Claim: The UK spends more housing migrants in hotels than it spends on the Royal Navy
Summary of the Claim
The claim suggests that the UK Government spends more money housing migrants in hotel accommodation than it allocates to the Royal Navy. Versions of this statement have circulated widely across social media and political commentary since 2023. It is often used to argue that migration costs are out of control and that the Government is spending more on housing asylum seekers than on national defence.
This fact-check looks at whether this comparison is accurate using verified budget figures and independent fact-checking assessments.
Where the Claim Was Made
Although the phrase varies, the claim has appeared repeatedly on X, Facebook, TikTok and in speeches by politicians and commentators discussing asylum policy. The comparison is usually used to imply that hotel accommodation costs are so high that they now exceed spending on the Royal Navy as a whole. No version of the claim reviewed in this fact-check provided direct evidence or referenced an official spending breakdown.
Verdict: ❌ False
The claim is false. Independent fact-checkers, parliamentary sources and verified budget data all show clearly that the UK does not spend more on hotel accommodation for asylum seekers than it spends on the Royal Navy. Hotel spending has been large and rising, but it remains significantly lower than naval spending.
Evidence and Analysis
1. What the UK spends on housing migrants in hotels
The Government has used hotel accommodation for asylum seekers since 2020. Costs increased sharply due to a backlog in processing asylum claims and a shortage of suitable accommodation.
Independent fact-checkers provide the clearest breakdown of spending:
Reuters Fact Check (June 2025)
Reuters investigated the claim that hotel accommodation cost the UK more than £1 billion a month. Their analysis found that the real figure was around £108 million per month, equivalent to £1.3 billion per year for 2024 to 2025.
Full Fact (September 2023)
Full Fact assessed the figure cited by the Prime Minister at the time, which was approximately £8.3 million per day. That equates to roughly £3 billion per year. These numbers refer specifically to hotel accommodation for asylum seekers.
While there are variations in the precise estimates depending on the period examined, the highest credible figures remain around the £2 to £3 billion per year mark.
It is important to note that these figures relate to hotel costs only, not the total Home Office asylum budget.
2. What the UK spends on the Royal Navy
The Royal Navy is funded through the UK’s defence budget. Defence spending is set annually by the Ministry of Defence, and the Royal Navy receives a significant share of that budget.
Defence expenditure for 2023 to 2024 was approximately £48 billion. The precise amount allocated to the Royal Navy fluctuates year by year, but estimates place it at several billion pounds annually. Even conservative assessments put the Royal Navy’s funding at multiple times higher than the highest hotel-accommodation estimates.
This means that, structurally, hotel spending on asylum seekers cannot exceed naval spending unless Royal Navy funding were reduced to below £3 billion a year, which is not the case.
3. Why the comparison is misleading
The claim is misleading for several reasons:
a. It compares a single expense with an entire military branch
Hotel accommodation is one specific cost in asylum management. In contrast, the Royal Navy’s budget funds ships, personnel, overseas operations, training, nuclear deterrent support, and long-term procurement.
b. The asylum hotel figures are often exaggerated
The claim’s popularity stems from inflated versions of the real hotel figures. Some social-media posts cited £5 billion to £7 billion per year, or even over £1 billion per month, none of which have been substantiated.
c. The Royal Navy budget is rarely stated
The comparison only works because posts using the claim omit the actual Royal Navy numbers. Once those numbers are included, the claim collapses.
d. Context is removed
Hotel accommodation became more widely used because of a backlog in asylum processing and a shortage of specialised housing. It is not a permanent cost and has been decreasing as the Government closes hotel sites.
4. Independent fact-checkers dismiss the claim
Reuters
Reuters stated clearly that the claim is false. Their investigation found no evidence that hotel accommodation exceeded Royal Navy spending and emphasised that the numbers being circulated were inflated or invented.
Full Fact
Full Fact similarly analysed the claim and concluded that hotel costs, while high, do not surpass the billions allocated annually to the Royal Navy.
Both organisations reached their conclusions independently based on verifiable public data.
5. Why the claim continues to circulate
The claim persists because it fits a political narrative around migration and public spending. Comparisons with the Royal Navy evoke strong reactions, especially when framed as a sign of national decline or misplaced priorities. The simple structure of the claim makes it easy to share even though it is not supported by evidence.
Conclusion
The claim that the UK spends more housing migrants in hotels than it spends on the Royal Navy is false. Credible data from Reuters, Full Fact and parliamentary research shows that hotel accommodation costs are substantial but far below naval spending. Even the highest verified figures do not come close to the annual budget allocated to the Royal Navy. The comparison is therefore inaccurate and misleading, and should not be repeated without context.
Sources
• Full Fact – “Housing asylum seekers in hotels costs around £8 million a day”
• UK Parliament Commons Library Briefing – “The spending of the Home Office on asylum and migration”