US National Security Strategy

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the new US strategy makes it even more vital that the UK remains a key part of European and global defence. As the new head of MI6 reminded us yesterday, threats to us and our allies are increasing, and it is surely abundantly clear that we need to step up against the threat posed by both Russia and China. We should be serious about spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, so can I ask the Minister whether she can confirm whether it is the Government’s ambition to reach 3% and whether the Treasury has a funded plan to do so?

Secondly, the US strategy is particularly clear about the nature of the Chinese Communist Party regime threat. That contrasts with this Government, who cannot seem to decide whether or not China is a threat. We have seen recent reports that the Government are poised to approve China’s new super-embassy spy hub, presumably when the House is in recess. Could the Minister confirm whether the US Government have expressed any concerns to this Government about the potential approval of that application?

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington)]

My Lords, the Government’s ambition is to spend 3% of GDP on defence and 5% on security by 2035. On China, our position is clear and has been consistent, unlike that of the previous Government, where we will compete, co-operate and challenge as appropriate. The US Administration, to my knowledge, have not expressed an opinion on a planning application.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who lived in the United States for four years and has spent a lot of time since then working on US-UK and transatlantic relations. The Government should not underestimate the seriousness of what is behind this. We have three more years of a Trump presidency. In terms of the ideas behind it, can I recommend to the Minister the piece that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia, wrote for Policy Exchange the other week, defending Churchill against those on the MAGA right in the United States who now see Churchill as a warmonger who should have made peace with Hitler in 1940 and who dragged the United States into an unnecessary European war? In view of the isolationist, back-to-the-1930s, “America first” moves going on within the American right, with the echoes of white supremacism and Christian nationalism of the southern states, do the Government not need to be a great deal braver to start the national conversation that the SDR called for about the new circumstances for national security, in which we are to move earlier with an increase in defence spending than it has so far said, and to be much more positive about closer links with our European neighbours and the European Union, both in security and economics?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My view on Churchill is very straightforward: we are immensely grateful, proud and in awe of the way he led this country through an incredibly difficult period in our history. Obviously, there are complexities and people have views, and there are many people far better placed to give an opinion on Churchill’s legacy than me, but that is my view and I think it is consistent with the view of the Government.

The noble Lord urges us to be closer to our European allies and partners. He is right to do that, and we have reset our relationship with the European Union, I think quite successfully. It has its own positions, and we are rebuilding what was quite a fractured relationship. It is now much more constructive, and we are working together on some very difficult issues, not least the defence of Ukraine. But I do not see it as a question of having to choose between the US and the EU. It is important—indeed, it is our responsibility and our global duty, actually—to step up, as the UK is, and act as a bridge between the EU and the United States and to make sure that we maintain the very best of relationships with both.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, last week the US Congress, on a bipartisan basis, passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed by the President on Thursday night. That Act commits US troops to Europe, highlights that it sees Russia as a threat not only to Europe but to the United States, and commits the US to providing the senior military figure for SACEUR, the commander of NATO. Does my noble friend agree that we should be looking at actions rather than some of the wild statements coming from the White House?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. While we must not disregard, of course, statements that are made, I do think it important that we focus on the work we can do together in a pragmatic way. As he says, let us focus on the things we do, not just the things that are said.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while we might strongly contest some of the claims made in this strategy, it would be wrong to dismiss it totally out of hand, not least because it reflects deeper shifts in American opinion, not just an aberration of a single presidency, and that it clearly demonstrates that the Government are not doing nearly enough quickly enough to improve European defence capabilities? Taking the strategy at its own words, have the Government inquired of the White House how it squares the assertion:

“It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine”


with its earlier claim that

“we stand for the sovereign rights of nations”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are very close to our friends in the United States on the issue of Ukraine. We support the efforts to bring about the peace that President Trump is currently leading, and the progress that may be being made in that. We will continue to work incredibly closely alongside them to bring about the peace that we all want to see.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I was in Washington DC last week with other members of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and when the national security strategy was discussed with our fellow elected members in the US, their message was clear: that NSSs come and go, sometimes they are implemented and sometimes not, but we should judge by what Congress passes. Last week, the National Defense Authorization Act delivered an extra £8 billion to European defence and put a floor of some 76,000 US troops in Europe. While the Minister will not have done an assessment of the NDAA, will she write to me with that assessment and put a copy in the Library?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am sure that my friends and colleagues at the MoD will be undertaking such an assessment, and I will pass that request on to them. I think they are best placed to do that, but as the noble Lord said, there are many complex things going on in politics in any country, and the US is no different.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister admit that there is a really rather sharp discrepancy between the lack of virtually any mention in the national security strategy of relations with Russia, and what was said by the head of MI6 and the Chief of the Defence Staff here yesterday, with which I strongly concur: that Russia, having invaded a European country, is a genuine threat to this country? Should we not be discussing this rather wide discrepancy with the United States?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Clearly, it is for the United States to make its own assessment of risks to the US. We have, as my noble friend says, made our own assessment of the threat Russia poses. We do of course discuss these things constantly with the US, but as I say, it is for the US to make its own judgments about the threat to it.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I would not expect my noble friend to pass public judgment on the national security strategy of the United States—that is a matter for the US—but it is a remarkable document. Although I am reassured by what my noble friend said about what happened in Congress last week, nevertheless, the UK and Europe must react to it. Will my noble friend reassure the House that the Government will look even more urgently at preserving certain sovereign capabilities in critical areas such as defence, space and critical national infrastructure? This is a new world to which we must adapt accordingly.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is right that the world has changed, and it had changed before the most recent strategy was published. Decisions had already been taken by this Government and others to increase spending on defence and security more generally. Principally, that has of course been driven by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but we must also take into account the words of and decisions being made by other allies and partners.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, what work are the Government doing with the United States to secure the freedom of Jimmy Lai?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Jimmy Lai ought to be freed, and freed immediately—we are clear about that. We will take any diplomatic steps that we need to take to reinforce that message. The Foreign Secretary is clear about that; the Prime Minister is clear about that.