The decision by President Donald Trump to scrap a $1.8bn fund aimed at preventing the weaponisation of emerging technologies has sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles and raised fears of a new arms race. UK diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed ‘dismay’ at the abrupt move, which they said undermines years of collaborative work to keep artificial intelligence, cyber tools and autonomous systems out of the hands of rogue states and non-state actors.
The fund, established under the Global Partnership on AI and backed by both the Trump and Biden administrations, was designed to finance research, export controls and capacity-building in developing nations. It also funded joint exercises with allies to test defences against AI-driven disinformation and cyberattacks. The cancellation, communicated via a White House memorandum late Tuesday, caught the Foreign Office off guard. Whitehall sources said the decision was taken without consultation with key allies.
The timing could not be worse. Britain is already grappling with a cost of living crisis, and experts warn that the removal of the fund will hit the North hardest. ‘This isn't just about abstract threats in cyberspace,’ said Dr. Helen Mortimer, a security fellow at the University of Sheffield. ‘The fund supported jobs in Manchester’s cyber sector, in Glasgow’s AI research hubs, and in defence supply chains across the North East. These were good, high-skilled jobs that paid decent wages. Their loss will be felt at kitchen tables, not just in Whitehall.’
Union leaders echoed that sentiment. Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, called the decision ‘a betrayal of working people who trusted the promise of a high-tech future.’ She added: ‘Our members in the defence and tech industries did not vote for this. They voted for secure employment, not to be pawns in a geopolitical showdown.’
The move is seen as part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration pulling back from multilateral agreements. The fund was due to be replenished this quarter, with the UK contributing £350m. That contribution is now in doubt. ‘We are left holding the bag,’ one senior Foreign Office official said. ‘The Americans have not only walked away from a key strategic tool; they have left a gaping hole that the UK cannot fill alone.’
The decision also casts a shadow over next month’s AI Safety Summit, which was to be a centrepiece of British diplomacy. Prime Minister Starmer had hoped to secure new commitments on responsible AI development. Instead, he may face questions about whether the UK can trust US security guarantees.
Critics argue that scrapping the fund plays directly into the hands of adversaries. ‘This is a gift to Beijing and Moscow,’ said Samir Puri, a former UK diplomat now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. ‘The fund was a low-cost, high-impact way to keep dangerous technologies out of the wrong hands. Now we are more vulnerable, and our allies are questioning our reliability.’
The White House defended the decision as a cost-cutting measure. ‘President Trump is committed to ending unnecessary spending and focusing on American priorities,’ said a National Security Council spokesperson. ‘This fund was a globalist vanity project that did nothing for American workers.’
But for workers in the North, the impact is immediate. At a small cyber-security firm in Leeds, managing director Tina Bowers said she was ‘gobsmacked’. The firm had been part of a joint project to develop early warning systems for AI-generated disinformation. ‘We had contracts worth millions, secured because of this fund. Now they’re gone. People will lose their jobs,’ she said.
The government has pledged to review the situation and explore alternative funding. But with a tight fiscal position, options are limited. ‘We cannot match the Americans dollar for dollar,’ one Treasury official admitted. ‘We will have to prioritise.’
For the people of the North, the message is depressingly familiar: when geopolitics shifts, jobs and livelihoods are the first casualties. The fund was supposed to protect against weaponisation. Instead, its axing has become a weapon itself — aimed at the very communities it was meant to safeguard.
