logo
NATO allies will pledge to hike defense spend – but will they deliver?

NATO allies will pledge to hike defense spend – but will they deliver?

CNBC3 hours ago

Fireworks could kick off during NATO's annual summit this week, as the U.S. pushes its allies to sharply increase their defense spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP).
The 5% figure is made up of 3.5% of GDP that should be spent on "pure" defense, with an extra 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence.
While some member states they're happy to hit that milestone, and some countries are not too far off that mark, others don't even meet the 2% threshold that was agreed over a decade ago. While they might pledge to increase defense spending, whether these promises materializes will be the key question.
Talk is cheap and timelines can be vague — but concerted action is what the U.S. and President Donald Trump, who's attending a NATO summit for the first time since 2019, will want to see.
"The U.S. is looking for everybody to say, 'Yeah, we mean it. We have a plan. 5% is real. We're going to get there'," Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said Wednesday.
"But one thing to watch for is if the messaging is actually on point. Some of the messaging from some of our European allies, at least when they back brief their own media and their own parliaments is, 'Yeah, 5% but it's really 3.5% and 1.5%, and that can be pretty much anything' ... So there's going to be a whittling down [of defense spending pledges] almost immediately," Volker noted at a CEPA briefing ahead of the NATO summit.
"And if that is over emphasized, you're going to have a clash with the U.S.," Volker added.
The stakes are high as allies meet in The Hague in the Netherlands on June 24-25, given ongoing conflict in Ukraine and war in the Middle East threatening to destabilize the global economy.
Defense analysts say this year's meeting could be the most consequential in the alliance's 77-year history, with the U.S.' spend-pushing heavily forewarned before the summit.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was emphatic as he said 5% "will happen" at a separate NATO gathering earlier this month, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also widely plugging that message to allies too.
Defense spending has been a thorny subject for NATO members for years, and a persistent source of annoyance and anger for Trump, who was demanding that allies double their spending goals from 2% to 4% of GDP all the way back in 2018.
NATO defense expenditure has nevertheless sharply picked up among NATO members since Trump was last in power.
Back then, and arguably at the height of the White House leader's irritation with the bloc, only six member states met the 2% target, including the U.S. Times have changed, however; by 2024, 23 members had reached the 2% threshold, according to NATO data.
While some greatly surpassed that target — such as Poland, Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece — major economies including Canada, Spain and Italy have lagged below the contribution threshold. No NATO member has so far reached the 5% spending objective, and some are highly likely to drag their feet when it comes to getting to that milestone now.
The U.K., Poland and Germany have already said they intend to increase defense spending to the requisite target, but their timeline is unclear. The UK is also reportedly trying to delay the spending rise among by three years, according to the i newspaper. CNBC has reached out to Downing Street for comment.
Spain and Italy are seen as major holdouts against the 5% target, after only committing to reach the 2% threshold in 2025. Canada meanwhile spent 1.3% of GDP on defense in 2024, NATO estimates suggest, even less than Italy, Portugal or Montenegro.
Spending 5% on defense is a target, but not a given, Jason Israel, senior fellow for the Defense Technology Initiative at CEPA, said Wednesday.
"Every single country ... is trying to figure out how they're going to thread that needle of being able to make the commitment, but also make the accounting work when every single nation has to make trade offs against what is generally unpopular, massive increases in defense spending," he noted, stressing it's a "long way from commitments ... to actual capability,"
European aerospace and defense companies are following NATO spending commentary and commitments closely, but say they're stuck in limbo between pledges and action by way of concrete government procurement.
The leaders of Leonardo, Embraer and Saab told CNBC last week the continent needs to act decisively and collectively to make long-term commitments to defense spending and investment contracts to enable companies like theirs to scale-up their production capacity and manufacturing capabilities.
"If we go for 3.5% [of pure defense spending] across the European part of NATO, that will mean a lot, and more will be needed in terms of capacity. But we need to understand the capability targets better," Micael Johansson, the chief executive of Swedish defense company Saab, told CNBC.
"We can do more, and I think we need to come together in Europe to create more scale, also in what we do to align demand, align requirements, so we can actually be competitive player in internationally. So there's a lot to do still," he said.
Roberto Cingolani, CEO of Italian defense firm Leonardo, agreed that "there's a lot of work to be done."
"Leonardo has a capacity boost program at the moment because we are quite aware of the fact that we have to increase the production of specific platforms, defense systems, electronics and technology solutions. It is not only matter of money, it's matter of priority. It's matter of reducing the fragmentation among countries in Europe," he told CNBC's Charlotte Reed at the Paris Air Show.
Defense companies needed to know what will be expected of them ahead of time, Cingolani said, given the complex nature of global supply chains that underpin the defense industry.
"We have approximately 5000 companies in the supply chain, and we are in 160 countries in the world. So it's very complicated," he noted. "You have to invest in supply chain. You have to make investments. You have to protect the supply chain. But of course, we also have to face a shortage of raw materials ... There is no no simple solution. If there were a solution, we would have done it already," he said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Prime Minister Carney in Brussels today for EU-Canada summit
Prime Minister Carney in Brussels today for EU-Canada summit

Hamilton Spectator

time21 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Prime Minister Carney in Brussels today for EU-Canada summit

BRUSSELS - Prime Minister Mark Carney is in Belgium today, where he visited a military cemetery before meeting with European Union leaders at an EU-Canada summit. Carney said on social media Sunday that he was in Brussels to launch 'a new era of partnership' between Canada and the European Union for the benefit of workers, businesses and security 'on both sides of the Atlantic.' Carney started the day with a visit to the Antwerp Schoonselhof Military Cemetery where 348 Canadian soldiers are buried. Later, he is expected to meet with Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, European Council President António Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Carney posted on social media early on Monday that he spoke with U.S. President Donald Trump overnight, noting the conversation addressed the need to de-escalate the conflict in the Middle East, their shared commitment of a stronger NATO and progress in ongoing trade talks between Canada and the United States. At the EU-Canada summit, Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand and Defence Minister David McGuinty are expected to sign a security and defence agreement with the European bloc in what one European official described last week as one of the most ambitious deals the continent's powers have ever signed with a third country. The security and defence agreement aims to open the door to Canada's participation in the joint purchase of weapons with European countries. It will also lead to Canada's participation in the ReArm Europe initiative, allowing Canada to access a 150-billion-euro program for defence procurement, called Security Action for Europe. Canada will need to sign a second agreement with the European Commission before it can take part in the program. A government official briefing reporters on the trip said the partnership is expected to make procurement easier and more affordable, while also allowing Canada to diversify the sources of equipment. At the EU-Canada summit, leaders are also expected to issue a joint statement to underscore a willingness for continued pressure on Russia to end its war on Ukraine, including through further sanctions, and call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The joint statement is also expected to touch on climate change, trade and digital and tech policy. Leaders at the EU-Canada summit are also slated to discuss global trade and commit to working towards full ratification and implementation of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the Canada-Europe free trade deal known as CETA. The pact took effect provisionally in 2017, and most of its contents now apply. But all EU countries need to approve CETA before it can take full effect, with 10 members still left to ratify the deal. Carney, Costa and von der Leyen are scheduled to hold a joint press conference in the evening. On Tuesday, Carney travels to The Hague for the NATO summit. The international meetings come as Canada looks to reduce its defence procurement reliance on the United States due to strained relations over tariffs and U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated talk about Canada becoming a U.S. state. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 23, 2025.

Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong.
Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong.

USA Today

time23 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a DEI case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Why? Every decision was unanimous. Recent polling has shown that Americans continue to view the Supreme Court as extremely partisan. Just 20% of those polled view the nation's highest courtas politically neutral, and its favorability is far higher among Republicans than Democrats. These opinions on SCOTUS come from a lack of nuance in conversations around the court, in which Republicans are furious when one of their preferred justices occasionally disagrees with President Donald Trump, and where Democrats ignore the Supreme Court cases that don't get decided along political ideology. The ideological lines on the court shouldn't be chalked up to the party of the president who appointed each justice, and the media narrative suggesting such should be dispelled. Can we finally leave Justice Amy Coney Barrett alone? There is no better example of the lack of nuanced conversation surrounding the Supreme Court than Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She has been villainized by the left for being a Trump sycophant and has been smeared as a liberal in disguise by some of Trump's most ardent supporters. In recent months, Barrett has been under fire from MAGA for not being sufficiently committed to their cause. Glossing over the fact that the job of judges is to determine what the law is, rather than what it ought to be, these individuals have gone from praising Barrett's integrity at her confirmation to demanding she sacrifice it for Trump's causes. Opinion: Liberals owe Justice Barrett an apology. She's clearly not in Trump's pocket. What has Barrett done to deserve any of this? Well, she had the audacity to rule against Trump on a couple of occasions. That's it. Justice Barrett joined the liberal justices in dissent against the majority decision to allow Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, as well as voting against the Trump administration's attempts to freeze funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Since arriving on the court in 2020, Barrett has joined majorities to overturn Roe v. Wade, restore the right to carry a handgun, eliminate racist affirmative action practices, rein in executive bureaucracy and even expand presidential immunity. No reasonable person could argue that her jurisprudence in these cases is advancing any liberal causes, but the fact that she has ruled against Trump on occasion somehow overrides all of that evidence. Both parties have a warped view of who Justice Barrett is, and that is a symptom of a much larger problem about Americans' information about the court. The news media has played a role in that overall view. News media needs to do a better job of covering SCOTUS Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a discrimination case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Opinion: There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. The reason for that is the fact that every one of these decisions was unanimous, each written by one of the three liberal justices, so they didn't fit the narrative of the extremely polarized Supreme Court that Americans have been barraged with in recent years. Naturally, the court tends to split on the highest profile cases, which intuitively makes sense. After all, they are divisive. However, the vast majority of cases undermine the partisan tale often told of the court. For the 2022-23 term, the last for which data has been published, conservative justices only agreed with each other on roughly half of their cases, and in some cases, even they were more likely to agree with a certain liberal justice. Some experts have categorized the justices according to their regard for the consequences of the rulings, instead of political leanings. Justices Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts seem to be more concerned with consequences outside of the specific case they are ruling on. The result is that, in some respects, this group of three is closer to the liberal justices than their conservative colleagues. Furthermore, each justice has individual tendencies that differentiate them from even their ideological allies. Neil Gorsuch has a libertarian streak of generally standing up to the government and has a soft spot for the rights of Native Americans. The popular partisan narrative for the Supreme Court gives a very narrow view of how the justices' ideologies actually play out in practice. Americans should look to the justices' own personal tendencies and judicial philosophy to characterize them, rather than simply grouping them by party. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.

LA Sheriff's department deletes posts calling US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites ‘tragic' following backlash
LA Sheriff's department deletes posts calling US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites ‘tragic' following backlash

New York Post

time24 minutes ago

  • New York Post

LA Sheriff's department deletes posts calling US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites ‘tragic' following backlash

The LA County Sheriff's Department has deleted a social media post calling the US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities 'tragic' after being dragged online. 'Our hearts go out to the victims and families impacted by the recent bombings in Iran,' the department wrote on X Sunday in a now-deleted post. 'While this tragic event happened overseas, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is closely monitoring the situation alongside our local, state and federal partners.' 4 The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deleted the X post following backlash. @LASDHQ/X The post sparked immediate outrage and was allegedly updated to exclude the part sending condolences to 'the victims and families' and calling the US military airstrikes 'tragic.' Moments later, it was ultimately deleted from the platform, according to independent journalist Collin Rugg and Libs of TikTok. However, before being yanked for good, the post garnered a massive outcry of responses, bashing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for the insensitive and inaccurate post. 'We sincerely hope your account was hacked. There were no victims in last night's successful targeting of Iran's nuclear sites,' replied the American advocacy group Stop Antisemitism. 'Please verify this post was not posted by an employee of the LA County Sheriff's HQ.' 'It is shocking that the LA Sheriff Department employs someone who would post such messages when our brave men and women are risking their lives to protect our country,' wrote another outraged X user. 4 Satellite image shows a close-up view of destroyed buildings at Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, after it was hit by US airstrikes, in Isfahan, Iran, on June 22, 2025. via REUTERS 'That individual should be fired immediately and then investigated to find out what drove them to write these messages.' 'This is the CRAZIEST reaction to President Trump delivering MONUMENTAL devastation to Iran's nuclear sites,' another person wrote. While another agreed with the outrage, adding, 'Los Angeles Sheriff Robert Luna should resign in disgrace. Shame on him!' 4 A man who asked not to be identified holds an Iranian and an upside-down American flag while people gather for a 'No War with Iran x Israel and Immigrants' on June 7, 2025, in Los Angeles, California. Getty Images 4 LA County Sheriff's deputies arrest a protester after unlawful assembly was declared following a 'No Kings' national rally against the Trump administration in Los Angeles on June 14, 2025. AFP via Getty Images In response to the backlash over the post, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office released a statement 'apologizing' for the 'offensive and inappropriate' post late Sunday. 'We are issuing this statement to formally apologize for an offensive and inappropriate social media post recently posted on our Department's social media platforms regarding the ongoing conflict in Iran,' the statement reads. 'This post was unacceptable, made in error, and does not reflect the views of Sheriff Robert G. Luna or the Department. As a law enforcement agency, we do not comment on foreign policy or military matters. Our mission remains solely focused on protecting public safety and serving our diverse communities.' The department acknowledged that it had 'updated' the social media post and has 'launched an internal review to determine how it was created and published.' 'Steps are being taken to strengthen our social media oversight protocols and ensure that any future communications align with our Department's standards of professionalism, respect, and accountability,' the department added. 'We appreciate the continued trust of our community and will work diligently to reaffirm that trust every day.' The Post has reached out to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store