Donald Trump has warned that the US position on the Falkland Islands is under review as he ramps up pressure on Britain to increase defence spending. Addressing reporters in the White House last night when asked if he was reviewing America's stance on the islands, he said: 'I always review every position – that's just one of many.'His comment came after tensions between the US and UK flared last week, when it emerged that Chancellor John Healey would not use his first Budget to set a firm date of 2030 for reaching 3 per cent of GDP in defence spending. Instead, the timetable will be set out in next year's spending review.Nato members committed in 2025 to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035 in response to the growing threat posed by Vladimir Putin's Russia.Mr Healey was branded a 'sell out' and a 'hypocrite', while critics accused him of putting 'welfare over warfare' by delaying the target.The decision has raised fresh questions over Labour's commitment to national defence and security, with critics warning it could further strain relations with Washington, which has repeatedly urged European allies to increase military spending. Donald Trump has warned that the US position on the Falkland Islands is under review Britain and Argentina fought in 1982 over the islands after Argentina made a failed bid to take themCritics have also pointed out that Mr Healey resigned as Defence Secretary just two months ago under Sir Keir Starmer, after the former government's military investment plan failed to commit to reaching 3 per cent of GDP on defence by 2030.White House insiders did not react well to the news – and said US President Donald Trump would 'continue efforts' to see Britain increase her defence spending.One official said: 'I would expect the UK to receive special attention because it has so much potential.'We will therefore continue efforts to incentivise and enable the UK to step up in a major way.'Asked about the US 'reviewing' its position on Britain's sovereignty of the Falklands, they added: 'I can say that [conversations] are candid and nothing is being ruled out as far as options for encouraging the sort of burden-sharing that we seek.'After the news emerged last week, Yair Netanyahu, the son of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, appeared to throw his support behind the US review in a social media post.'The Falklands belong to Argentina,' he wrote on his X account in Spanish.After facing backlash, the 35-year-old podcaster and social media personality doubled down, criticising the UK government for recognising a Palestinian state and its response to the October 7 attacks. 'Dear Brits, You got offended by my comment about the Falkland Islands—a bunch of rocks 8,000 miles from your shores? Good. 'Now imagine how we Israelis feel about your government’s recognition of “Palestine” over our ancestral heartland of Judea and Samaria, its denial of our sovereignty over our capital, Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, and its constant meddling in our internal affairs and bashing of our country...''Since the biggest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust on October 7, we have experienced nothing but hostility, antisemitism, and blood libels from your government. An alliance goes both ways,' he wrote. Mr Healey resigned as Sir Keir's Defence Secretary in June after the ex-PM's Defence Investment Plan only projected spending to reach roughly 2.68 per cent of GDP by 2030.The 2030 target Mr Healey has previously pushed for was part of a wider Nato commitment to hit 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence spending by 2035.Most Nato members signed up to the target at a summit in The Hague last June under pressure from Mr Trump.The US has openly spoken of 'reviewing' the UK's claim to the Falklands Islands before.In April, similar sentiments were shared in a memo exploring ways for the US to punish Nato countries for failing to support the Iran war by refusing or being reluctant to grant Washington access, basing and overflight (ABO) rights for the conflict.The email included an option to consider reassessing US diplomatic support for longstanding European 'imperial possessions', such as the Falkland Islands, which lie close to Argentina.According to the State Department's website, the islands are administered by the United Kingdom but are still claimed by Argentina, whose Libertarian President Javier Milei is a Trump ally.Britain and Argentina fought in 1982 over the islands after Argentina made a failed bid to take them. Some 650 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops died before Argentina surrendered.The wrangle over Britain's defence budget comes as the Kremlin warned last week it could strike British military targets inside and outside Ukraine if Kyiv continues to fire long-range, UK-made cruise missiles into Russia.The warning was the strongest direct threat yet to Britain over its military backing for Ukraine.It came after CIA director John Ratcliffe also made a surprise trip to Moscow to warn the Kremlin against launching an attack in Nato territory amid growing fears Russia is looking to escalate its war.And during a recent trip to Brussels, the Pentagon's policy chief Elbridge Colby said the US needed to see 'major efforts to step up' on defence spending among European allies, including the UK. After the news emerged last week, Yair Netanyahu, the son of Israeli hard-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, appeared to throw his support behind the US review Mr Burnham posed for the cameras alongside Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky last week during a trip to Kyiv The Daily Mail's Don't Leave Britain Defenceless campaign has repeatedly highlighted shortages and weaknesses in the Armed Forces and has long been calling for an immediate rise in spending, increasing to at least 3 per cent by 2030 Mr Burnham posed for the cameras alongside Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy last week during a trip to Kyiv, pledging that Nato countries would do 'everything we can'.But critics tore into Mr Healey and the PM, who are scrambling for cash after Mr Burnham made a series of unfunded commitments after entering Downing Street last month.Reform UK leader Nigel Farage told the Daily Mail: 'Britain faces the most serious security threats in a generation, yet the Chancellor cannot even stick to the defence target that only weeks ago he was saying was essential.'John Healey spent years styling himself as a champion of our military, yet the moment he gets his hands on the Treasury keys he betrays them.'The first duty of any government is the defence of the realm. Labour has failed that test yet again.'The Tories' shadow defence secretary, James Cartlidge, said: 'With Russia ramping up its threats every day, the world has only got more dangerous since Mr Healey resigned two months ago.'It is extraordinary that he is backtracking on the very pledge which sealed the fate of the last PM and opened the door of No10 to Andy Burnham.'Burnham needs to do what Starmer could not and make the difficult decisions to fund 3 per cent.'Russia doesn't work to Treasury timetables, and we can't wait for a spending review to keep Britain safe.'Shadow Armed Forces Minister Mark Francois added: 'When the CIA Director has just flown to Moscow, supposedly to warn them off attacking Nato, behaviour like this is strategic madness.'Former head of the Army, General Lord Richard Dannatt, said: 'It is outrageous. Shelving the 3 per cent target is akin to surrender.'Labour peer Lord West, a former First Sea Lord, said: 'I would hope that Healey, having been the Defence Secretary, is sticking by his guns.'It would be extraordinary and very weird if he didn't meet the things he resigned over.'For him to very bravely stand and be resolute about defence and resign, only to then get the job of Chancellor and say "well actually it's not that important," does seem a bit hypocritical.'Former Tory Defence Secretary Sir Liam Fox said: 'Even by the standards of this Labour government, this would be breathtaking hypocrisy.'And it's clear under Labour that Britain is a country that will be more configured for welfare than warfare, even if that threatens our national security.'What message does it send to Putin if we're unwilling to confront our own domestic spending problems, even if that puts our country at greater risk?'