
The success of a key NATO summit is in doubt after Spain rejects a big hike in defense spending
BRUSSELS (AP) — The success of a key NATO summit hung in the balance on Friday, after Spain announced that it cannot raise the billions of dollars needed to meet a new defense investment pledge demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Trump and his NATO counterparts are meeting for two days in the Netherlands from next Tuesday. He insists that U.S. allies should commit to spending at least 5% of gross domestic product, but that requires investment at an unprecedented scale.
Trump has cast doubt over whether the U.S. would defend allies that spend too little.
Setting the spending goal would be a historic decision. It would see all 32 countries invest the same amount in defense for the first time. Only last week, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte expressed confidence that they would endorse it.
But in a letter to Rutte on Thursday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez wrote that 'committing to a 5% target would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive.'
'It would move Spain away from optimal spending and it would hinder the (European Union's) ongoing efforts to strengthen its security and defense ecosystem,' Sánchez wrote in the letter, seen by The Associated Press.
Spain is not entirely alone
Belgium, Canada, France and Italy would also struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars, but Spain is the only country to officially announce its intentions, making it hard to row back from such a public decision.
Beyond his economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern, and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He's under growing pressure to call an early election.
In response to the letter, Rutte's office said only that 'discussions among allies on a new defense investment plan are ongoing.' NATO's top civilian official had been due to table a new proposal on Friday to try to break the deadlock.
The U.S. and French envoys had also been due to update reporters about the latest developments ahead of the summit but postponed their briefings.
Rutte and many European allies are desperate to resolve the problem by Tuesday so that Trump does not derail the summit, as he did during his first term at NATO headquarters in 2018.
Budget boosting
After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO allies agreed that 2% of GDP should be the minimum they spend on their military budgets. But NATO's new plans for defending its own territory against outside attack require investment of at least 3%. Spain agreed to those plans in 2023.
The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP. A further 1.5% would go to upgrade roads, bridges, ports and airfields so that armies can better deploy, and to prepare societies for future attacks.
Mathematically, 3.5 plus 1.5 equals Trump's 5%. But a lot is hiding behind the figures and details of what kinds of things can be included remain cloudy.
Countries closest to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine have all agreed to the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the June 24-25 summit.
The Netherlands estimates that NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion).
Supplying arms and ammunition to Ukraine, which Spain does, will also be included as core defense spending.
NATO estimates that the U.S. spent around 3.2% of GDP on defense last year.
Dual use, making warfighting possible
The additional 1.5% spending basket is murkier. Rutte and many members argue that infrastructure used to deploy armies to the front must be included, as well as building up defense industries and preparing citizens for possible attacks.
'If a tank is not able to cross a bridge. If our societies are not prepared in case war breaks out for a whole of society approach. If we are not able to really develop the defense industrial base, then the 3.5% is great but you cannot really defend yourselves,' Rutte said this month.
Spain wanted climate change spending included, but that proposal was rejected. Cyber-security and counter-hybrid warfare investment should also make the cut. Yet with all the conjecture about what might be included, it's difficult to see how Rutte arrived at this 1.5% figure.
The when, the how, and a cunning plan
It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit the 2% target, although most will this year, and they had a decade to get there. So an incentive is required.
The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That's far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate that Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within 5-10 years.
The U.S. insists that it cannot be an open-ended pledge, and that a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target.
Another issue is how fast spending should be ramped up. 'I have a cunning plan for that,' Rutte said. He wants the allies to submit annual plans that lay out how much they intend to increase spending by.
The reasons for the spending hike
For Europe, Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat. A major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents is blamed on Moscow. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more.
The United States also insists that China poses a threat. But for European people to back a hike in national defense spending, their governments require acknowledgement that the Kremlin remains NATO's biggest security challenge.
The billions required for security will be raised by taxes, going into debt, or shuffling money from other budgets. But it won't be easy for many, as Spain has shown.
On top of that, Trump has made things economically tougher by launching a global tariff war — ostensibly for U.S. national security reasons — something America's allies find hard to fathom.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Winnipeg Free Press
19 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Judge rules Trump administration can't require states to help on immigration to get transport money
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in transportation funds from states that don't agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions. Twenty states sued after they said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding to states that refused to comply with President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. barred federal transportation officials from carrying out that threat before the lawsuit is fully resolved. 'The Court finds that the States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions imposed in order to receive federal transportation grant funds,' wrote McConnell, the chief judge for the federal district of Rhode island. 'The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects.' On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent. Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called 'Duffy Directive' put them in an impossible position. 'The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants' willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs — or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,' the attorneys general wrote in court documents. But acting Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states, and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn't cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed. But requiring the federal government to release the money to uncooperative states will likely make it impossible to recoup later, if the Department of Transportation wins the case, Bloom said.


Edmonton Journal
20 minutes ago
- Edmonton Journal
ICE agents asked to leave Dodger Stadium parking lot, team says
Article content The Dodgers had been expected to issue a statement of support toward Los Angeles-area communities affected by immigration enforcement, but no statement had been released by 5 p.m. Thursday. 'Because of the events earlier today, we continue to work with groups that were involved with our programs,' Dodgers President Stan Kasten told a small group of reporters. 'But we are going to have to delay today's announcement while we firm up some more details.' The Trump administration has activated more than 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines over the objections of city and state leaders. Dozens of troops now guard federal buildings and protect federal agents making arrests. The demonstrations have been mostly concentrated downtown in the city of around 4 million people. Thousands of people have peacefully rallied outside City Hall and hundreds more protested outside a federal complex that includes a detention center where some immigrants are being held following workplace raids. Despite the protests, immigration enforcement activity has continued throughout the county, with city leaders and community groups reporting ICE present at libraries, car washes and Home Depots. School graduations in Los Angeles have increased security over fears of ICE action and some have offered parents the option to watch on Zoom.


Cision Canada
29 minutes ago
- Cision Canada
Statement from the Commissioner of Official Languages on the coming into force of changes to increase the language requirements for supervisory positions and on the right of federal public servants to work in the official language of their choice Français
GATINEAU, QC, June 20, 2025 /CNW/ - Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada Raymond Théberge made the following statement today regarding the coming into force of changes to increase the language requirements for supervisory positions and on the right of all federal public servants who work in designated bilingual regions to work in the official language of their choice: "I'm very pleased that amendments to the Official Languages Act have come into force that now confirm federal public servants' right to work in the official language of their choice in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes, regardless of the linguistic identification of their position. This means that even federal public servants who are in a unilingual position identified as English Essential or French Essential still have the right to be supervised in the official language of their choice. "In another highly anticipated change, effective today, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat has raised the language requirements for bilingual positions that involve supervising staff in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes. The minimum second language proficiency level for these positions has been raised from BBB to CBC. "My predecessors and I have made repeated recommendations on the need to raise the minimum bilingualism requirements for supervisors and to strengthen the language rights of all federal public servants in designated bilingual regions. After all these years, these are two major gains in terms of recognizing public servants' language-of-work rights. "That said, I'm still concerned about what might happen to employees who are supervised by incumbents of unilingual supervisory positions or by incumbents of bilingual positions who do not meet the CBC second-language requirement. It's important to note that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is leaving it up to federal institutions to identify and implement administrative measures to protect public servants' language-of-work rights. "In my 2024–2025 annual report, which I tabled in Parliament earlier this week, I've recommended that by September 30, 2026, the President of the Treasury Board implement a monitoring mechanism for federal institutions to ensure that they take and maintain measures to protect the language rights of public employees in designated bilingual regions who are supervised by incumbents of unilingual positions or by incumbents of bilingual positions who do not meet the CBC second-language requirements. "I'd also like to mention that many public servants are still reluctant to file a complaint when their language rights are infringed for fear of damaging their work relationships. We therefore need to continue to monitor the situation closely to ensure that these new changes are fully implemented throughout the federal public service. I'm counting on all public service executives and managers to make the necessary changes and help to ensure full respect for their employees' language rights."