In a move that has sent shockwaves through financial and defence circles, sources confirm that former President Donald Trump has ordered a halt to the Anti-Weaponisation Fund, a programme designed to curb the proliferation of advanced military technology. The decision comes as the UK Treasury announces a significant increase in defence spending, committing an additional £24 billion over the next four years.
The Anti-Weaponisation Fund, established under a bilateral agreement between the US and UK, was intended to monitor and restrict the flow of dual-use technologies that could be weaponised by hostile states. But Trump’s abrupt suspension raises serious questions about the future of transatlantic security cooperation.
Documents uncovered by this bureau show that the fund had been under scrutiny from Trump’s inner circle for months. Sources close to the matter say the former president viewed the programme as a waste of resources, favouring instead a more aggressive posture towards adversaries. “He thinks we should be building weapons, not restricting them,” a retired intelligence official told me.
The timing is suspicious. Just hours after Trump’s order, the UK Treasury released a statement pledging to boost defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. The Treasury insists the decision was made independently, citing “evolving threats” and the need to modernise the armed forces. But critics argue that the UK is picking up the slack left by US disengagement.
“This is a classic case of America walking away from its responsibilities,” said a former NATO diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The UK is now forced to shoulder a burden that should be shared. And where does the money come from? The taxpayer, of course.”
The Treasury’s commitment is not without its own controversies. Internal memos reveal that the defence increase will be partly funded by cuts to social programmes, including housing and welfare. “They’re robbing Peter to pay for tanks,” a Labour MP remarked.
Meanwhile, the halt to the Anti-Weaponisation Fund has immediate consequences. Several joint US-UK projects aimed at securing nuclear materials and tracking illicit arms shipments are now on ice. “We’ve lost a vital tool in preventing weapons from falling into the wrong hands,” a senior State Department official confided.
The move also raises the spectre of a renewed arms race. Without the fund’s oversight, critics fear that countries like Russia and China will exploit the gap. “You can’t just flip a switch and turn off non-proliferation efforts,” said a former CIA analyst. “This is reckless.”
But Trump’s supporters defend the decision, arguing that the fund had become a bureaucratic sinkhole. “We’re spending millions on studies and conferences while our enemies are building weapons,” a former adviser told me. “It’s time to focus on strength, not restraint.”
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the landscape of global defence is shifting. The UK is stepping up, but at what cost? And with the US retreating, who will hold the line against those who would weaponise the world?
For now, the answers remain buried in classified briefings. But this bureau will keep digging. The money trail always leads somewhere.
