The world is absolutely more dangerous than at any point in my lifetime
At a moment when the world's fault lines are deepening, Britain's new Defence Secretary Dan Jarvis stands at the intersection of military necessity and political transition, pressing an incoming prime minister to honour a spending commitment that would reshape the nation's finances for a decade. The NATO summit in Ankara provides the stage, but the real negotiation is closer to home — between the urgency of a deteriorating geopolitical order and the hard arithmetic of a constrained Treasury. Jarvis, a former paratrooper who has seen conflict across four theatres, brings to this role not only biography but conviction: that the cost of under-investment in security will ultimately exceed the cost of making room for it.
- Britain faces a £25 billion annual gap between its current defence trajectory and the NATO target of 3.5% of GDP by 2035, with no clear source of funding yet agreed.
- The resignation of Jarvis's predecessor over Starmer's refusal to commit beyond 2.68% of GDP has left the defence establishment anxious and the political signal deeply ambiguous.
- Russian drone activity near British airspace and a potential joint UK-France deployment to the Strait of Hormuz are making the abstract case for spending feel suddenly, viscerally concrete.
- Jarvis is lobbying openly for cuts elsewhere in government — a politically combustible ask in a country already watching road budgets shrink to make room for military ones.
- Burnham, the prime minister-in-waiting, has signalled willingness but offered no firm commitment, and his limited foreign policy experience leaves the outcome genuinely uncertain.
Dan Jarvis took on the role of Defence Secretary with a single overriding task: to persuade Andy Burnham, the man likely to become Britain's next prime minister, to commit the country to spending 3.5 percent of GDP on defence by 2035. The figure is not abstract — it translates to an additional £25 billion a year, money that would have to be found through cuts, new revenue, or higher borrowing.
Jarvis inherited a difficult position. His predecessor, John Healey, had resigned after Keir Starmer refused to pledge anything beyond 2.68 percent by 2030. In his first weeks, Jarvis extracted £15 billion in additional funding through 2030, including £600 million for drone capabilities informed by his study of their use in Ukraine and the Middle East. But the defence investment plan still carried a £4.7 billion shortfall, and complaints were already surfacing that infrastructure spending was being cut to compensate.
Burnham, whose background lies in health policy and city governance rather than foreign affairs, had nonetheless signalled that national security would not be compromised on his watch. Jarvis, who has known Burnham for years, said he had no doubt the incoming leader would prioritise defence — though he acknowledged the conversation about where the money comes from would be politically painful.
The urgency is not manufactured. Jarvis described the current moment as the most dangerous of his lifetime. Russian vessels suspected of drone operations are active near British airspace. The UK is preparing for a potential sustained deployment to the Strait of Hormuz alongside France, contingent on a US-Iran agreement holding. Reports suggest Burnham has been kept at arm's length from the detailed planning — a tension that underscores the awkwardness of a government in transition.
Jarvis learned of Healey's resignation while visiting Sandhurst, the academy where his own military career began thirty years earlier. Starmer offered him the job that same evening. He accepted without conditions, though he is now making his case with quiet persistence — to cabinet colleagues, to the public, and most importantly to the man who will soon decide whether he keeps the role at all.
Dan Jarvis arrived at his new post as defence secretary with a clear mission: persuade Andy Burnham, the prime minister-in-waiting, to commit Britain to a steep climb in military spending. Standing before the NATO summit in Ankara, the former paratrooper was direct about what he needed. By 2035, he wanted the UK to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on defence—a target that would require an additional £25 billion annually by the middle of the next decade, money that would have to come from somewhere else in the budget or from new revenue altogether.
Jarvis had only just taken the job. His predecessor, John Healey, had quit the previous month after Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to commit to anything beyond 2.68 percent of GDP by 2030, leaving a yawning gap between that pledge and the NATO target. In his first weeks, Jarvis had managed to extract £15 billion in additional defence funding through 2030—a modest victory that included roughly £600 million earmarked for drone capabilities after he spent time studying their deployment in Ukraine and the Middle East. But it was not enough. The defence investment plan, finally published after months of internal wrangling, still left a £4.7 billion hole that the Treasury would have to fill, and it had prompted complaints that spending on roads and other infrastructure was being cut to make room.
Burnham, a former mayor of Greater Manchester and health secretary, had little background in defence or foreign policy. Yet he had already signalled his willingness to fund the defence plan fully and had said there would be "no compromise on the security of the nation" if he became prime minister. Jarvis, speaking with the confidence of someone who had known Burnham for years, said he had "not a shred of doubt" that the incoming leader would prioritize national security. He was lobbying openly for the money, acknowledging that it would probably require cuts elsewhere—a politically difficult conversation in any government.
The timing was urgent. Jarvis described a world more dangerous than at any point in his lifetime. Russian warships and vessels suspected of launching drone strikes were operating around British airspace. The UK was preparing for one of its most significant sustained military deployments in years, potentially safeguarding the Strait of Hormuz in a joint operation with France, contingent on the United States and Iran reaching a sustainable peace agreement. Downing Street, according to reports, had kept Burnham out of the detailed planning for that operation—a sign of the tensions between the incoming prime minister and the current government.
Jarvis was travelling to Ankara with Starmer and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, where he planned to reassure his American counterpart, Pete Hegseth, that Britain would honour its NATO commitments. Those commitments had been made under pressure from Donald Trump and represented the biggest increase in military spending since the Second World War. The challenge now was to sustain that momentum and chart a credible path to 3.5 percent of GDP—a target that would require either significant cuts to other departments, tax increases, or higher borrowing, none of which offered easy political cover.
Jarvis had learned of Healey's resignation while visiting Sandhurst, the military academy where he had arrived as a cadet three decades earlier. The news came as "a big shock," he said, though he received it in person rather than by phone. Starmer offered him the job that evening at Downing Street, a moment Jarvis described as feeling very significant after thirty years of thinking about defence matters dating back to his service in the Parachute Regiment, where he had deployed to Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Iraq, and Afghanistan before leaving the military in 2011 to become an MP.
He had accepted the offer without making defence spending a precondition—"it wasn't a transactional conversation," he said. But now, with only five weeks in the role before Burnham could potentially reach Number 10, Jarvis was making his case. He acknowledged that he needed to "make the case for defence" to both the public and cabinet colleagues. The £4.7 billion gap left in the budget was "entirely routine in terms of Whitehall accounting," he argued, and publishing the defence investment plan ahead of the NATO summit had been necessary. What mattered now was whether Burnham would commit to the trajectory toward 3.5 percent. Jarvis said he hoped to continue in the role under the new prime minister, but that decision would be Burnham's to make.
Notable Quotes
I have not a shred of doubt that as prime minister he will make sure that we've got the resources that we need at a point of challenge— Dan Jarvis, on Andy Burnham's commitment to defence spending
There would be no compromise on the security of the nation if he became prime minister— Andy Burnham, on his defence priorities
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Jarvis push so hard on the 3.5 percent target right now, before Burnham even takes office?
Because the NATO summit was happening in days, and he needed to signal to the Americans that Britain was serious about the commitment. Trump had pressured the alliance on spending, and Jarvis couldn't walk into that room without something concrete to offer.
But Burnham hasn't even been prime minister yet. Doesn't that put him in an awkward position?
Absolutely. Jarvis is essentially saying: commit to this now, before you have to make the actual budget decisions. It's a way of locking in the principle before the hard math becomes unavoidable.
What's the real obstacle here—is it the money itself, or something else?
It's the money, but it's also political will. You're talking about £25 billion a year that has to come from somewhere. That means cuts to schools, hospitals, infrastructure. Burnham has to decide if that's worth it, and he hasn't shown much interest in defence before.
Jarvis kept saying he was confident in Burnham. Did he actually believe that, or was he just being diplomatic?
Probably both. He's known Burnham a long time, so there's genuine relationship there. But he's also a politician making a case. You say what you need to say to keep the door open.
What happens if Burnham says no to the 3.5 percent target?
Then Britain breaks a NATO commitment made under international pressure, and the relationship with the Americans becomes strained. That's not a small thing in the current geopolitical moment.
Is there any chance the money actually materializes?
Not without serious pain elsewhere in the budget. The Treasury is already tight. Reeves approved an extra £15 billion, but getting to 3.5 percent would require something much larger. Burnham would have to make a choice about what matters most.