Britain

April 30 (UPI) — Britain has expelled a Russian diplomat in retaliation for Moscow doing the same last month to a British official it accused of spying.

The tit-for-tat expulsions come as tensions rise between the two countries, with Britain accusing Russian submarines and undersea naval units in recent weeks of operating in and around British waters.

Britain’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office announced the unidentified Russian diplomat’s expulsion Wednesday in a statement, saying it had summoned Russian Ambassador to Britain Andrei Kelin to inform him of the “reciprocal action.”

“Russia’s repeated unprovoked and unjustified actions are designed to disrupt our diplomatic work and form part of a wider campaign of aggressive behavior toward the U.K.,” the office said.

“Any further action by Russia will be treated as an escalation and met with a firm and proportionate response.”

UPI has contacted the Russian Embassy in London for comment.

The expulsion is in response to Russia expelling a British diplomat late last month who the Federal Security Service accused of being a British intelligence agent involved in “intelligence and subversive activities on Russian territory.”

The FSB identified the diplomat as Albertus Gerardus Janse van Rensburg, second secretary of the British Embassy in Moscow, stating he attempted to “obtain sensitive information during informal meetings with Russian economic experts.”

Britain’s foreign office on Wednesday condemned Russia’s “unjustified decision” to expel Janse van Rensburg and “the malicious public smear campaign that followed.”

“This behavior is wholly unacceptable, and we will not tolerate harassment or intimidation of our diplomatic staff,” it said.

The expulsion comes two weeks after Britain announced on April 9 that it had detected a Russian attack submarine entering international waters in the High North to distract from undersea naval units conducting “nefarious activity over critical undersea infrastructure elsewhere.”

The operation occurred several weeks before the announcement. Britain said the activity targeted subsea fiber-optic cables, which carry more than 99% of international data traffic, including voice calls and Internet data.

British and allied military assets were deployed, forcing the Russian GUGI units and Akula-class submarine to retreat, the Ministry of Defense said.

LONDON — In the world of diplomatic faux pas, it could have been a lot worse.

At Tuesday’s state dinner honoring King Charles III and Queen Camilla, President Trump said that during a private meeting earlier in the day the British monarch had agreed with him that Iran should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

“We’re doing a little Middle East work right now … and we’re doing very well,” Trump told the audience. “We have militarily defeated that particular opponent, and we’re never going to let that opponent ever — Charles agrees with me, even more than I do — we’re never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon.”

While many Britons would agree with the president’s sentiment, the comment triggered mild consternation among pundits in the U.K.

By convention, people aren’t supposed to relay private conversations with the monarch. That is partly because the king has to remain above the political fray, but also because the sovereign doesn’t have the ability to wade into a public debate and correct the record if he’s misquoted.

“Generally, as a matter of protocol, I think I would expect discussions between heads of state to be sort of behind the scenes, in those closed meetings, for those to be sort of kept private,” said Craig Prescott, an expert on constitutional law and the monarchy at Royal Holloway, University of London. “And, you know, this was something that the U.K. government wanted to avoid.”

There had been a fair amount of jitters before the king’s trip to the United States, which comes amid Trump’s very public frustration with U.K. Prime Minster Keir Starmer over his failure to support U.S. actions in the Iran war.

Like all royal visits, this is a carefully choreographed diplomatic event carried out at the request of the U.K. government, which hopes that warm relations between the king and Trump can help repair the rift.

But Trump is an unconventional leader who has a penchant for breaking protocol, and there were concerns about just what he might say or do.

At least in this case, the king’s comments seemed clearly within the bounds of existing U.K. government policy.

“The King is naturally mindful of his government’s long-standing and well-known position on the prevention of nuclear proliferation,” Buckingham Palace said in a statement designed to provide context to the president’s remarks.

Prescott said that “in a sense, this was always the issue, just what Trump would do or say — would he put the king in an embarrassing position?’’ Prescott said.

“You always had that sort of issue of what he would post on social media,” he said. “And I think, you know, this could have been much, much worse.”

Before the state dinner, Charles gave a speech to a joint session of U.S. Congress. The king received repeated standing ovations during the address, which celebrated the longstanding bonds between the U.S. and Britain while nodding to differences over NATO, support for Ukraine and the need to combat climate change.

Now, from the U.K. government’s point of view, the trip is shifting to safer ground as the king and queen leave Washington behind and head to New York, where the focus will be on the city’s creative industries, rather than politics.

The most difficult part of the trip may be over, Prescott said.

“If this is the only controversy arising out of this phase of the state visit, I think overall this has been an enormous success for the king and the British government, because the king was able to make some quite pointed remarks in Congress and it hasn’t really yielded any sort of negative reaction from the president.”

“In a sense,” he said, “you get the feeling that the king rather charmed Washington with his speech to Congress and, you know, his very witty speech at the state banquet.”

Kirka writes for the Associated Press.

Good Morning Britain shared a breaking news update about Prince Harry on the latest edition of the ITV show

Good Morning Britain has shared a breaking news update on Prince Harry live on air.

During Thursday’s (April 23) episode of the ITV show, hosts Richard Madeley and Kate Garraway returned to our TV screens as they updated viewers on the biggest news headlines from across the UK and around the world.

Not long into the show, Ranvir Singh, who was reading the headlines, announced breaking news after Prince Harry made a surprise trip to Ukraine, urging the world not to lose sight of what the country is up against.

Speaking to viewers watching at home, Ranvir went on to say: “That breaking news from Kyiv. Hello there, very good morning to you. Well, Prince Harry has arrived in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv for a two day visit.”

She continued:”He will see some of the work of the Halo Trust an organisation that specialises in clearing landmines and explosives from war torn countries, which, of course, you’ll remember his mother, Princess Diana, was a keen supporter of.

“She worked with them in Angola in 1997. Well, the Duke of Sussex has told ITV news that he wants to remind the world what Ukraine is up against in its war with Russia, our royal editor Chris Ship is in Kyiv and is the only correspondent with access to Harry on this trip.”

The show then cut to a news report from Chris, who explained: “Prince Harry arrived here at Ukraine’s main railway station. He came in on an overnight train from Poland, and yes, an unannounced visit, they always are, of course, for obvious reasons when you come to Ukraine.”

He added: “And perhaps a reminder that at a time when the world’s attention has been on Iran and the conflict there, the fight here is still going on.”

Prince Harry made the unannounced visit to Kyiv at a time when the focus of international concern has been on the war in Iran.

“It’s good to be back in Ukraine”, Prince Harry said as he arrived. He told ITV News that he wanted “to remind people back home and around the world what Ukraine is up against and to support the people and partners doing extraordinary work every hour of every day in incredibly tough conditions”.

He called Ukraine “a country bravely and successfully defending Europe’s eastern flank” and said “it matters that we don’t lose sight of the significance of that”.

His message to Ukrainians is that “the world sees you and respects you”.

Senior Western defence and government officials are gathering in the Ukrainian capital for the Kyiv Security Conference. Harry will make a speech at the conference and tell them that the battle here is more than a simple fight about territory.

He will also see the dangerous work being carried out by The Halo Trust. The Halo Trust employs 1,300 people in de-mining work in Ukraine – its largest operation anywhere in the world.

Good Morning Britain airs weekdays from 7am on ITV1 and ITVX

Steve Hilton is a former Fox News host who has unexpectedly emerged as a leading candidate in the race for governor with a message that California is a failed state in need of radical reform.

But his sudden rise in California politics comes a decade and a half after he pitched the U.K. Conservative Party with a very different idea: Britain could learn a lot from the Golden State.

Back in 2010, when Hilton was a top strategist during David Cameron’s rise to power as Conservative prime minister, he looked to Silicon Valley’s high-charged ethos of techno-optimism and green innovation for inspiration as he sought to revitalize the ailing Conservative Party and the U.K.

Splitting his time between London and the Bay Area — his wife worked for Google — Hilton was instrumental in getting California companies to invest in the U.K. and persuading Google to open its first wholly owned and designed building outside the U.S. in London. So infatuated was he with California that one British political commentator dubbed the Cameron administration’s philosophy ”Thatcherism on a surfboard.”

But Hilton is now utterly unsparing in his criticism of California.

After moving to the Bay Area full time, teaching at Stanford University and hosting Fox News’ “The Next Revolution,” Hilton is running as a Republican on a platform of “Making California Golden Again.”

To the dismay of many Democrats, the 56-year-old British immigrant, a supporter of President Trump who dubs California “America’s worst-run state,” is ahead in multiple polls in a crowded race with no front-runner.

Even after former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out April 12 after multiple women accused him of sexual assault, Democrats are struggling to unite around one candidate. And Trump’s endorsement of Hilton this month almost seems to guarantee Hilton will secure enough Republican votes to make it past the June primary.

Hilton accuses Democratic leaders of turning the state into the “Wuhan lab of modern leftism.” As Democrats amassed power in Sacramento, seizing control of statewide offices and the Legislature, he argues, California government has become “a massive, bloated, bureaucratic nanny state,” so overregulated and poorly run, it is failing its people.

“We have the highest poverty rate in the country in California, tied with Louisiana, which is shameful, really, for a state that prides itself on being the home of innovation and opportunity,” he told The Times. “We’re ranked by U.S. News and World Report 50 out of 50 for opportunity. The performance of California, when measured against the rest of the country, is really dire.”

Most California voters rank affordability and cost of living as important as they weigh whom to elect as governor. But whether Hilton can persuade them that Democrats are responsible for the state’s problems, or make inroads as a Republican aligned with Trump on immigration and abortion, is unlikely in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly two to one.

Many Californians who do not watch Fox News know little about Hilton. Even some of Britain’s political observers who followed Hilton for years admit it’s been a struggle at times to make sense of his political odyssey.

Dubbed a “barefoot revolutionary” for his habit of striding around Downing Street without shoes, Hilton was credited with pulling the Conservatives into the 21st century and ushering in a more green, socially liberal strain of British conservatism. He helped turn around their image by highlighting climate change and supporting gay marriage.

Fraser Nelson, a columnist for the Times in London, said Hilton had been seen in Britain as a figure closer to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom than to Trump.

“When he popped up on Fox, it was like somebody reborn,” Nelson said. “Somebody who seemed to be on the left of politics was somehow on the Trumpish right. We thought it was like a joke. I’m not saying he is not sincere, just … the political journey of Steve Hilton … to being Newsom’s nemesis is something to behold.”

Born in London to Hungarian refugees who fled their homeland during the 1956 revolution, Hilton grew up in a household without much money.

After studying at Oxford University, a life-changing experience for a son of immigrants, Hilton worked at Conservative Party headquarters and as an ad executive on the Conservatives’ 1997 election campaign. When Labour’s Tony Blair won in a landslide, Hilton co-founded a consulting firm, Good Business, advising corporations on how to make money by investing in social and environmental causes.

In 2001, Hilton voted Green. But he returned to the Conservative fold in 2005 to try to detoxify the Tory brand. As an author of the party’s 2010 manifesto, he came up with Cameron’s “Big Society” agenda, which sought to scale back the state and hand more power to local communities. Critics, however, argued that the focus on local control was a fig leaf for austerity and dismantling the welfare state.

When Cameron won in 2010, Hilton infuriated colleagues in the coalition government, the British press reported, proposing a stream of wacky ideas: scrapping maternity leave, abolishing job centers, even buying cloud-bursting technology so Britain would have more sunshine.

Hilton ultimately became disillusioned with Westminster, deciding U.K. politics was stymied by excessive bureaucracy. In 2012, he moved full time to the Bay Area.

Hilton says he was drawn to California because of its “rebel spirit.”

But what he liked about California was the specific Silicon Valley ethos of disruption that emphasized meritocracy and risk-taking, not the state’s ascendant liberal identity politics.

Hilton settled in California precisely when Democrats were consolidating their political and cultural power. Just months after his move, Democrats gained full control of the Legislature with a two-thirds supermajority.

Meanwhile, populism was rising across the U.S. and Britain.

On the 2016 Brexit referendum on whether the U.K. should leave the European Union, Hilton was firmly pro Leave.

Hilton also disagreed with many fellow conservatives on Trump. In November 2016, George Osborne, chancellor of the exchequer under Cameron, watched the U.S. election on Hilton’s couch in Atherton, Calif. “Steve was the only person in the room who said, ‘I think Donald Trump’s going to win,’” Osborne said. “I think he identifies with Trump, although they’re obviously very different. … The outsider challenging the system.”

After the election, Hilton joined Fox News as a contributor and in 2017 was given his own Sunday night show, “The Next Revolution.” Produced out of Los Angeles, it explored populism in the U.S. and globally.

Like many conservatives, Hilton became agitated in 2020 by the COVID-19 lockdowns and Black Lives Matter protests that swept U.S. cities.

Early in the pandemic, Hilton invited Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford, to discuss COVID-19 after his study in Santa Clara County indicated the virus was more widespread and less deadly than initially thought. Bhattacharya argued the best path forward was not a general lockdown, but focused protection of the vulnerable. California leaders went on to impose some of the nation’s most stringent lockdowns.

After Joe Biden defeated Trump in November 2020, Hilton repeated Trump’s false allegations of voter fraud on air and called for an investigation.

Hilton became a U.S. citizen in 2021. Asked how his worldview changed in 2020, Hilton said: “I don’t think it changed. I think it actually enhanced my skepticism of centralized bureaucracy and it made me even more determined to dismantle it in California, because you saw all the worst features of it in California.”

In 2023, Hilton left Fox to launch a supposedly nonpartisan policy group, Golden Together, to develop “common sense” solutions to California’s problems. Two years later, he published “Califailure: Reversing the Ruin of America’s Worst-Run State,” a screed against Democrats. He accused them of spending “their time — and taxpayers’ money — pushing increasingly fringe race, gender, and ‘climate’ extremism instead of attending to the basics of good governance.”

A month later, Hilton announced he was running for governor “to make this beautiful state, that we love so much, truly golden again.”

On the campaign trail, Hilton has pledged to slash taxes, make housing more affordable and bring the cost of gas down to $3 a gallon. But how he plans to achieve some of these goals is controversial.

Hilton advocates scaling back environmental regulations. State agencies such as the California Coastal Commission and the California Air Resources Board, he argues, are a “massive roadblock” to housing development.

To lower gasoline prices, Hilton would ramp up California domestic production of oil and natural gas and reduce regulations on refineries.

Hilton would likely struggle to persuade a majority of voters to roll back environmental protections. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, about 55% of Californians think stricter state environmental regulations are worth the cost, while 43% believe they hurt the economy and jobs market.

Hilton is also at odds with most Californians on major issues from immigration to abortion.

If elected, he would foster more local cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and rescind state healthcare to undocumented immigrants. He would work with states such as Louisiana to extradite California doctors accused of prescribing and mailing abortion pills to women in states where abortion is illegal. He would also establish a Covid Accountability Commission to examine officials’ decisions during the pandemic.

Asked if Newsom and other Democrats could face prosecution, Hilton said: “They need to be held accountable for these crimes.”

With Trump in the White House, 2026 is a difficult year to mount a right-wing populist campaign for California governor, said Christian Grose, a professor of political science and public policy at USC.

“That message of ‘Newsom and the Democrats have been a disaster for California,’ that’s like, if you’re running in South Carolina,” Grose said. “It’s a caricature of California. While many California voters think there have been problems and the state is not doing as well, a Fox News presentation for East Coast viewers … that’s not going to win 50%.”

To make inroads past the primary, Grose said, Hilton would need to focus on governance and affordability and ditch the anti-Democratic red meat: “He has to massively soft pedal the kind of Fox News conservative stuff.”

Hilton’s Republican rival in the race, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, has questioned Hilton’s MAGA credentials, raising his green advocacy in the U.K. to cast him as an unprincipled opportunist.

Hilton, however, said he considers himself a “very strong environmentalist.” The problem, he argued, is the movement has become too narrowly focused on climate change and CO2 reduction. As crude oil production within California has fallen in recent decades and refineries have closed, he questioned California importing the bulk of its oil from as far away as Iraq and Ecuador.

“We are shipping oil halfway across the world in giant supertankers that run on bunker fuel, the most polluting form of transportation you can think of, rather than producing in Kern County and sending it in a nice, clean pipeline to the refineries in Long Beach,” Hilton said. “It’s total insanity. We are increasing carbon emissions in the name of climate change.”

Some political observers in the U.K. argue that Hilton’s questioning of California’s policy isn’t necessarily intellectually inconsistent.

“Perhaps in 2010 we needed more environmental policies,” Nelson said. “Perhaps in 2026 they’re doing more harm than good.”

Nor is it so odd, he argued, that Hilton now views California with a more critical eye.

“Even from a distance, when you look at California, there’s so much going fundamentally wrong,” Nelson said, citing its energy policy, homelessness and the exodus of residents to other states. “I’m not surprised by that, and I think it’s entirely consistent with Steve Hilton in 2010.”

Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report

April 11 (UPI) — After an about-face by the Trump administration, Britain said it is pausing a plan to transfer ownership of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius because it cannot complete the deal without U.S. support.

Britain on Friday said it is abandoning a deal to return sovereignty to the islands, which would have permitted the both countries to continue using the military base in Deigo Garcia they have operated since the 1970s, because there is not enough time for the U.K.’s parliament to pass a legislation on it, The Guardian reported.

The islands have been controlled by Britain since the 1800s, though in 1968 it granted independence to Maritius — which it also had controlled — but kept possession of the Chagos Islands.

President Donald Trump had in 2024 offered support for Britain to return the islands in return for continued use of the base, which includes billions in annual payments for doing so.

Trump withdrew his support for the deal earlier this year, calling it a “great act of stupidity,” less than a year after Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration called the deal an “historic” achievement, at least partially because it kept the Diego Garcia base in use.

The change in opinion came, however, weeks before the United States and Israel started the war in Iran at the end of February because, he said at the time, the U.S. military may need to use the Diego Garcia base, The Hill reported.

“The U.K. had two objectives, one was to comply with international law, the second was to reinforce the relationship with the United States,” Simon McDonald, a former permanent secretary in Britain’s Foreign Office.

“When the president of the United States is openly hostile, the government has to rethink, so this agreement, this treaty, will go into the deep freeze for the time being,” McDonald said.

The deal to return the islands to Maritius stems from an overall effort by Britain to reckon with its colonialist history, as well as a 2019 international court decision that said it had acted illegally by separating the Chagos from Maritius in the 1960s.

The military base on Diego Garcia, which dates to a 1966 treaty between Britain and the United States — which the two countries cleared people living in the area from in order to construct it — was to give the two nations a 99-year lease to continue operating the base.

While the Trump initially supported the deal, it has long been controversial in Britain, with Kemi Badenoch, leader of Britain’s Conservative Party, said it took too long for the current U.K. government to give up on it.

Badenoch said the government had dragged its feet on dropping the deal, calling it a “damning indictment of a prime minister, who fought to hand over British sovereign territory and pay $47 million to use a crucial military base which was already ours.”

IF you’re looking for a top notch, classic campsite with no-frills – The Spinney Wild Camping has just been named the best.

The campsite in East Yorkshire has scooped up a Gold Award with 10/10 reviews from families calling it a “wonderful hidden gem”.

Pitch Up, an online booking platform specialising in camping, glamping and caravan sites has found the best in the country.

Based solely on reviews and ratings, The Spinney Wild Camping has been named Pitch Up’s best campsite in Britain.

The site got 10/10 ratings from all 58 of its reviews and was described as being “no-frill and wild”.

It’s affordable too with prices starting from £12.50pppn.

GO WEST

UK holiday with great family attractions for all types of British weather

HOLI-PLAY

Devon’s best family-friendly attractions from theme parks to free soft play

The spot in East Yorkshire is small with space for just 10 tents, and campers can pitch tents in either the woodland or the meadow.

It has plenty of open space for children and dogs to run about and play as well as hammocks to laze about in.

It is also completely off grid with no outdoor lighting, so visitors are advised to bring a torch for when it gets dark.

For when the weather doesn’t play ball, the campsite has a garden room with a sofa and games for entertainment.

There’s also a hot tub that guests can hire out and firepits for barbecuing.

It’s quite simple when it comes to facilities and has a compost toilet – but the site does have running water.

The campsite achieved a clean sweep of full marks for location, value for money, accommodation, facilities, customer service, child friendliness, cleanliness and WiFi.

One visitor called it a “wonderful hidden gem”, a second called it “idyllic”.

Another said: “As a single mum with two children I felt very safe here, the choice of where to pitch was just brilliant. We chose a hidden spot waking up with the beautiful oak trees.”

For more on holiday parks, here are some of our favourites in the UK…

*If you click on a link in this box, we will earn affiliate revenue

Park Holidays UK Sand le Mere, Yorkshire

This holiday park in Yorkshire is a thriving family resort, just steps from Tunstall Beach. Entertainment is what this resort does best, with costume character performances, Link-up Bingo and cabaret shows. Accommodation ranges from fully-equipped Gold Caravans to Platinum Lodges with sun decks and luxury bedding.

BOOK A BREAK

St Ives Bay Beach Resort, Cornwall

This beachfront resort in St Ives, Cornwall is a true beach bum’s paradise – whether you want to laze out on the sand, or take to the waves for some surfing. Activities include disc golf, a Nerf challenge and an outdoor cinema, as well as indoor activities for the colder months like karaoke, bingo and DJ sets.

BOOK A BREAK

Billing Aquadrome Holiday Park, Northampton

This holiday park has loads of unique activities on offer, including TikTok dance classes, alpaca feeding, a pump track for BMX riding, and taking a ride on the resort’s very own miniature railway. Throw in bug hotel and den building, pond dipping, survival skills workshops and a lake for paddleboard and pedalo hire, and you’ve got yourself an action-packed park.

BOOK A BREAK

Parkdean Resorts Camber Sands, Sussex
This beachfront resort is a classic family favourite. If you’re not up to swimming in the sea, there’s four fantastic pools here, as well as water flumes, underwater jets, inflatable jet skis and kayak races. Plus if you’ve got any little fans of Paw Patrol or Milkshake!, you’ll be glad to know there’s Milkshake! Mornings and Paw Patrol Mighty Missions to keep your tots entertained.

BOOK A BREAK

The campsite is the perfect spot for anyone wanting to explore the city of York without forking out a lot on an expensive hotel.

In the car, it is just a half-an-hour drive from Spinney Wild Camping to York which is home to higgledy-piggledy streets and plenty of family attractions.

It was even called the “best UK city for families” by travel guide creator Peter Naldrett, who visited all 76 cities in the UK.

Talking to Sun Travel, he said: “There’s enough in York to keep both junior and secondary school children entertained, from the Viking Museum to York Chocolate Story and Harry Potter-style streets and a cold war bunker.

“The Viking Museum has interactive activities for children, the Castle Museum has recreated Victorian Streets and there’s also the Shambles, the inspiration behind JK Rowling‘s Diagon Alley.”

Other nearby attractions to the campsite are in the village of Allerthorpe where visitors can go on a relaxing stroll, or try out watersports at Lakeland Park.

Lakeland Park has three lakes for kayaking, paddleboarding, open water swimming, and even jumping about on the inflatable Aqua Park.

For more on campsites, here are affordable ones with some of the UK’s best views – and pitches from just £11.

And check out this treehouse campsite with rooms you get to by zipline – and breakfast is delivered by rope pulley.

LONDON — President Trump and his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have been damning of the U.K.’s naval capabilities. Their jibes may have stung in a country with a long and proud maritime history, but they do carry some substance.

The U.K. has been at the forefront of Trump’s ire since the onset of the Iran war on Feb. 28, when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to grant the U.S. military access to British bases.

Though that decision has been partly reversed with the decision to permit the U.S. to use the bases, including that of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, for so-called defensive purposes, Trump is adamant he was let down.

He has repeatedly lashed out at Starmer and branded the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers as “toys.”

“You don’t even have a navy,” he told Britain’s Daily Telegraph in comments published Wednesday. “You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work.”

The HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales are the largest and most powerful vessels ever constructed for the Royal Navy, though smaller and less capable than the U.S. Navy’s main fleet carriers. However, they are widely considered to be highly capable, especially for coalition warfare, despite some technical issues that have afflicted them in their first years of service.

Hegseth, meanwhile, said sarcastically that the “big, bad Royal Navy” should get involved in making the Strait of Hormuz safe for commercial shipping.

For numerous reasons, the Royal Navy is not as big and bad as it used it to be when Britannia ruled the waves. But it’s not as feeble as Trump and Hegseth imply and is largely similar with the French navy, with which it is often compared.

“On the negative side, there is a grain of truth, with the Royal Navy being smaller than it has been in hundreds of years,” said Professor Kevin Rowlands, editor of the Royal United Services Institute Journal. “On the positive side, the Royal Navy would say that it’s entering its first period of growth since World War II, with more ships set to be built than in decades.”

Capabilities and preparedness

It’s not that long ago that Britain could muster a task force of 127 ships, including two aircraft carriers, to sail to the south Atlantic after Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory. That 1982 campaign, which then-U. S. President Reagan was lukewarm about, marked the final hurrah of Britain’s naval pedigree.

Nothing on that scale, or even remotely, could be accomplished now. Since World War II, Britain’s combat-ready fleet has declined substantially, much of it linked to changing military and technological advances and the end of empire. But not all.

The number of vessels in the Royal Navy fleet, including aircraft carriers, destroyers frigates and submarines has fallen from 166 in 1975 to 66 in 2025, according to the Associated Press’ analysis of figures from the Ministry of Defense and the House of Commons Library.

Though the Royal Navy has two aircraft carriers at its command, there was a seven-year period in the 2010s when it had none. And the number of destroyers has halved to six while the frigate fleet has been slashed from 60 to just 11.

Diminished state

The Royal Navy faced criticism for the time it took to send the HMS Dragon destroyer to the Middle East after the war with Iran broke out. Though naval officials worked night and day to get it shipshape for a different mission than the one it was readying for, to many it symbolized the extent to which Britain’s military has been gutted since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

For much of the Cold War, Britain was spending between 4% and 8% of its annual national income on its military. After the Cold War, that proportion steadily dropped to a low of 1.9% of GDP in 2018, fuel to Trump’s fire.

Like other countries, Britain, largely under the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, sought to use the so-called “peace dividend” following the collapse of the Soviet Union to divert money earmarked for defense to other priorities, such as health and education.

And the austerity measures imposed by the Conservative-led government in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008-09 prevented any pickup in defense spending despite the clear signs of a resurgent Russia, especially after its annexation of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine.

No quick fix

In the wake of Russia’s full-blown invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and with another Middle East war underway, there’s a growing understanding across the political divide that the cuts have gone too far.

Following the Ukraine invasion, the Conservatives started to turn the military spending tide around. Since the Labour Party returned to power in 2024, Starmer is seeking to ramp up British defense spending, partly at the cost of cutting the country’s long-vaunted aid spending.

Starmer has promised to raise U.K. defense spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027, and the updated goal is now for it to rise to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, as part of a NATO agreement pushed by Trump. That, in plain terms, will mean tens of billions pounds more being spent — a lot more equipment for the armed forces.

The pressure is on for the government to speed that schedule up. But with the public finances further imperiled by the economic consequences of the Iran war, it’s not clear where any additional money will come.

The jibes will likely keep coming even though the critiques are unfair and far from the truth, said RUSI’s Rowlands, who was a captain in the Royal Navy.

“We are dealing with an administration that doesn’t do nuance,” he said.

Pylas writes for the Associated Press.

March 11 (UPI) — The British Cabinet Office has released files from its investigation into former ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson on Wednesday as it digs into his ties to deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

The first batch of documents revealed that Mandelson may have been briefed on classified information before being given security clearance when he was appointed as ambassador. They also show that he requested a large government payout when he was terminated last year.

Mandelson was arrested and then released last month in London over suspicion of misconduct in public office. The allegation stems from emails released in the Epstein files in which Mandelson appears to be sharing market-sensitive confidential information with Epstein.

Documents released by the Cabinet Office share some details after his appointment as ambassador in December 2024. Within days of his being appointed, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office offered to brief Mandelson on highly classified information while he was still being vetted.

Emails about the briefing were shared Dec. 23, 2024, about three days after the announcement of Mandelson’s appointment. It was not until Jan. 30, 2025, that Mandelson received an email confirming that he had cleared the vetting process.

It was in this email that he received a formal offer of employment.

When Mandelson was terminated from his position in September, he requested to be paid the full amount on his contract — more than 500,000 euros or $578,625. Instead, he was paid 75,000 euros or $86,793.75 to terminate the contract.

“As the documents show regarding his severance payment, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum that was substantially larger than the final payment, not just two or even three times, but more than six times the final amount,” said Darren Jones, chief secretary to the prime minister at the Cabinet office.

“Despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the prime minister, the government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable.”