Your reporting (28 February) of the overseas aid cuts highlights a worrying myopia among aid NGOs about Britain’s evolving challenges. This generational moment demands more than the simplistic equation of aid spending with security. The 138 NGOs calling these cuts the single largest in history overlook profound shifts: Donald Trump’s return, Russia’s aggression and rising global instability. Britain’s security and diplomatic influence depend on robust military capabilities, especially when our alliance with the US becomes less certain.
The issue is not percentage targets (0.5% to 0.3%), it is how effective aid is. Now that significant aid funds are redirected to asylum and refugee support at home, we must reassess whether our approach meaningfully affects global development. Critics of these cuts ignore political reality. The “forgotten” people most vulnerable to populism want the government to focus on the NHS, education, the cost of living and border security. To present aid as sacrosanct while domestic services struggle widens the disconnect. David Lammy’s proposal to use frozen Russian assets for Ukraine shows creative thinking. This is far more relevant than clinging to outdated spending targets.
