US National Security Strategy

(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.