The American Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has fired a fresh salvo in the long-running Nato burden-sharing row, declaring that Washington expects its Asian allies to boost their defence spending and pointing to the British carrier strike group deployment as a model for how allies can share the load.
Speaking at a security forum in Singapore, Hegseth said the United States cannot continue to bankroll the defence of the free world alone. He praised the Royal Navy’s carrier task force, which recently completed a deployment to the Indo-Pacific, as a “textbook example” of burden-sharing: a capable ally taking responsibility for its own neighbourhood, backed by American logistical support.
“The UK’s carrier strike group demonstrated that when allies step up, the whole alliance is stronger,” Hegseth told reporters. “We want to see that same spirit from our partners in Asia.”
Hegseth’s comments come amid growing unease in Washington about the military imbalance in the region. The US maintains tens of thousands of troops in Japan and South Korea, while Australia, Japan, and other allies have come under repeated pressure to increase their own defence budgets. The British model, Hegseth argued, shows that even a medium-sized power can project significant force if it invests wisely.
The British carrier strike group, centred on HMS Queen Elizabeth, sailed to the South China Sea and beyond last year, conducting exercises with US, Japanese, and Australian forces. The deployment was hailed by the Ministry of Defence as proof that “Global Britain” can still punch above its weight. Critics, however, note that the carrier – Britain’s largest warship – suffered repeated technical problems and that the UK’s defence budget remains under severe strain.
Hegseth’s remarks will resonate in Whitehall, where the government is already wrestling with the cost of maintaining its nuclear deterrent and modernising the army. The UK is one of the few Nato members that meets the alliance’s target of spending 2% of GDP on defence, but the figure is likely to rise further as the US demands more.
For ordinary Britons, the debate over defence spending is not just about warships and fighter jets. It is about the choices politicians make with their taxes. The cost of living crisis still bites. Food banks are used by millions. And yet the government is under pressure to pour billions more into the armed forces. The Prime Minister has promised to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 – a move that would require either higher borrowing, deeper cuts to other public services, or higher taxes.
In the North, where I come from, people remember the last time Britain slashed defence spending in the 1990s. The shipyards closed. The steel mills followed. Towns like Barrow-in-Furness, which builds submarines, have survived only by clinging to military contracts. But the price of that survival is a bargain with the arms trade: you work for the defence pound, or you don’t work at all.
Hegseth’s message is clear: the US is tired of footing the bill. And if Britain wants to remain a global player, it must pay more – not just for its own defence, but for the defence of others. That is the burden-sharing model. Whether the kitchen table can bear that burden is another matter.
