UK minister rejects Trump’s call for military to tackle illegal migration

A UK cabinet minister on Friday rejected former President Donald Trump’s suggestion that the military should be deployed to curb illegal migration, saying the country’s border protection is the responsibility of the Border Force and not a matter for armed forces. The comments come as Trump, on a visit that included a joint appearance with Labour leader Keir Starmer at Chequers, argued that military intervention could deter migrants seeking to reach the United Kingdom.

Trade Secretary Peter Kyle told BBC Breakfast that the UK Border Force has been reinforced and given new powers under the current government, and that the Navy maintains a working relationship with the border agency and can be called upon if needed. But he stressed that the military’s primary focus should remain national defence rather than border policing. "Well, what he suggested was the military are used, but we have the UK Border Force that is now established and has been reinforced and bolstered and have new powers under this government. The Navy actually does have a working relationship with the UK Border Force, and the Navy can be called upon if needed, so we do have the functional relationship that we need between our military and keeping our borders safe and secure. But what we really need at the moment is our military focused on all of those really key issues around the world, directly relating to our national defence," Kyle said.

Trump’s remarks drew a contrast with the approach advocated by Labour’s leadership, who have emphasized diplomatic channels and a tough but orderly system for returns. Trump claimed the UK should use every means, including military force, to deter illegal entry, arguing that the problem "destroys countries from within". In response, Kyle reaffirmed the government’s stance that the border system should be managed through Border Force operations and lawful return procedures, not through a military deterrent that could complicate humanitarian and legal considerations.

A second migrant was returned to France after losing an eleventh-hour legal challenge against removal, a sign the courts are becoming more restrictive on such appeals under the government’s guidance. The government has signaled that it intends to speed up removals and tighten how long migrants can contest deportation orders. In a show of how the policy mix is shifting, the government has highlighted a shift away from diplomacy-only strategies toward more assertive enforcement, while insisting that operational safeguards remain in place.

The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has vowed to fight what she described as "vexatious, last-minute claims" as the government presses ahead with its pilot one-in-one-out scheme for migrant returns. Kyle described Mahmood as "straining at the bit" to ensure the returns program is implemented swiftly and effectively. "We’re making sure we get as many people as don’t have the right to be here returned as swiftly as possible," he said, adding that there are "a lot of cases" moving through court systems. Asked whether there was a numeric target for returns, Kyle said: "Our target is to make sure that everybody who comes to our shore and doesn't have the right to stay is removed from the country, that is our target. We want to get a full grip on the system, we want to make sure people see a functioning system that's delivering so rapidly and efficiently that people don't come here in the first place; that's the deterrent that we need."

There are already tangible measures under way. Around 100 men who arrived in the UK by small boat are held in immigration removal centres near Heathrow and may be transported to France under the scheme. The Home Office said more deportation flights are planned for next week, and a government appeal has been launched aimed at limiting the time migrants have to provide evidence to challenge their removal. The government contends that tightening procedural deadlines will reduce the window for legal challenges that slow removals and undermine deterrence.

Officials say more than 5,500 migrants have reached the UK since the scheme began at the start of August, with authorities arguing that continued removal flights will act as a deterrent to others considering crossing the Channel by irregular routes. Proponents of the plan say that a predictable, swift return process will reduce incentives to undertake dangerous crossings, while critics warn the policy could endanger vulnerable people or deprioritize due process. The administration maintains its approach balances border security with lawful protections and aims to demonstrate that the UK can manage its borders without resorting to open-ended, indiscriminate enforcement.

London also faces ongoing scrutiny over how it coordinates with France and other European partners on returns and legitimate asylum claims. The current emphasis on expediting removals comes alongside efforts to improve screening and determine eligibility more quickly, with lawyers and advocates warning that rushed decisions could risk erroneous removals. In the wider context, UK officials say the deterrent effect rests not only on the immediacy of removals but also on a credible, fair system that can adjudicate asylum claims promptly and with due process.

As the political debate over migration policy intensifies, officials note that the government’s messaging centers on deterrence and operational efficiency rather than dramatic military action. They stress that the system will be overseen by civilian authorities and subject to judicial oversight, with enforcement actions designed to be both lawful and humane. The government’s acknowledgment that military resources may be mobilized if necessary is portrayed as a last-resort option, not a standard tool of border control.

The policy shifts come amid broader questions about how best to manage asylum flows in a way that protects national security, upholds legal obligations, and preserves the country’s humanitarian commitments. In the coming weeks, ministers are expected to outline further details of the returns scheme, including any additional safeguards and procedures intended to prevent abuse while maintaining a steady drumbeat of removals for those who do not have legal grounds to remain.

The government says its approach is already bearing fruit in terms of speed and efficiency, and officials are confident that a continued focus on returns will reinforce the message that illegal entry will not be tolerated. Critics argue that the emphasis on rapid removals may erode due process and fail to address the underlying drivers of migration. The administration, however, contends that a combination of stronger border control, lawful returns, and international cooperation is the right balance to ensure the country’s immigration system remains credible and sustainable.

As the political cycle unfolds, the question remains how far policymakers will go to curb irregular migration while maintaining a humane, lawful framework for asylum seekers. For now, the focus is on operational specifics: who to remove, how swiftly, and which authorities will execute those removals, all within the bounds of national and international law. The discussions reflect a broader debate about sovereignty, security, and the moral obligations that come with managing one of the world’s most visible migration challenges.