest? Can the Minister specifically give us guidance on whether we are sure that Trump will, after this statement, abide by article 5?

President Trump has been clear on the US’s commitment to NATO and article 5. The United States remains a strong, reliable and vital ally for the United Kingdom. The relationship between us helps us to protect the British people every day. We and European allies have shown that we are also serious about taking greater responsibility for defence and security in Europe. That includes allies’ historic commitment to 5% of GDP on defence and security to deliver a stronger, fairer and more effective NATO.

A century ago, Members across this House failed. They failed to prepare for war and they therefore failed to prevent one. What followed was the most destructive war in the history of humankind, with tens of millions dead and hundreds of millions more stories of unspeakable grief. Today, we once again face war in Europe, and it falls to us—this generation of politicians—to help prevent a war. To do so, and the only way to do so, is to prepare for one: to make it clear to Putin that any invasion would be so ruinous as to be unthinkable for him. Can the Minister assure me and the House that the Government, in their defence economic strategy, will scale up the production of munitions today, but also, if it came to it, that they would be able to scale up that production, allocating labour as well as energy to produce the munitions, tanks and everything else we need to win a war against Putin in Europe?

I thank my hon. Friend for his very important question. The Prime Minister has also been clear about the need for Europe to step up and increase defence spending. We have made our own commitments in that respect. It is extremely important, too, that the UK continues to work closely with the US to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security through NATO, to support Ukraine, and to deepen our co-operation on emerging technologies and economic security. Our commitment to NATO and to European security is iron-clad.

The US national security strategy says in black and white what many of us have been warning about for years now. The Minister was right to say that we Europeans need to step up, so can she tell me why Canada has be able to join the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—procurement scheme, which far outstrips any resource the UK could provide and would make us more secure and provide for more jobs, but the UK cannot? Why can Ottawa reach that agreement but the UK cannot?

What I will say is that we continue to work not just with the US and our European allies, but with allies across the world, to ensure that we have the security and defence capabilities we need not just for today but for the future. We continue to discuss all aspects of security with nations across the world, including Canada.

Last week, I was pleased to take part in a cross-party delegation to Washington to discuss matters of defence, security and development. At every one of those meetings, which were with both Republicans and Democrats and from across the political spectrum, the importance of the UK-US relationship was emphasised, particularly on defence and security, with a clear sense that that would outlast any one Administration or President. That was demonstrated again this week with the excellent news that, in my constituency, Virginia-class submarines for the United States will be constructed partly at Rosyth in Fife. Does the Minister agree with me that the relationship we have with the United States is so deep and so long standing that it will outlast any one Administration or President? Will she continue to work with the United States wherever possible to be constructive?

The US is an indispensable ally. We have an enduring partnership that is built on deep security, intelligence and cultural ties, and it remains the cornerstone of our collective prosperity and security.

The United States’ new national security strategy was smuggled out in the middle of the night, which is fitting for such a bleak and dystopian vision of the world. It contains some very sharp criticism of European allies, including of our internal democratic processes, and a prioritisation of future interference in European democratic processes to promote a specific ideology and world view. What are the Government going to do to protect the integrity of British democratic processes from a President who has a track record of denying democratic outcomes in his own country?

Ultimately it is for the US to set its own strategy, but when it comes to Europe, there are some things with which we agree, such as the importance of sustaining freedom and security, and some with which we have disagreed. We see a strong Europe that is coming together, working together on security and prosperity, and working together to increase defence spending. That is important. It is also important that we respect the US as a democracy, and that friends and allies respect each other’s choices. We will always continue to have strong and robust relationships with our relevant counter- parts in the United States. We will work together on areas of mutual interest—our economic prosperity, our security and our work across the world—but robust political debate must always happen in a respectful environment.

On European security, I give my strong support to the position taken by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in relation to the recent Ukraine peace proposals. Does the Minister agree that there can be no deal affecting Ukraine without Ukraine, and that any deal that rewards Putin’s aggression cannot proceed?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Putin’s press secretary praised President Trump’s new national security strategy as aligned with Russia’s worldview. Meanwhile, a dark vessel was spotted in the Irish sea at around the same time as an EU satellite detected five drones near the flightpath of the plane carrying the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, to Dublin last week. Given that the US strategy is now being welcomed by Moscow, will the Minister urgently request an assessment from her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence of the risk posed by Russian hybrid threats?

The right hon. Member raises an important point. We will continue to do all we can to ensure the security of everyone involved in seeking to achieve peace in and for Ukraine. It is important to recognise that we must continue to work as an international community on this issue. It is a critical moment, and we must continue to ramp up support for Ukraine and economic pressure on Putin to bring an end to this barbaric war.

Although the new US security strategy contains some elements that many across the House will find concerning, it also states that the US will seek peace everywhere. We all want to see a lasting and just peace in Ukraine—a sovereign Ukraine where the killing stops and the 20,000 stolen children are returned to their families. Does the Minister agree that we must use all the influence we have with the United States to step up financial pressure on Russia and choke off the finances that sit behind this illegal war?

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does on Ukraine and for the children who have been kidnapped, who must be returned to their families. She is right: it is vital that the UK and our allies across the world continue to put economic pressure on Putin to bring an end to what is an utterly barbaric war.

In the light of the strategy’s departure from decades of shared assumptions, will the Government revise the 2025 national security strategy, and if not, why?

As I have said, it is for the US to put forward its own strategy. This Government’s national security strategy, which was announced by the Prime Minister earlier this year, sets out a whole-of-Government approach to secure our nation, pursue the interests of the British people and seize opportunities for growth. That is what drives our work in the UK and across the world. As the Prime Minister has said, national security is the first responsibility of any Government, and collective security remains the foundation stone of our strategy to defend and deter against aggression. As the strategic defence review sets out, we are taking a NATO-first, but not a NATO-only, approach. We will continue to work on areas of national security and economic prosperity with the US, which is a natural partner for us and with whom we have a long-standing relationship that has endured and will always stand the test of time.

The United States is a long-standing and important ally. We very much recognise that in my constituency, where there are two large American military bases on the Norfolk-Suffolk border. I invite the Minister to recognise the significant contribution that thousands of American service personnel make to our local communities socially, culturally and economically.

I am very happy to echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments and to thank those US troops, who also make a contribution to our security. The US is the UK’s principal defence and security partner, and the depth of our defence relationship with the United States remains an essential pillar of our security. The UK is deepening defence, security and foreign policy ties with the United States to uphold those peace and security objectives, particularly in the Indo-Pacific and north Atlantic. AUKUS, the carrier strike group’s 2025 deployment and our nuclear collaboration are other examples of where we work together to respond to a more contested and volatile world.

Does the Minister not think that the Government’s response is extraordinarily low-key and acquiescent to a declaration by the US that it gives itself the right to interfere in the internal affairs of any country around the world with which it does not agree? This is an extraordinary state of affairs. Will she make any comment on what is actually an act of piracy in the Caribbean, where the US has seized and taken into custody an oil tanker with no basis in international law and without any kind of military threat being made to the US? This act seems to me to be wholly illegal within international law.

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that while it is ultimately for the US to decide its own strategy, there are parts of it with which we disagree. It is important that friends and allies respect each other’s choices, as we respect the US as a democracy. We can have robust political debate, but we must do so in an environment of respect. I believe the right hon. Gentleman was referring to Venezuela in his question. The act was a decision taken by the US Department of Justice in co-ordination with the FBI, the Department of Defence and other US agencies. It is for them to answer questions on that decision.

Whether Trump’s White House is parroting pro-Russian narratives around the peace plan or using abhorrent language such as describing Europe as facing “civilisational erasure”, what is clear is that a strong transatlantic relationship is no longer critical to US national security. Chatham House has described this national security strategy as being about

“commercial deals and authoritarian accommodation”.

Does the Minister agree that the idea of this being a special relationship, which has endured for many decades, has now come to an end?

We commend and fully support President Trump’s efforts towards securing peace in Ukraine. Importantly, as part of the peace process the Prime Minister welcomed President Zelensky, President Macron and Chancellor Merz to Downing Street this week. The Foreign Secretary met Secretary Rubio and others in Washington DC on Monday this week to discuss negotiations and the path to an agreement. The Defence Secretary was also in Washington this week. Our ties remain strong. We have many conversations in public, and also many in private, as the hon. Member would expect for nations working together for peace and security around the world.

We are clear that matters relating to Europe will involve Europe. That is why this week when the Prime Minister met leaders in Downing Street, it was to review and discuss how we can support Ukraine to achieve a just and lasting peace.

I do not think we should tiptoe around this issue. The section on Europe talks of “civilisational erasure”. It says that the continent will be “unrecognizable in 20 years”. It says that they want “Europe to remain European”, and that within a few decades NATO members will be “majority non-European”. We need to recognise this for what it is. It is a document rooted in racist, white supremacist ideology, and it should be called out accordingly. The Minister has talked about respect, but they are currently showing us none. Mild disagreement will not cut it. History is watching us, so will the Minister take this opportunity to call that language out?

The hon. Member will have heard what I said in relation to the comments about civilisational erasure. I do not agree with those comments. I am proud of our country. I know that migration is an essential element of Britain’s national story. We are a thriving multicultural society, and I am proud of that. We will stand up for our values in the UK and across the world.

The rhetoric coming out of the US is frightening people, even those in my constituency, because it is building a wedge between communities. The strategy cites “civilisational erasure” and says that several countries risk becoming “majority non-European”. They have also declared that the US must cultivate resistance within European countries. I am glad to hear that the Minister does not agree with those sentiments, but what will she do to strengthen our diversity and response in this country against this really divisive ideology?

The hon. Member will have heard me say that, as we respect the US as a democracy, we expect that friends and allies should respect each other’s choices and traditions. It is important that we defend our democracies. It is also important that we have an environment in which we can have debate that is not divisive and that robust political debate takes place in an environment of respect.

I thank the Minister very much for those very careful responses encapsulating where we are. It is incredibly concerning that President Trump continues to assist in weakening Europe, and there is now a danger of the US abandoning support in the Russia-Ukraine war. Given the Prime Minister’s supposed strong relationship with the United States, and with President Trump in particular, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that we are committed to working together to deliver stronger outcomes for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, because Russia must be held accountable for the devastation that it has caused?

I thank the hon. Member for his question; he always asks extremely pertinent questions in relation to these matters. He will have heard me say how important it is that we continue to work closely with the United States to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security through NATO in order to support Ukraine, see an end to the war—a war that President Putin could end tomorrow if he chose to do so—and ensure that Putin is held accountable for his actions. It is also important that we deepen our co-operation on emerging technologies and economic security. Our commitment to NATO and European security and to making sure that we work together across Europe to step up on defence spending is iron-clad, and it remains a priority.