Sir Keir Starmer has declared it his “moral mission” to “turn the tide on the lost decade of young kids left as collateral damage”.

The government launches its 10-year youth plan today, which has pledged £500m to reviving youth services.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has also warned that young people are now “the most isolated in generations” and face challenges that are “urgent and demand a major change in direction”.

But despite the strong language, the Conservatives have warned that “under Labour, the outlook for the next generation is increasingly bleak”.

Lisa Nandy is on Sky News from 7am – follow live

Launching the 10-year strategy, Sir Keir said: “As a dad and as prime minister, I believe it is our generation’s greatest responsibility to turn the tide on the lost decade of young kids left as collateral damage. It is our moral mission.

“Today, my government sets out a clear, ambitious and deliverable plan – investing in the next generation so that every child has the chance to see their talents take them as far as their ability can.”

What’s in the government’s strategy?

Under the plans, the government will seek to give 500,000 more young people across England access to a trusted adult outside their homes – who are assigned through a formal programme – and online resources about staying safe.

The prime minister said the plans will also “ensure” that those who choose to do apprenticeships rather than go to university “will have the same respect and opportunity as everyone else”.

The plan comes following a so-called “state of the nation” survey commissioned by Ms Nandy, which heard from more than 14,000 young people across England.

Launching the strategy, she said: “Young people have been crystal clear in speaking up in our consultation: they need support for their mental health, spaces to meet with people in their communities and real opportunities to thrive. We will give them what they want.”

Read more:
Child poverty strategy launched
Young people may lose benefits

But the Conservatives have criticised the government for scrapping the National Citizen Service (NCS), which ended in March this year.

Shadow culture secretary Nigel Huddlestone said “any renewed investment in youth services is of course welcome”, but said Labour’s “economic mismanagement and tax hikes are forcing businesses to close, shrinking opportunities while inflation continues to climb”.

Is this what the beginning of a war looks like?

In the deep blue waters of the Caribbean, visible from space, an unremarkable grey smudge.

But this is the USS Gerald R Ford: the largest, most deadly aircraft carrier in the world. And it is only part of an armada, apparently set on Venezuela.

From being able to count on one hand the number of warships and boats in the Caribbean, since August we can see the build-up of the number, and variety of ships under US command.

And that’s only at sea – air power has also been deployed, with bombers flying over the Caribbean, and even along the Venezuelan coast, as recently as this week.

Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro told crowds his country has endured 22 weeks of aggression from the US and Donald Trump.

Things could be about to get worse.

So let’s rewind those 22 weeks to understand how we got here…

‘Drug boat’ strike

On 2 September, the White House posted on X that it had conducted a strike against so-called “narcoterrorists” shipping fentanyl to the US, without providing direct evidence of the alleged crime.

Sky’s Data & Forensics unit has verified that in the past four months since strikes began, 23 boats have been targeted in 22 strikes, killing 87 people.

Read more: The US-Venezuela crisis explained

The latest was on 4 December, after which US Southern Command announced it had conducted another strike on an alleged drug smuggling boat in the eastern Pacific.

It was the first such strike since 15 November and since the defence secretary, sometimes referred to as secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, came under scrutiny for an alleged “second strike” in an earlier attack.

The US says it carried out the action because of drugs – and there has been some evidence to support its assertion.

The Dominican Republic said it had recovered the contents of one boat hit by a strike – a huge haul of cocaine.

Legal issues

Whatever the cargo, though, there are serious, disputed legal issues.

Firstly, it is contested whether by designating the people on the boats as narcoterrorists, it makes them lawful military targets – or whether the strikes are in fact extra judicial murders of civilians at sea.

And more specifically… well, let’s go back to that very first video, of the very first strike.

What this footage doesn’t show is what came afterwards – an alleged “second strike” that targeted people in the water posing no apparent threat.

That has created a crisis for Hegseth.

Speaking at a cabinet meeting last week, the defence secretary said he did not see that there were survivors in the water when the second strike was ordered and launched in early September, saying that “the thing was on fire”.

And the 4 December strike shows this strategy isn’t over.

The strikes are just part of the story, as warships and planes have headed toward the region in huge numbers.

Drugs or oil?

Some have said this isn’t about drugs at all, but oil.

Venezuela has lots – the world’s largest proven reserves.

Speaking to the faithful on Fox News, Republican congresswoman – and Trump supporter – Maria Salazar said access to Venezuela would be a “field day” for American oil companies.

And Maduro himself has taken up that theme. A few days later, he wrote this letter to OPEC – which represents major oil producing nations – to “address the growing and illegal threats made by the government of the United States against Venezuela”.

That’s how Maduro has framed this – a plan by the US “to seize Venezuela’s vast oil reserves… through lethal military force”.

Lethal military force – an understatement when you think of the armada lying in wait.

And it may be called upon soon. Trump on Tuesday said he’s preparing to take these strikes from international waters on to Venezuelan territory.

Maduro has complained of 22 weeks of “aggression”. There may be many more to come.

Additional reporting by Sophia Massam, junior digital investigations journalist.

The Data X Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.

Donald Trump’s bruising assessment of Europe as “weak” and “decaying” is a bitter blow to nations already reeling from the release of his national security strategy.

At the end of the 45-minute interview with Politico, EU leaders might be forgiven for thinking, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

“Europe doesn’t know what to do,” Trump said, “They want to be politically correct, and it makes them weak.”

On the contrary, I would imagine some choice words were being uttered in European capitals as they waded through the string of insults.

What has Trump said?

First up, the US president criticised European leaders for failing to end the war between Russia and Ukraine.

“They talk but they don’t produce. And the war just keeps going on and on,” he said.

The fact that the Russians have shown no real commitment to stopping the invasion they started is not mentioned.

Instead, the blame is laid squarely at the feet of Ukraine and its allies in Europe.

“I think if I weren’t president, we would have had World War III,” Trump suggested, while concluding that Moscow is in the stronger position.

Does he have a point?

Critics claim that the White House has emboldened the Kremlin and brought Putin in from the cold with a summit and photo opportunities.

Trump highlights the fact that his return to office forced many European NATO members to increase defence spending drastically.

On this, he is correct – the growing insecurity around how long America can be relied on has brought security into sharp focus.

But the release of the new US national security strategy has only added to the feelings of unease.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Tuesday claimed some of its contents were unacceptable from a European point of view.

“I see no need for America to want to save democracy in Europe. If it was necessary to save it, we would manage it on our own,” he told a news conference in Rhineland-Palatinate, the German state where Trump’s paternal grandfather was born.

The leader of the EU’s biggest power also said the new US strategy was not a surprise and largely chimed with the vice president’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February.

For this reason, Merz reiterated that Europe and Germany must become more independent of America for their security policies.

However, he noted, “I say in my discussions with the Americans, ‘America first’ is fine, but America alone cannot be in your interests.”

For his part, while Trump said he liked most of Europe’s current leaders, he warned they were “destroying” their countries with their migration policies.

He said: “Europe is a different place, and if it keeps going the way it’s going, Europe will not be…in my opinion, many of those countries will not be viable countries any longer. Their immigration policy is a disaster”.

He added: “Most European nations… they’re decaying.”

Read more:
Analysis: Putin preparing for more war, not less
White House: Europe ‘unrecognisable in 20 years or less’

Again, the comments echoed his security strategy, which warned immigration risked “civilisation erasure” in Europe.

There’s no doubt immigration is a major concern for many of the continent’s leaders and voters.

However, irregular crossings into the EU fell 22% in the first 10 months of 2025 according to Frontex, a fact which seems to have passed the president and his team by.

“Within a few decades at the latest, certain Nato members will become majority non-European”, his security document warned.

It also suggested “cultivating resistance” in Europe “to restore former greatness” leading to speculation about how America might intervene in European politics.

Trump appeared to add further clarification on Tuesday, saying while he did not “want to run Europe”, he would consider “endorsing” his preferred candidates in future elections.

👉 Tap to follow Trump100 wherever you get your podcasts👈

This comment will also ruffle feathers on the continent where the European Council President has already warned Trump’s administration against interfering in Europe’s affairs.

“Allies do not threaten to interfere in the domestic political choices of their allies,” Antonio Costa said on Monday.

“The US cannot replace Europe in what its vision is of free expression… Europe must be sovereign.”

So, what will happen now, and how will Europe’s leaders respond?

If you are hoping for a showdown, you will likely be disappointed.

Like him or loathe him, Europe’s leaders need Trump.

They need the might of America and want to try to secure continued support for Ukraine.

While the next few days will be filled with politely scripted statements or rejections of the president’s comments, most of his allies know on this occasion they are probably best to grin and bear it.