GOP Senator: Congress Must Hold NATO to Its 5 Percent Defense Spending Commitment
At the end of the day, though, an alliance is just a promise—built on mutual trust—stating that we won't leave each other to fight threats alone. An alliance will only deter threats if our adversaries sincerely believe that we will all stick together no matter what. If an alliance has loopholes, it's not really an alliance at all.
That's why some of the fine print in NATO's latest defense spending commitment is so concerning. On the surface, it appeared as though every member of NATO agreed to increase its defense spending to 5 percent of its GDP by 2035—and I'm confident that many of our allies intend to do just that.
A NATO flag is pictured.
A NATO flag is pictured.
MATEUSZ SLODKOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images
But some of our friends in NATO have already begun to weasel their way out of this commitment.
Spain, for example, has flat-out refused to spend 5 percent on defense. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez told NATO officials that Spain would only spend 2.1 percent on defense, adding, "It is the legitimate right of every government to decide whether or not they are willing to make those sacrifices."
To clarify: Sánchez expects the American people to make sacrifices to contribute to our shared defense, but he doesn't want anyone in Spain to miss a single siesta for the cause. Does that sound like someone who would ride with you into battle?
Still, NATO exempted Spain and made the 5 percent defense spending requirement optional for each country, turning its commitment into a wish list.
The Spanish carveout isn't the only crack in NATO's commitment. Under the new agreement, only 3.5 percent of each country's spending needs to contribute to core defense needs, such as military, ammunition, and other standard warfighting needs. The remaining 1.5 percent of spending can be applied to almost anything the country can claim is beneficial to its defense.
Italy, for example, is already planning to include a €13.5 billion bridge to Sicily as part of its 1.5 percent defense spending. The Italian government has long viewed the bridge, which would be the world's largest suspension bridge, as a possible economic driver. Under NATO's flimsy language, though, the bridge may count as defense infrastructure.
This wouldn't be the first time our NATO friends skirted their defense responsibilities. In 2006, NATO agreed to have each member spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense. Only three members of the alliance had hit the spending goal by 2014, the same year that Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. Putin's aggression prompted NATO to reaffirm its 2 percent defense spending goal in 2014. By 2022, only seven members of NATO had reached 2 percent, and, once again, Putin invaded Ukraine in a war that continues today.
That should have been the final wake-up call our NATO friends needed to meet their 2 percent spending pledge. Still, NATO's latest numbers show that eight members, including Canada, Italy, and Spain, have not met the 2 percent spending goal. Yet we are supposed to believe they'll hit 5 percent defense spending by 2035.
Friends tell friends the truth. When they don't, friendships fall apart—and our adversaries take note.
Today, I am introducing a resolution to commend our NATO allies who agreed to increase their defense spending to 5 percent and to strongly urge every member of NATO to follow through with this commitment sincerely. If we want to deter our adversaries, we need real investments in our defense, not bridges that have little, if anything, to do with national security.
NATO is one of the greatest defensive alliances in all of human history, but these loopholes make us weaker. The world needs to know we have each other's backs, and that starts by putting your money where your mouth is.
Senator John Kennedy is a Republican senator from Louisiana.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
25 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump raises tariffs on India to 50 percent
Advertisement 'India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits,' he posted on his social media platform Monday. 'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA.' US companies have scrambled to avoid the new costs of import taxes. Apple on Wednesday afternoon announced a fresh $100 billion investment in domestic manufacturing in an attempt to divert production of critical components for data centers and consumer electronics away from countries targeted by Trump's trade war. The company had already shifted some production of iPhones destined for US markets from China to India. Advertisement Trump has long held that imposing taxes on trade will improve the nation's grim finances and rebalance relationships with foreign nations that he says are taking advantage of the US. He has also used tariffs in recent weeks to try to accomplish foreign policy objectives, dangling threats of new trade barriers to stop skirmishes between Thailand and Cambodia. But consumers often ultimately pay for tariffs through higher prices, even if some of the costs are spread throughout the supply chain. And there are many nations with which the US must trade to secure goods that can't be made or grown at home. Some economists worry that Trump's new trade policy could cause the economy to shrink and rupture certain alliances that domestic producers have relied upon to manufacture cheap goods. Randhir Jaiswal, a spokesman for India's Ministry of External Affairs, wrote in a social media post Wednesday that it was 'extremely unfortunate that the U.S. should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their own national interest.' He added that India believes 'these actions are unfair, unjustified and unreasonable,' and that purchases of Russian oil were 'based on market factors.' India is the United States' 12th-largest trading partner; the two countries have exchanged $78.4 billion in goods from Jan. 1 through June, according to federal data. India also has an informal economic alliance with Russia as part of the BRICS bloc of nations, a group that also includes Brazil, China, and South Africa. Those nations have brought some of Trump's most difficult negotiations over tariffs. The White House has announced frameworks of trade deals with close to a dozen of the country's largest commercial partners. But the administration does not have an arrangement with China, instead extending a temporary truce as talks continue. And Trump imposed 50 percent tariffs on Brazil over the country's anti-corruption investigation into former president Jair Bolsonaro, a close ally of Trump's. Advertisement Trump and Indian Prime Minister Nerendra Modi appeared in recent weeks to be close to their own agreement, but divisions remain on barriers surrounding US agricultural and dairy exports and India's relationship with Russia. New Delhi watchers had hoped that Trump's relationship with Modi would clear remaining obstacles to that deal. Trump in his first term hosted a massive 'Howdy Modi!' rally for the Indian leader in Houston. Modi in 2020 reciprocated with a 'Namaste Trump' rally in Ahmedabad, India. Under former president Joe Biden, the US government was more economically lenient toward India than other nations that maintained ties with Russia after the invasion of Ukraine, and the two nations have worked closely to counter Chinese influence in parts of Asia. Modi was one of the first foreign leaders to visit Trump, announcing plans for new defense and energy partnerships. In June, Trump accepted an invitation from the prime minister to visit India for the next summit of Quad leaders, a four-nation security group comprising the United States, India, Australia, and Japan. But recently Trump has sought deeper ties with Pakistan, India's top rival, even attempting — via social media — to broker a solution between the two countries on the long-disputed Kashmir region. 'The good news is we do have some level of reservoir of goodwill that we've built up, but we are spending that rapidly right now, with the day-to-day antagonism of India, which appears to be focused mainly on getting this trade agreement across the finish line,' said Richard Rossow, the chair on India and emerging Asia economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Advertisement Trump's stance on Russian oil puts New Delhi in a predicament. India has been the top buyer of Russian crude oil since 2023, importing 89 million tons last year, according to data compiled by the shipping data tracking company Kpler. Russian crude accounts for 38 percent of India's oil imports, Kpler data showed. 'I don't care what India does with Russia,' Trump posted on Truth Social last week. 'They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.' India also receives 36 percent of its military arms imports from Russia, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, though that dipped from 72 percent between 2010 to 2014.
New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
GOP Sen. Tom Cotton questions new Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan over alleged ties to Chinese military
A top Republican senator demanded new Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan reveal if he has any ties to China's Communist Party and military – citing national security concerns. In a letter sent Wednesday to Intel Chairman Frank Leary, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) wrote that he is concerned 'about the security and integrity of Intel's operations and its potential impact on US national security,' according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Post. Tan replaced ousted Intel chief Pat Gelsinger in March — a year after the struggling company was awarded a whopping $8 billion in Biden-era CHIPs Act funding. Advertisement 3 Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan speaking on stage in Taiwan in May. REUTERS Cotton's missive came after a report earlier this year claimed Tan invested at least $200 million across hundreds of Chinese firms between March 2012 and December 2024. Some of these advanced manufacturing and semiconductor firms have been linked to the Chinese Communist Party and military, Reuters reported in April. Advertisement In his letter, Cotton questioned whether the board had required Tan to divest from these stakes before assuming the CEO role. The senator asked whether Tan had disclosed his remaining investments to the US government, since Intel has a responsibility as a major recipient of federal funding. He also demanded to know whether the board was aware of subpoenas targeting Cadence Design – which Tan ran from 2008 to 2021 – before it hired him. 'Intel and Mr. Tan are deeply committed to the national security of the United States and the integrity of our role in the US defense ecosystem,' an Intel spokesperson told The Post. Advertisement Intel added that it will address the matter with Cotton, who asked for responses by Aug. 15. 3 Sen. Tom Cotton sent a letter to Intel's chairman with concerns about Lip-Bu Tan's reported ties to China. 'Intel is required to be a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations,' Cotton wrote in the letter. 'Mr. Tan's associations raise questions about Intel's ability to fulfill these obligations.' Advertisement In 2024, Intel was awarded $8.5 billion in CHIPs funding under the Secure Enclave program, a national security initiative to make secure microchips for defense and intelligence applications. Later that year, the government slashed that figure by more than $600 million to about $7.85 billion. Intel still ranks as one of the top companies receiving the most federal funding. 3 Intel ranks as one of the top companies receiving the most federal funding. Getty Images A source familiar with the matter told Reuters in April that Tan had divested from his positions in Chinese firms. The outlet reported at the time that Chinese databases still listed many of his investments as current. While it is not illegal for US citizens to hold stakes in Chinese companies, there is a US Treasury list of banned Chinese firms. Reuters reported earlier this year that Tan was not invested directly in any company on that list. Meanwhile, Cadence Design last week agreed to plead guilty and pay more than $140 million to settle charges that it sold its chips to a Chinese military university, according to a Reuters report. Advertisement The institution was believed to be involved in simulating nuclear blasts, according to the report. Those sales took place under Tan's leadership at Cadence. After stepping down as CEO in 2021, Tan stayed on at Cadence as executive chairman through May 2023.
New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
‘Debanking' is an obscene abuse of government power
'Debanking' seems like something out of paranoid dystopian fiction, but this horrific abuse of government power is already all too real. We're almost glad the Biden crew deployed it against then-former-President Donald Trump in 2021: That not only ensures he's aware of this outrage; it points to how even the powerful are vulnerable. It's as simple as it is scary: Government regulators give a quiet nod to financial institutions that certain people or industries are to be 'unpersoned,' and pretty soon they get the same treatment as North Korean tyrants, terrorists or drug kingpins: locked out of the financial system, which means social death. The victim gets turned away at other banks, all with no way to appeal what's blandly painted as a 'business decision.' Just try life without any ready way to cash checks or pay bills, not even a debit card — nor, if you run a business, a line of credit to pay suppliers and meet payroll. The abuse apparently began under President Barack Obama, deployed against disfavored businesses such as gun manufacturers on the laughable ground that they posed a 'reputational risk'; it expanded under President Joe Biden to hit crypto and tech startups, as well as individuals whose opinions or political activity got labeled 'dangerous.' Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen calls it a 'privatized sanctions regime'; American victims apparently number in the thousands. In the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Trump was first personally dropped by Chase, then refused service by Bank of America. And First Lady Melania Trump reports that she and her son Barron were dropped by their bank. The good news is that Donald Trump is signing executive orders to crack down on the abuse and will surely sign legislation to prevent it. Banks have a duty to watch out for criminal abuse of their services, but forcing them to secretly enforce political insiders' ideological agenda is frighteningly totalitarian.
