On Thursday evening, Defence Minister Al Carns handed in his resignation, joining Defence Secretary John Healey who had quit earlier that day. Both men accused Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government of delivering a Defence Investment Plan (DIP) that falls short of the risks the British armed forces face, and they warned that the budget‑gap could jeopardise national security.

Al Carns resiigns over a DIP that "is not built for the threat we face"

In a letter to Prime Minister Starmer,the former Royal Marines officer wrote that he could not in good conscience support the DIP, describing it as a document "not built for the threat we face". Carns argued that the armed forces are being asked to operate in a more dangerous world on a budget designed for a calmer era. According to the resignation letter, he said a serious country funds its defence to meet the threat it actually faces, not the threat it wishes it faced.

John Healey quits,citing a rise to only 2.68% of GDP by 2030

Healey’s departure came after he publicly rejected the DIP’s modest spending trajectory, which would lift defence outlays from 2.6% of GDP next year to just 2.68% by 2030. he contrasted this with the £30 billion increase the ministry had requested, calling the plan “far short of what is required at a dangerous time”. As reported, Healey also blamed Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves for being unwilling to commit the necessary resources.

Dan Jarvis appointed as new defence secretary amid crisis

Late on Thursday, Number 10 announced former MP Dan Jarvis as Healey’s replacement. Jarvis inherits a department reeling from two senior resignations and a parliamentary private secretary, Pamela Nash, who also stepped down over delays and public‑trust concerns linked to the DIP. According to the government statement, Jarvis will be tasked with restoring confidence and delivering the capabilities the armed forces need.

What will Labour actually fund for the armed forces?

The resignations leave a key question unanswered:how will the Labour government bridge the gap between the DIP’s 2.68% GDP target and the £30 billion increase the defence ministry says is essential? No official response has been given, and the Treasury has not disclosed any revised figures. The lack of clarity fuels speculation that further resignations could follow if the funding dispute remains unresolved.

Broader implications: a pattern of defence under‑investment?

These high‑profile exits echo previous episodes where UK defence ministers have clashed with the government over spending,notably the 2022 dispute over the Integrated Review. The current crisis highlights a persistent tension between strategic threat assessments and fiscal constraints. As analysts note, the Labour government’s handling of the DIP could shape public confidence ahead of the next general election.