Donald Trump has warned that the US position on the Falkland Islands is under review as he steps up pressure on Britain to increase defense spending.
Addressing reporters in the White House When asked last night if he was reviewing the US position on the islands, he said: “I always look at every position – that’s just one of many.”
His comment came after tensions between the US and Britain flared last week when it emerged that Chancellor John Healey would not serve his first term. Budget to set a firm date of 2030 for reaching 3 percent of GDP in defense spending.
Instead, the timetable will be set out in next year’s spending review.
NATO members pledged in 2025 to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense by 2035 in response to the growing threat posed by Vladimir Putin‘S Russia.
Mr Healey was branded a “sellout” and a “hypocrite”, with critics accusing him of putting “prosperity before warfare” by delaying the target.
The decision has raised new questions about Labour’s commitment to national defense and security, with critics warning it could further strain relations with Washington, which has repeatedly urged European allies to increase military spending.
Donald Trump has warned that the US position on the Falkland Islands is under review
Britain and Argentina fought over the islands in 1982, after Argentina made a failed attempt to take them
Critics have also pointed out that Mr Healey resigned just two months ago as Defense Secretary under Sir Keir Starmer, after the former government’s military investment plan failed to deliver 3 percent of GDP to defense by 2030.
White House insiders reacted poorly to the news – saying US President Donald Trump would “continue to make efforts” to see Britain increase its defense spending.
One official said: ‘I expect Britain to get special attention because it has so much potential.
“We will therefore continue our efforts to encourage and enable Britain to take an important step forward.”
Asked about the US ‘review’ of their position on British sovereignty over the Falklands, they added: ‘I can say that [conversations] are open-minded and leave no stone unturned when it comes to promoting the kind of burden-sharing we seek.”
After the news broke last week, Yair Netanyahu, the son of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, appeared to throw his support behind the US review in a social media post.
“The Falklands belong to Argentina,” he wrote on his X account in Spanish.
After facing backlash, the 35-year-old podcaster and social media personality doubled down and criticized the British government for recognizing a Palestinian state and its response to the October 7 attacks.
‘Dear Brits, are you offended by my comment about the Falkland Islands – a group of rocks 8,000 miles from your coast? Good.
“Now imagine how we Israelis feel about your government’s recognition of ‘Palestine’ over our ancestral heartland of Judea and Samaria, the denial of our sovereignty over our capital, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and the continued interference in our internal affairs and bashing of our country…’
“Since the greatest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust on October 7, we have experienced nothing but hostility, anti-Semitism and blood libel from your government. An alliance goes both ways,” he wrote.
Mr Healey resigned as Sir Keir’s defense secretary in June after the ex-prime minister’s Defense Investment Plan predicted spending would reach only around 2.68 per cent of GDP by 2030.
The 2030 target Healey previously pushed for was part of a wider NATO commitment to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on defense spending by 2035.
Most NATO members signed up to the goal at a summit in The Hague last June, under pressure from Mr. Trump.
The US has previously openly discussed ‘reviewing’ the British claim to the Falkland Islands.
In April, similar sentiments were shared in a memo exploring how the US could punish NATO countries for failing to support the war with Iran by denying or holding back Washington’s access, base and overflight (ABO) rights to the conflict.
The email included an option to consider reviewing U.S. diplomatic support for long-standing European “imperial possessions” such as the Falkland Islands, which are close to Argentina.
According to the Foreign Office website, the islands are administered by Britain but are still claimed by Argentina, whose libertarian President Javier Milei is a Trump ally.
Britain and Argentina fought over the islands in 1982 after Argentina made a failed attempt to take them. About 650 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops died before Argentina surrendered.
The row over Britain’s defense budget comes after the Kremlin warned last week that it could hit British military targets inside and outside Ukraine if Kiev continues to fire British-made long-range cruise missiles at Russia.
The warning was the strongest direct threat yet to Britain over its military support for Ukraine.
It came after CIA Director John Ratcliffe also made a surprise trip to Moscow to warn the Kremlin against launching an attack on NATO territory, amid growing fears that Russia is seeking to escalate its war.
And during a recent visit to Brussels, Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby said the U.S. “needs a major effort to ramp up defense spending” among European allies, including the United Kingdom.
After the news broke last week, Yair Netanyahu, the son of Israeli hard-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, appeared to throw his support behind the US review.
Burnham posed for the cameras with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a trip to Kiev last week
The Daily Mail’s Don’t Leave Britain Defenseless campaign has repeatedly exposed shortages and weaknesses in the armed forces and has long called for an immediate increase in spending, rising to at least 3 percent by 2030
Burnham posed for the cameras with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a trip to Kiev last week, vowing that NATO countries would do “everything we can.”
But critics attacked Mr Healey and the Prime Minister, who are looking for money after Mr Burnham made a series of unfunded pledges after entering Downing Street last month.
Britain’s reform leader Nigel Farage told the Daily Mail: ‘Britain faces the most serious security threats in a generation, yet the Chancellor cannot even stick to the defense target he said just weeks ago was essential.
“John Healey has spent years portraying himself as a champion of our military, but as soon as he gets his hands on the keys to the Treasury, he betrays them.
‘The first duty of every government is the defense of the empire. Labor has once again failed that test.”
The Tories’ shadow defense secretary, James Cartlidge, said: ‘With Russia increasing its threats every day, the world has only become more dangerous since Mr Healey resigned two months ago.
‘It is extraordinary that he is going back on the promise that sealed the fate of the last Prime Minister and opened the door of Number 10 for Andy Burnham.
“Burnham must do what Starmer couldn’t and make the tough decisions to fund 3 per cent.
“Russia is not sticking to the Treasury’s timetables, and we cannot wait for a spending review to keep Britain safe.”
Shadow Armed Forces Minister Mark Francois added: “If the CIA director has just flown to Moscow, ostensibly to warn them about attacking NATO, this kind of behavior is strategic madness.”
Former army chief General Lord Richard Dannatt said: ‘It’s outrageous. Suspending the 3 percent target is tantamount to surrender.”
Labor peer Lord West, a former First Sea Lord, said: ‘I hope Healey, who has been Defense Secretary, sticks to his guns.
‘It would be extraordinary and very strange if he did not comply with the matters for which he resigned.
“It seems a bit hypocritical for him to stand his ground very bravely and be resolute in his defense and resign, only to be given the job of chancellor and say, ‘Well, actually it’s not that important.’
Former Tory Defense Secretary Sir Liam Fox said: ‘Even by the standards of this Labor government this would be breathtaking hypocrisy.
‘And under Labor it is clear that Britain is a country that will focus on prosperity rather than warfare, even if that threatens our national security.
“What message does this send to Putin if we are unwilling to confront our own domestic spending problems, even if it puts our country in greater danger?”
