Ex-Pentagon official urges US to ‘squeeze’ UK on defense amid Falklands furor
A former Pentagon press secretary, Morgan Murphy, has pushed back on reports suggesting Washington could use the Falkland Islands as leverage to pressure Britain into raising its NATO defence spending, insisting that longstanding US neutrality on the islands' sovereignty remains unchanged. The row flared after reports that UK Chancellor John Healey is expected to abandon the government's target of reaching 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 when he delivers his budget in October, prompting Murphy to argue the US is entitled to apply "diplomatic leverage" over London's military spending rather than its territorial stance.
Murphy said UK defence spending is currently projected to reach only 2.7% of GDP by 2030, with a new target date of 2035 expected, despite Britain signing the 2025 Hague Summit Declaration committing NATO members to 5% of GDP on defence and security by 2035, including 3.5% on core defence. He rejected earlier reports of an internal Pentagon email hinting the US might reconsider its Falklands position, noting it was never confirmed, and reaffirmed that Washington continues to recognise British administration of the islands, where 99.8% of residents voted to remain British in a 2013 referendum. He characterised any US pressure on Britain as "leverage, not abandonment", aimed at ensuring the UK meets its stated defence commitments.
- Ex-Pentagon official denies US would use Falklands to pressure UK
- Row follows reports UK may delay 3% GDP defence spending target
- US insists neutrality on Falklands sovereignty remains unchanged
New here? Start with this
The Falkland Islands are a group of islands in the South Atlantic, administered by Britain and claimed by Argentina. Their sovereignty has been disputed for generations, and Britain and Argentina fought a war over them in 1982. Islanders voted in 2013 to remain a British overseas territory.
The United States is a NATO ally of Britain, and NATO members have agreed to increase defence and security spending over time. Britain has its own spending targets, which are debated as the government sets budgets. Morgan Murphy, a former Pentagon press secretary, has argued that Washington can press London to meet its defence commitments while keeping its position on the islands’ sovereignty unchanged.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The US has a reasonable interest in ensuring that NATO allies meet commitments they have made, especially when shared security depends on credible military capability. Diplomatic pressure on Britain’s defence spending can be defended as legitimate accountability, while keeping the Falklands’ sovereignty separate avoids using residents’ status as a bargaining tool.
The case against
Britain can argue that defence budgets and timelines should be set through domestic democratic processes, taking account of competing public needs and practical constraints. Even pressure framed as diplomatic leverage may strain trust between allies or appear coercive, particularly when linked to a sensitive territorial dispute, so Washington should rely on dialogue and NATO processes rather than public pressure.