Head of Nato suggests alliance should look to ‘equalise' US defence contribution
The head of Nato has piled further pressure on the UK to up defence spending, as he suggested members of the alliance should be looking to 'equalise' the US contribution.
Secretary-general Mark Rutte said allies will find themselves 'in great difficulty' in the coming years if they stick with the current 2% GDP alliance spending target.
The former Dutch prime minister is thought to be pushing for members to commit to spending 3.5% on the military, with a further 1.5% on defence-related measures.
America currently spends around 3.4% of its GDP on defence, and Nato members are expected to spend 2%.
Sir Keir Starmer has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament, a timetable which could stretch to 2034.
However, he and the Defence Secretary have already come under pressure to explain how the 3% target could be met.
Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, Mr Rutte said: 'The expectation is that on the European side of Nato and the Canadian side of Nato, if we think that we can keep ourselves safe sticking with the 2%, forget it.
'Yes, the next three to five years, but then we are in great difficulty. And the US rightly expects us to spend much more to defend ourselves with their help, but also to equalise, which is only fair with what the US is spending on defence.'
Leaders from Nato will meet in The Hague later this month, and Mr Rutte said a new 'investment plan' will be 'at the heart' of the summit.
Defence Secretary John Healey said on Tuesday the UK already 'makes a huge contribution to Nato' amid speculation about what the body will call for.
'Britain already makes a huge contribution to Nato,' he told reporters.
'We've published a defence review that has Nato at its heart and I'm announcing today the new spending in this Parliament, £4 billion, doubling the amount that we'll put into drones.
'We'll make a bigger contribution to Nato through that, and £1 billion over this Parliament to develop laser weapons, the first European nation in Nato to have laser weapons on our destroyers and then with our land forces.
'This is Britain leading in Nato, contributing more to Nato, just as we do, for instance, with our nuclear deterrent, the only country with a nuclear deterrent that commits it in full to other Nato nations.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Manitoba premier eyes northern development that could include a pipeline
WINNIPEG — Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew promoted his province Friday as the route for a future trade corridor, which could include a pipeline, in order to get goods from Western Canada to overseas markets. "The politics are (that) something needs to get built in Western Canada. I think everybody understands that," Kinew told a breakfast meeting of the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce. "And if you've been following the news, B. C.? Ontario? Maybe. We'll see. But Manitoba's open for business, and I think in time Manitoba will show itself as a path to getting natural resources to tidewater across Canada." The Alberta government has been pushing for a pipeline across northern British Columbia, but the idea is not supported by the B.C. government. Kinew said Manitoba is looking at boosting shipments through Hudson Bay, currently served by the Port of Churchill, which is ice-free for only a brief period every year. There have been calls for a second port on the bay, further south at Port Nelson, combined with more rail service and a pipeline, in order to boost exports to Europe and other destinations. Kinew said he's open to different options, but the private sector has to put forward ideas. A trade corridor could ship Manitoba's low-carbon hydroelectricity westward to the other Prairie provinces, he said. And a pipeline heading the other direction is a possibility. "What is the product that makes sense? Are we going to be looking at liquefaction and then maybe it's a (liquefied natural gas) thing?" Kinew told reporters after his speech. "Are we looking at oil and gas projects? Are we looking at something novel like green hydrogen or maybe a potash slurry? These are the things that we can signal to the private sector we're open to having a discussion about." Pipeline development in the north could face opposition from environmentalists and others. Much of the area near the coast of Hudson Bay is protected, including Wapusk National Park. Kinew also told the business crowd Friday his NDP government is finalizing a memorandum with British Columbia to cut trade barriers between the two provinces. Similar to a recent deal with Ontario, it's aimed at allowing more goods and services to flow freely. Kinew said it will give Manitobans access to another big Canadian market. Prime Minister Mark Carney has pledged to break down internal trade barriers by Canada Day, and Ontario, Nova Scotia and other provinces have been working on reciprocal agreements. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025 Steve Lambert, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants the Fed to Cut Interest Rates by a Full Point. That Normally Takes a Recession
President Donald Trump demanded the Federal Reserve lower its benchmark interest rate by an entire percentage point. The Fed, which operates independently of White House control, has resisted Trump's call to lower interest rates. Lower rates could boost the economy but risk igniting inflation. The Fed typically adjusts its interest rate a quarter point at a time: the last time it cut a full point was in March 2020 when the pandemic Donald Trump renewed his calls on the Federal Reserve to lower its benchmark interest rate Friday, and this time, he had a specific (and huge) ask in mind. In a series of social media posts Friday morning, Trump pointed to the economy's recent track record of solid job growth and cooling inflation, and taunted Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for not having lowered interest rates sooner. Trump said the central bank should lower its influential fed funds rate by "a full point," saying it would be economic "Rocket Fuel!"The Fed adjusts its fed funds rate, which influences borrowing costs on all kinds of loans, to keep inflation down and employment high. Fed officials have kept their rate higher than usual so far this year in an effort to push inflation down to its goal of a 2% annual rate. Officials said they are waiting to see what happens in the economy because they are concerned Trump's tariffs could push up prices and set off a fresh round of Fed's cautious approach has angered Trump, who wants rate cuts and the economic growth they could promote. A full percentage point cut would be a major move by the Fed and would bring the fed funds rate to a range of 3.25% to 3.5%, its lowest since September 2022. The Fed typically moves rates a quarter-point at a time. The last time the Fed cut rates an entire percentage point was March 2020, when it was evident that the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic would thrash the economy. Before that, the Fed cut an entire point in December 2008, during the Great Recession. The posts were the latest moves in Trump's pressure campaign to influence the Fed's decision-making about monetary policy. The central bank is designed to be insulated from politics, and Powell has said the Fed's decisions will be based only on economic considerations. Trump has repeatedly criticized Powell for not lowering interest rates, in contrast to the Fed's European counterpart. The European Central Bank has cut rates eight times since last June. The Fed cut rates three times over that time period, including a jumbo half-point cut in September, but has kept rates flat. Read the original article on Investopedia Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Team Trump's new ‘patriotism' tests for federal job-seekers shouldn't fly under the radar
About a month after Election Day 2024, it became clear that Donald Trump's team had embraced a problematic approach to new employee screenings. The New York Times, for example, reportedly spoke to several people involved in the hiring process for high-ranking positions who were asked whether they believed the 2020 election was stolen. The Wall Street Journal reported soon after that the Republican operation was imposing 'loyalty tests' on job applicants, even asking candidates about their views on NATO and tariffs for jobs that had nothing to do with international affairs or economic policymaking. Two weeks after Inauguration Day, The Washington Post reported on similar tests being applied to candidates for top national security positions, including questions about whether the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was secretly 'an inside job.' Against this backdrop Politico reported this week: As President Donald Trump moves to slash the size of the federal workforce, his administration unveiled a plan to ensure that any new hires are 'patriotic Americans' who vow to advance the president's policy priorities. The White House and the agency that serves as the government's human resources arm Thursday released directives for departments to use when recruiting employees in a memo that represents a dramatic shift in federal hiring procedures. At first blush, a story like this might seem dry and bureaucratic. The Office of Personnel Management last week issued a memo outlining the administration's detailed 'merit hiring plan,' and I can appreciate why this could come across as boring. It's not. Under the new policy, everyone seeking a job at the GS-5 pay-grade or above — a group that would include everyone from firefighters to food inspectors to air traffic controllers — will have to submit four essays as part of the application process. The essays are supposed to provide answers to specific questions: 'How has your commitment to the Constitution and the founding principles of the United States inspired you to pursue this role within the Federal government? Provide a concrete example from professional, academic, or personal experience.' 'In this role, how would you use your skills and experience to improve government efficiency and effectiveness? Provide specific examples where you improved processes, reduced costs, or improved outcomes.' 'How would you help advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.' 'How has a strong work ethic contributed to your professional, academic or personal achievements? Provide one or two specific examples, and explain how those qualities would enable you to serve effectively in this position.' Imagine people who are applying to be rangers at a national park being asked to write essays about how they'd 'advance' Trump's executive orders. Then imagine the president himself trying to write an essay about his 'commitment to the Constitution' — a document he's talked about 'terminating' in response to one of his election conspiracy theories. The goal, according to the memo, is to recruit 'patriotic Americans' with a 'commitment to American ideals,' which also sets a bar that the incumbent president would likely struggle to clear. In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, and Catherine Fisk, a professor of labor law at the same school, explained, 'The government can and should ensure that federal employees, from administrative assistants to air traffic controllers, have the skills and aptitude to do their jobs. But their views on the administration's policy priorities are irrelevant, as is their patriotism — however that is defined. Allowing someone in the government to screen applicants for patriotism is reminiscent of the loyalty oaths of the McCarthy era, which were arbitrarily applied to unfairly deny employment to many.' Chemerinsky and Fisk added, 'No modern presidential administration has undertaken such an effort to staff the entire government with political loyalists. It is plainly inconsistent with good government, with federal law and with the Constitution.' There was a time in the recent past that 'patriotism tests' for federal employees would've generated a significant controversy and an intense backlash. But in 2025, against a backdrop of countless other White House outrages, the OPM memo doesn't appear to have made much of a splash. This article was originally published on
