NATO spending deal creates new standard — for Indo-Pacific allies
NATO countries have pledged to spend big on defense, and while this move may largely appear to be a European issue, its consequences could ultimately play out in the Indo-Pacific.
Members of the world's largest military alliance on Wednesday agreed on a spending target of 5% of gross domestic product by 2035, effectively enabling the U.S. military to shift more strategic attention and military resources to the region as it zeroes in on containing China.
But Washington's aspired pivot to the Indo-Pacific will likely only be incremental and drawn out, experts warn, as Europe moves slowly amid political fragmentation, substantial defense-industrial bottlenecks and ongoing dependence on U.S. logistical support.
The two-day summit in the Netherlands, which was skipped by three leaders of NATO's four Indo-Pacific partner countries, including Japan, had one major takeaway: securing the allies' agreement to the new 5% target.
The deal will see alliance members ramp up defense-related spending to a total of 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% dedicated to core needs such as troops and weapons and 1.5% to security-related investments in cybersecurity, infrastructure and other areas.
The hike will be a steep increase from NATO's current 2% target. No alliance member currently hits 5% — not even the United States at 3.4% — though Poland has tracked just over 4% of GDP.
Pleasing Trump
The move was seen by many as existential for the alliance in terms of keeping the United States engaged in NATO while enabling the allies to modernize their armed forces and improve their military capabilities to deter Russia.
In doing so, the summit also seemed to help change long-held American perceptions of unfair European burden-sharing that have always bedeviled NATO and cast doubt on the credibility of the U.S. security guarantee.
U.S. President Donald Trump was the first to express this, suggesting NATO was no longer a rip-off. 'It's a monumental win for the United States because we were carrying much more than our fair share. It was quite unfair actually. But this is a big win for Europe and for actually Western civilization.'
France's President Emmanuel Macron (far left), NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (left), Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni (center left), Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer (center), Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (center right), Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk (right) and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz during a NATO summit in The Hague on Wednesday |
Pool / via REUTERS
Given that NATO summits are mainly about displaying unity, analysts such as Paal Sigurd Hilde, from the Norwegian Institute for Defense Studies, point out that this year's gathering was primarily about Trump and keeping him happy.
'Having a short summit with lots of pomp and circumstance and limited substance for the leaders was clearly aimed at pleasing Trump at the same time as limiting the chance Trump would have had to cause havoc and scandal,' the expert said.
'In this sense, the summit was clearly successful: Trump is happy and U.S. commitment is secured.'
As a result, there is a growing expectation that leading European powers such as Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Poland will take on a greater security role.
Creative diplomacy
But while the spending agreement was framed as historic, NATO had to resort to traditional creative diplomacy to achieve consensus, particularly after Spain threatened to opt out, in a reflection of an alliance trying to hold itself together under pressure, experts say.
The language that NATO leaders approved stresses that 'allies commit' to the 5% target, rather than 'we commit' — a subtle but important linguistic tweak that gives Spain, and possibly others, the political flexibility to spend slightly less so long as it still meets NATO's capability targets for individual nations, said James Black, deputy director of defense at Rand Europe, part of the nonprofit Rand Corp.
Gorana Grgic, a senior researcher in Euro-Atlantic Security at ETH Zurich's Center for Security Studies, even argues that consensus was achieved largely by deferring the specifics. NATO agreed on the 5% figure but left the details, especially around the 1.5% nontraditional portion, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, Grgic said.
'This vagueness allowed flexibility while still securing headline agreement.'
Nevertheless, with an agreement now in place, alliance planners and individual allies can apply constant pressure on other member states to move closer to the 5% target.
Setting a new standard
This means the agreement could have knock-on effects for Japan and other U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific, which Washington has said must also meet a new 'global standard' of spending 5% of GDP on defense.
'The U.S. will almost certainly use the latest NATO deal to up defense spending pressure on the IP4 countries (Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand),' said Nate Fischler, Asia-Pacific analyst at U.S.-based geopolitics and intelligence firm RANE. 'A standard for U.S. allies has now been established, and Washington will want the IP4 to meet said standard.'
U.S. President Donald Trump, flanked by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (left) and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, during a news conference at the NATO summit in The Hague on Wednesday |
AFP-jiji
While countries like Japan and Australia have already pushed back, Washington is likely to keep asking for 'more equitable' burden-sharing as it wants regional allies to play a greater role in countering China.
The U.S. has long indicated a desire to free up forces and resources to focus more on the Indo-Pacific theater to deter any future aggression from China, and this is no different under the Trump administration.
In this context, the NATO spending deal marks an important step in this direction as it will strengthen Europe's own capabilities to counter Russia, including against Ukraine.
However, experts warn that this transition will take time as Europe is likely to move slowly for a number of reasons, including political fragmentation and their short-to-mid-term dependency on a number of cutting-edge U.S. technologies and capabilities.
'The actual pace will depend on how quickly European allies can credibly assume more of the deterrence burden,' Fischler said, noting that Washington cannot yet meaningfully disengage from the transatlantic theater.
Pivot will take time
Any intensification of U.S. focus on China will be incremental, constrained by competing obligations and assurances that regional allies as well as front-line partners like Taiwan and the Philippines are willing and able to share the load, he added.
It will also depend on whether Washington can maintain its focus on Asia and avoid being strategically distracted in the Middle East or elsewhere.
Rand Europe's Black has a similar view, arguing that in the short-term, the increase in European defense spending and capabilities will not radically change the equation for U.S. defense planners.
What it will do is enable the Pentagon to continue shifting its focus toward deterring China, especially in terms of how it thinks about posturing its air and maritime forces, and its high-value assets.
Longer-term, a more capable and resilient European pillar within NATO would be better able to deter and, if necessary, defeat Russia without needing as much American support, Black said. This would reduce the risk that the U.S. might be pulled into a global conflict involving simultaneous threats from Russia, China and Iran in different parts of the world.
That said, not all experts are convinced that drawing clear lines between European and Indo-Pacific allies' security responsibilities is the best way forward. They argue that such an approach would fail to utilize the force-multiplying power of allies working across regions.
'The U.S. would be stronger making its allies work cross-regionally rather than in a regionally-siloed way,' Grgic said. After all, Washington's rivals are 'connecting across theaters' as highlighted in the deepening cooperation between Russia and China and Russia and North Korea, she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump Administration Is Preparing to Challenge Budget Law, U.S. Officials Say
The Trump administration is preparing to test a 1974 budget law by refusing to spend congressionally mandated funds, senior federal officials say – an escalation that could change the balance of power between Congress and the White House. In both internal communications and interviews, more than two dozen current and former employees across multiple agencies said the administration appears to be readying to push the boundaries of the law meant to prevent the president from unilaterally overturning spending decisions made by Congress. Key White House aides have long argued that the law is an unconstitutional limit on presidential power and suggested that they will seek court rulings to overturn it, which could allow the White House to determine which spending to carry out. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has issued two rulings that funds have been illegally withheld already, and congressional Democrats have said a far wider scope of funding freezes has broken the budget law. Although the White House denies that any funds have been 'impounded' so far, officials at a half-dozen agencies expressed alarm to The Washington Post over how the disbursement of funds has slowed, stopped or been delayed – often, they say, with little clear legal justification. The scale of canceled or withheld funds remains opaque. Deadlines in the coming weeks will clarify how much the administration wants to test the law, enacted in 1974 after President Richard M. Nixon's Watergate scandal. White House officials are planning to 'defer' roughly 200 separate accounts across the federal government, according to two people familiar with the matter, who, like many others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. These delays, which would affect billions of dollars at a wide range of U.S. agencies, probably would be illegal if they prevent the funds from being spent before this fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, the people said. Interviews with federal workers show that a wide spectrum of government spending has already been stalled. Major scientific research grants have been terminated without public notice in recent weeks. At one federal agency, staff were told – via a directive that took effect on a Sunday – that almost all contracts over $250,000 no longer could be signed. At the General Services Administration, which manages federal real estate, the Trump administration is trying to cut costs by rejecting many agencies' requests for facilities repairs paid for by those agencies. In some instances, officials say it's unclear whether the budget law has been violated already or is merely on track to be breached – but the rejections have provoked internal alarm about their legality either way. The administration still could disburse money for many stalled programs before the end of the fiscal year. Rachel Cauley, a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, said in a statement that while they have not happened thus far, 'impoundments remain an option at the president's disposal.' Though billionaire Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service drew significant attention for its speedy cuts, Russell Vought, President Donald Trump's budget director, is expected to be key to the coming fight over spending. Vought has spearheaded the administration's campaign to assert sweeping executive power over spending, arguing that the Impoundment Control Act, the law at issue now, is unconstitutional. The Trump administration has justified its cost-cutting measures by pointing out that the United States is $36 trillion in debt, although the type of funding that officials have targeted represents a small fraction of the overall budget. 'We are seeing multiple major, major violations of the budget law,' said G. William Hoagland, who served as a GOP aide to the Senate Budget Committee and is now at the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center. 'I think this is on its way to becoming a really big issue. This is going to blow up more than the administration can imagine.' Health officials say funding has been 'vaporized' The frozen spending is most visible in the research community, where science and health funding has ground to a halt with little public explanation. In one example, the U.S. DOGE Service has failed to post dozens of planned funding opportunities since it took control of a key federal grants website in April, according to two people familiar with the process. Agencies were previously able to post notices of funding opportunities (NOFOs) directly to but DOGE now requires them to submit through a centralized mailbox it controls. The new process has created a bottleneck for agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that seek to award grants. The Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, is waiting for the federal government to post at least 30 planned funding opportunities that encompass tens of millions of dollars in congressionally appropriated funds for health and elder care initiatives – including $8 million for Holocaust survivor support and $6 million for Alzheimer's caregiver assistance – risking their expiration within the fiscal year. The backlog has alarmed career officials who warn that it could amount to illegal impoundment of funds. Major funding agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, have been mired in dysfunction that has slowed the routine work of awarding new grants and sending billions in funding, appropriated by Congress, to researchers and projects across the country. In a federal lawsuit filed last month in Rhode Island, 20 states sued HHS, seeking an injunction 'to prevent the unconstitutional dismantling of this vital department.' The states alleged that a reduction in force that laid off 10,000 employees in April was 'terminating the people necessary for [HHS] to meet its own mandates, and paralyzing it by means of a confusing reorganization.' The suit called the job cuts 'an unlawful effort to undercut the will of Congress who ordered the agencies and programs to run.' Since Trump's inauguration, the National Science Foundation has awarded about half as many grants as it did in the same period in 2024, according to a Post analysis of the NSF database. The agency has terminated about 1,700 grants in the past few weeks and slowed new funding to a trickle, according to public records, internal data obtained by The Post and an employee familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. So far this year, the agency has received only $6.5 billion of the congressionally appropriated $9 billion that it is supposed to spend on research, according to the employee and the records. No money at all has gone into a 'facilities' spending account that is supposed to contain $230 million for fiscal 2025, the employee said and the records show. Because of the halt in funding, new research in areas including environmental science and neuroscience is not getting underway, the employee said. The agency is also mostly not giving out awards this year, the employee said. The Office of the Director will not 'release money into our accounts to do anything,' the employee said. 'Essentially, money has been vaporized.' At NIH, the agency will end the fiscal year on Sept. 30 with unspent funds unless it starts awarding new grants much faster, according to Jeremy Berg, a former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, who has been closely tracking spending. Berg recently shared his analysis with NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, urging him to 'do your job … to make sure that these appropriated funds are committed through approved processes by the end of the fiscal year in September.' Bhattacharya replied, 'Contrary to the assertion you make in the letter, my job is to make sure that the NIH spends the money that the American people have entrusted us with on projects that advance the health and longevity of the American people.' He said he was preventing funds from being spent on 'ideological boondoggles' and dangerous research. Spokespeople for NIH and NSF declined to comment. Agency officials warn of illegal fund cancellations At the Army Corps of Engineers, a different kind of freeze has emerged. In June, employees were told that, effective immediately, they could no longer award most 'noncommercial' contracts above $250,000 – thanks to an April executive order titled 'Ensuring Commercial, Cost-Effective Solutions in Federal Contracts.' The result, staff say, is halted surveys, delayed sediment analysis and stalled construction. 'It feels like temporary impoundment,' one Corps employee said. (An impoundment is the unilateral cancellation of government funds.) In March, that same employee escalated concerns internally, asking whether repeated contract halts might count as impoundment. In a subsequent meeting, government attorneys told the employee that it was ultimately 'up to the courts' to determine whether the situation constituted a violation – but that civil servants following guidance would not be liable. If uncomfortable, they advised, the employee could ask to have the task reassigned. A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers said that it was following guidance related to an executive order on procurement and that it is 'committed to continuing to deliver its mission for the American people in accordance with the administration's policies and priorities.' Meanwhile, the GSA is also refusing or interminably slow-walking requests from agencies to repair their facilities, three employees there said. Only requests for work projects that directly service one of three goals – Trump's return-to-office plans, 'safety/emergency' or 'national security' – are being allowed to go forward, the three people said. The restrictions have been in place for at least a few weeks, the employees said. The new rules are being enforced by the Office of Management and Budget, one of the employees said. What the new OMB policy means in practice, one of the employees said, is that basic jobs are stalled, with unclear legal justification. 'If an agency has funding in their budget to renovate an office because it's old, or buy new furniture or something, OMB is telling GSA not to accept the money,' the employee said. 'This is likely a violation of the law, if those funds were appropriated by Congress.' A spokesperson for GSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Targeting the enforcer For government officials who believe the administration is illegally withholding or canceling funds, the main recourse is to report violations to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. The GAO – an arm of Congress – has already opened more than three dozen inquiries into potential White House violations of federal budget law. But that avenue is also under threat. On Monday, House Republicans unveiled a new spending proposal for next year that would cut the GAO's budget and bar it from suing the federal government over canceled appropriations, effectively removing one of the few independent bodies capable of enforcing budget law if it's enacted. The Trump administration has asked Congress for approval to cancel roughly $9 billion in spending – including funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. The House has signed off, but if the request doesn't pass the Senate, officials have signaled they may use a novel legal tactic to let the funds expire at the end of the fiscal year. Still, scholars on both the right and left say the administration could persuade the Supreme Court to side with it, further expanding presidential authority over federal spending. 'I've spent a fair amount of time talking with government employees, and it's just utter chaos,' said Richard Pierce, an administrative law professor at George Washington University. As for how the courts will rule, he added: 'I'm not willing to predict a result. I can see it going either way.' To some experts, however, the stakes are clear. 'The administration appears to be preparing to run the clock out,' said Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'To me, it's clearly a violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It's fundamental to the way the government is supposed to operate.'
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Japan Times
U.S. judge rules for Meta in AI training copyright case but says it isn't lawful
A U.S. judge on Wednesday handed Meta a victory over authors who accused the technology giant of violating copyright law by training Llama artificial intelligence on their creations without permission. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco ruled that Meta's use of the works to train its AI model was "transformative" enough to constitute "fair use" under copyright law, in the second such courtroom triumph for AI firms this week. However, it came with a caveat that the authors could have pitched a winning argument — that by training powerful generative AI with copyrighted works, technology firms are creating a tool that could let a sea of users compete with them in the literary marketplace. "No matter how transformative (generative AI) training may be, it's hard to imagine that it can be fair use to use copyrighted books to develop a tool to make billions or trillions of dollars while enabling the creation of a potentially endless stream of competing works that could significantly harm the market for those books," Chhabria said in his ruling. Tremendous amounts of data are needed to train the large language models that power generative AI. Musicians, book authors, visual artists and news publications have sued various AI companies that used their data without permission or payment. AI companies generally defend their practices by claiming fair use, arguing that training AI on large datasets fundamentally transforms the original content and is necessary for innovation. "We appreciate today's decision from the court," a Meta spokesperson said in response to an inquiry. "Open-source AI models are powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and fair use of copyright material is a vital legal framework for building this transformative technology." In the case before Chhabria, a group of authors sued Meta for downloading pirated copies of their works and using them to train the open-source Llama generative AI, according to court documents. Books involved in the suit include Sarah Silverman's comic memoir "The Bedwetter" and Junot Diaz's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel "The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao," the documents showed. "This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta's use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful," the judge stated. "It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one." A different federal judge in San Franciso on Monday sided with AI firm Anthropic regarding training its models on copyrighted books without authors' permission. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that the company's training of its Claude AI models with books bought or pirated was allowed under the "fair use" doctrine in the U.S. Copyright Act. "Use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use," Alsup wrote in his decision. "The technology at issue was among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes," Alsup added in his decision, comparing AI training to how humans learn by reading books. The ruling stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson, who accused Anthropic of illegally copying their books to train chatbot Claude, the company's ChatGPT rival. Alsup rejected Anthropic's bid for blanket protection, ruling that the company's practice of downloading millions of pirated books to build a permanent digital library was not justified by fair use protections.
Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
HUD to Move to Virginia as Trump Seeks to ‘Rightsize' Federal Presence in D.C.
The Trump administration announced on Wednesday that the Department of Housing and Urban Development will be the first major federal agency to relocate its headquarters outside of D.C., part of a larger plan to restructure the federal government's real estate footprint. HUD Secretary Scott Turner, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) and Michael Peters, commissioner of the General Services Administration's Public Buildings Service, said at a news conference that the agency will move 2,700 workers from a building in such a state of disrepair that the ceiling appears to be crumbling to a more modern building in the city of Alexandria. While it's just across the Potomac River from D.C., the move could help Youngkin and his Republican allies portray Trump's actions as an economic boon to Virginia in advance of the swing state's race for governor this year and the 2026 congressional races. 'At every turn, this commonwealth has proven that we are strong, we are dynamic and we are winning,' Youngkin said, delivering a campaign-style speech at the news conference, where he was later presented with a 'HUD ♥ Virginia' sign. But some prominent Virginia economists expect that Trump's broader actions to slash the federal workforce and government contracting will ultimately cost the state jobs overall. The decision to move HUD to a building that already houses the National Science Foundation – displacing about 1,800 workers without a clear plan for where they will end up – also drew attention to the ways deep federal spending cuts have undermined federal research while upending the capital region's economy. 'This callous disregard for taxpayer dollars and NSF employees comes after the Administration already cut NSF's budget, staff and science grants and forced NSF employees back into the office,' the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 3403, which represents many of those NSF employees, said in a statement. The White House has indicated a desire to move federal agencies away from the District, and Trump set an April deadline for proposals to relocate federal agencies to 'less-costly parts of the country.' Peters said the HUD relocation is part of the administration's efforts to 'rightsize' the federal workforce and save money for the taxpayer, including about $500 million in deferred maintenance on the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building, built in 1968, that currently hosts the agency's headquarters near L'Enfant Plaza in D.C. Turner made it an early priority to relocate HUD's headquarters, which many career staffers agreed were in need of major repairs. Multiple buildings were under consideration over the past few months, including a space in the District previously occupied by the U.S. Agency for International Development, and others in Virginia, according to staff. Turner prioritized new, updated spaces and seemed less keen on making repairs to the existing building in downtown D.C. 'We were very deliberate and very serious about our search,' Turner said Wednesday. Still, news of the switch to the NSF building came as a surprise to HUD staffers when it began disseminating the information Tuesday night. At the standing-room-only announcement Wednesday, a video presentation showed broken elevators and other areas in disrepair at the agency's current headquarters, set against pristine, bright angles of the new location. Officials touted a 'new golden age of HUD,' saying the move would save hundreds of millions of dollars and reinvigorate the department. Turner also said during a staff meeting earlier Wednesday that 'the Weaver Building is not decent, it's not safe, it is not sanitary' – a reference to housing standards set by Congress. At one point, he said he was nearly hit in the head when a brick fell from the ceiling in his office. 'But thank God, by his grace, I'm still standing with you today,' he said, according to a recording of the session obtained by The Washington Post. The move will displace the NSF, which has faced massive spending cuts under the Trump administration. Administration officials on Wednesday did not say where NSF workers would end up, but Peters said the search for a new location would aim to minimize disruption to those employees' lives and work. There's broad agreement that HUD's office is in need of repairs, and staffers aren't uniformly opposed to moving. But multiple employees expressed concerns about what the move would mean for NSF staff and said HUD's announcement was thin on details, including a concrete timeline. The frustration added to broader discontent at HUD, the backbone of the federal government's housing policy. Since Trump's inauguration, the department has sought to slash funding for fair-housing efforts, rental assistance, housing vouchers and homelessness prevention. So many staffers took the second-round buyout offer that officials are trying to get people to voluntarily move into vacant roles. The anger among NSF workers was on display after the announcement, when Turner visited the building and was greeted by chants of 'We won't go' by staff members. The AFGE local said that it had not been briefed on the relocation but that its members had heard that the plan included a private elevator, multiple parking spaces and a personal gym for the HUD secretary. The union accused Turner of prioritizing his own comfort over responsible government spending. On Wednesday, Turner dismissed those allegations as 'ridiculous' and 'not true.' 'I didn't come to government to get nice things,' he said. 'This is about HUD employees, to have a safe place, a nice place to work.' The move could be a loss for D.C. – although city leaders have also been exploring whether the disposal of certain federal buildings could pose real estate opportunities for the city. Even before Trump's election, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) had long advocated for federal employees to return to the office to bring more foot traffic – and sales tax revenue – back to the sleepier downtown. She traveled to Mar-a-Lago in December to speak with Trump about the federal workforce and government buildings. Bowser also urged the federal government to turn over any underused federal office space to the District so the city could do something different with it. But after the Trump administration began massive federal job cuts, and later announced a long list of federal buildings that could be disposed of, D.C. officials were worried that a problem with downtown office vacancies would be exacerbated. It was unclear Wednesday what will happen with the Weaver Building once it is vacated. The District is expected to lose 40,000 jobs due to the job cuts, leading its chief financial officer to project a roughly $1 billion deficit over the next several years. D.C. economic development officials are advocating for a more strategic partnership with the Trump administration to identify smaller-scale real estate opportunities that could benefit both D.C. and the federal government. For example, not far from HUD, both federal and local officials have focused on a cluster of underused federal buildings – including offices for the Departments of Energy and Agriculture – just blocks from the National Mall. While federal officials are reviewing a potential downsize, city officials have said they see an opportunity to turn the federal fortress into a lively new neighborhood between the Mall and the Wharf. 'We all want a strong and beautiful Nation's Capital – but that requires a committed federal partner,' Nina Albert, the city's deputy mayor for planning and economic development, said in a statement. 'We call on our federal partners to engage with us on a comprehensive strategy that pauses the relocation of agencies and plans for moves that maximize the benefit to both the federal government and the District.' For Virginia, the Trump administration's efforts to slash, remake and relocate big chunks of the federal government are playing out as voters prepare to choose a new governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and all 100 members of the House of Delegates in November. Democrats, led by gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger, hope to capitalize on the upheaval that they say could cripple the state's economy. The term-limited Youngkin and the Republican who hopes to succeed him, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, are on a trickier path as they stand with Trump and portray the cuts as short-term pain to get the nation's finances in order. Youngkin in particular has sought to cast the changes as an opportunity for Virginia. Youngkin fully embraced Trump last year as the governor abandoned a long-teased presidential bid and set his sights on 2028. He cast HUD's decision as confirmation that by cutting taxes and reducing regulations, he has led purple Virginia to new heights as blue neighbors decline. The governor noted that bond-rating agencies had just affirmed Virginia's sterling triple-A rating while D.C.'s and Maryland's were downgraded by Moody's. 'Virginia continues to be a magnet, a magnet welcoming opportunity wherever it presents itself,' Youngkin said, adding that his administration is searching for an alternative site to house the NSF. Peters appeared to support that effort, saying, 'If I were a betting man, I would bet that they end up in Virginia.' Youngkin also used the news conference as an opportunity to seize another potential economic windfall from the Trump administration. When asked about Trump's decision to pause a plan to move the new FBI headquarters out of D.C. to Prince George's County, Maryland, the governor said he would continue to pitch his state as an option. 'I would love the opportunity to present Virginia as the home for FBI headquarters,' he said. Terry Rephann, regional economist for the University of Virginia's Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, said Virginia has not been enjoying as much economic success as Youngkin claims. The center projects that 18,000 federal job losses will occur in Virginia, on top of thousands of layoffs at government contractors such as McLean-based Booz Allen Hamilton, which in May announced plans to cut 2,500 jobs. Moreover, FBI leadership is pushing to move one of the bureau's elite training academies from Quantico, Virginia, to Huntsville, Alabama, The Post reported this month. 'The planned HUD relocation would only claw back a small portion of the anticipated losses, so it's still a net deficit situation,' Rephann said. 'When the governor says we'll come out a winner in this … I really don't see what data he has to support that.' Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott A. Surovell (D-Fairfax) accused Youngkin of ignoring warning signs for the state's economy, including a 40 percent surge in year-over-year home listings in the D.C. region and five straight months of rising Virginia unemployment. (The state's unemployment rate in May was 3.4 percent, still below the national average of 4.2 percent.) 'All we hear from this administration is happy talk, cherry-picked statistics and theme-branded press events where he won't answer real questions,' Surovell said. Alexandria Mayor Alyia Gaskins (D) said the HUD move will boost the city's economy. Officials have for years been struggling to increase commercial and office uses, in part to allow them to ease residents' growing tax burden. The city was not involved in discussions to bring HUD to Alexandria, a city of about 160,000 people that is also home to 10 other properties that include federal office space. But city officials are hopeful that the NSF will remain in Alexandria as well. 'If we have those [HUD] jobs, in addition to keeping those jobs at NSF,' Gaskins said, 'this is a win that recognizes and is a testament to the investments we've put into making this a great city to work, and to live and to do business.'
