On December 17 and 18, 2025, the United Kingdom’s political landscape was rocked by a fierce debate over the future of defence spending and green investment. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch made headlines with a bold pledge: to cut £17 billion from green energy and research budgets and funnel those funds directly into the UK’s military, aiming to "accelerate war readiness" and ensure Britain is prepared for the threats of a rapidly changing world.
Badenoch’s announcement, reported by BBC and The Telegraph, outlined a sweeping reallocation of public money. £11 billion currently earmarked for net zero and clean energy projects in the National Wealth Fund would be redirected to create a new National Defence and Resilience Bank. Another £6 billion, slated for government research and development over three years, would be transferred to the Ministry of Defence to spur investment in the latest military technologies. The Conservative leader was unequivocal about her priorities: “We must ensure our armed forces are equipped and ready to defend our country, because defence of the realm must be the first priority of any government.”
To bolster the impact, the Conservatives propose a new Sovereign Defence Fund, expected to mobilise up to £50 billion for defence, including significant private sector investment. The party’s vision is not just about buying new hardware. The plan includes investing in UK defence start-ups, building more resilient supply chains, and reducing dependency on "hostile states" such as China. Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge added that the funding would “deliver the drone revolution our armed forces require” and create a “more lethal” military, according to The Telegraph.
This announcement comes at a time of heightened concern over Britain’s military capabilities. A recent report by the Commons Defence Committee, cited by BBC, warned that the UK is “nowhere near” where it needs to be to defend itself and its allies, and is overly reliant on the United States for security. The committee’s findings echoed the words of Chief of the Defence Staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, who called for more citizens to be “ready to fight for their country” and lamented the “painfully slow” pace of private investment in the defence sector.
Earlier in 2025, the government launched UK Defence Innovation, an organisation with an annual budget of at least £400 million, designed to invest in new military technologies and boost jobs in the sector. Yet, a long-awaited defence investment plan, which was due to be published in the autumn, has been delayed—fueling further criticism from Badenoch, who accused the current Labour government of “heel dragging and vague promises.”
The government’s stated goal is to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3.5% by 2035. However, the Conservatives are pushing for a more aggressive timeline, demanding a commitment to 3% by the end of the decade. Badenoch was blunt: “In the face of growing threats we should be investing more in defence, yet all we see from this Labour government is heel dragging and vague promises.”
Labour, for its part, was quick to hit back. A party spokesperson accused the Conservatives of “gaslighting the British public on defence” and presenting “yet more fantasy figures.” Labour pointed to what it described as a legacy of underfunding by the Tories, stating, “Look at their record: their time in office starved our forces of funding, drove down morale and left Britain less safe. They did it before, and they’d do it again.” The spokesperson continued, “With Labour, the UK armed forces will see a record £270 billion investment in this Parliament through our historic defence spending uplift.”
Labour’s own plan is ambitious. The party has pledged to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027—slightly ahead of the current government’s timeline—and to 3% by the end of the decade. According to Labour, this would be funded in part by switching money from overseas aid. “By 2027, we will spend 2.6% of GDP on defence by switching money from overseas aid, a level not seen since the last Labour government. That means no return to the hollowed out and underfunded armed forces we saw under the Tories,” the party stated, as reported by The Telegraph.
The row over spending priorities comes amid broader strategic uncertainty. The UK’s negotiations to join the European Union’s €150 billion defence fund collapsed last month after disagreements over the UK’s financial contribution. This setback has underscored the need, in the eyes of many Conservatives, for domestic solutions and greater independence in defence procurement.
Meanwhile, the government’s National Wealth Fund, which was launched just last year to invest in projects supporting economic growth and clean energy, has seen its remit shift. In March, it was expanded to include investments in sectors supporting the UK’s defence and security. Now, under the Conservative plan, it would be reborn as the National Defence and Resilience Bank, with the bulk of its eco-project funding redirected to military purposes. The remaining funds would be used for national resilience projects, such as water and transport infrastructure.
Critics argue that the Conservatives’ plan risks undermining the UK’s commitment to tackling climate change. Redirecting £11 billion from net zero projects could slow the transition to clean energy and jeopardise progress on environmental targets. But Badenoch is unapologetic: “The next Conservative government will move funding from [Energy Secretary] Ed Miliband’s vanity Net Zero projects and use it to back our military to accelerate their war readiness.”
The debate is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet—it’s about priorities. Should the UK double down on military preparedness in the face of growing global threats, even if it means sacrificing green ambitions? Or is it possible, as some argue, to invest in both security and sustainability without compromise?
As the political battle lines are drawn, one thing is clear: the future of Britain’s defence—and its environmental commitments—hangs in the balance. With both major parties promising historic investments but offering starkly different visions for how to achieve them, the coming months will be decisive for the country’s strategic direction and the values it chooses to prioritize.
For now, the only certainty is uncertainty. Britain’s leaders are betting big on security, but the cost—and the consequences—are sure to be felt for years to come.
