NATO members agreed on Sunday to a big increase in their defense spending target to 5% of gross domestic product, as demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump, but Spain said it did not need to comply just days before a summit in The Hague meant to be a show of unity.
NATO officials had been anxious to find consensus on a summit statement on a new spending commitment ahead of Wednesday's gathering. But Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez declared on Thursday he would not commit to the 5% target.
NATO boss Mark Rutte has proposed to reach the target by boosting NATO's core defense spending goal from 2% to 3.5% of GDP and spending an extra 1.5% on related items like cyber security and adapting roads and bridges for military vehicles.
After diplomats agreed on a compromise text on Sunday, Sanchez swiftly proclaimed Spain would not have to meet the 5% target as it would only have to spend 2.1% of GDP to meet NATO's core military requirements.
"We fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defense investment, but we are not going to do so," Sanchez said in an address on Spanish television.
Spain spent 1.24% of GDP on defense in 2024, or about 17.2 billion euros ($19.8 billion), according to NATO estimates, making it the lowest spender in the alliance as a share of its economic output.
NATO officials argue big defense spending increases are needed to counter a growing threat from Russia and to allow Europe to take on more responsibility for its own security as the United States shifts its military focus to China.
TRUMP CRITICISM
Sanchez's stance risked setting up a summit clash with Trump, who has frequently accused European countries of not spending enough on defense and threatened not to defend them if they do not meet their targets.
On Friday, Trump said Spain "has to pay what everybody else has to pay" and Madrid was "notorious" for low defence spending.
However, he also suggested the U.S. should not have to meet the new target, as the U.S. had spent large amounts to protect the continent over a long period. Washington spent an estimated 3.19% of GDP on defense in 2024, NATO says.
But Sanchez argued it was not necessary for Spain to meet the new target and trying to do so would mean drastic cuts on social spending such as state pensions, or tax hikes.
NATO did not release the compromise summit text, which will only become official when it is endorsed by the leaders of NATO's 32 members at the summit.
But diplomats said one tweak in the language on the spending commitment, from "we commit" to "allies commit," allowed Spain to say the pledge does not apply to all members.
In a letter seen by Reuters, Rutte told Sanchez that Spain would have "flexibility to determine its own sovereign path" for meeting its military capability targets agreed with NATO.
A NATO diplomat said Rutte's letter was simply "an affirmation that allies chart their own course for making good on their commitments" to meet their capability targets.
NATO officials have expressed scepticism that Spain can meet its military capability targets by spending just 2.1% of GDP, as Sanchez has suggested. The targets are secret so their costs cannot be independently verified.
"All allies have now agreed to the summit statement – which includes the new defence investment plan," said the diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.
Rutte had originally proposed countries meet the new target by 2032 but the deadline in the final text is 2035, according to diplomats. There will also be a review of the target in 2029.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
16 Comments
Login to comment
Underworld
Rules for thee, not for me...
TaiwanIsNotChina
These manchildren excel at taking credit for the actions of others.
GuruMick
Good for Spain.
Independant thinking a hallmark of leadership.
Underworld
marc laden
Or maybe because Trump, who proposed 5%, doesn’t think that the US needs to comply.
GBR48
Just agree. The extra 2-3% can be pre-planned infrastructure spending reclassified as military investment. Roads, bridges, railways, pot holes. Anything can be listed as a military necessity.
Peter14
The moment Trump is out of office these proposed increases will be gone. And the US trying to get others to pay for defence at a GDP level higher than the US, is Trump trying to get a better deal than anyone else. Given article 5, this can mean that the US is the beneficiary of NATO spending at 5% while the US spends only 3.2%.
NATO has been activated once on article 5 and that was for the US who was attacked on 9/11.
No doubt this will worry Russia and China, as they have ambitions of empire building through expanded borders. A strong Europe is a Europe that can oppose and defy Russia and China.
Lets face it, nobody in their right mind wants to take on 30+ countries in a war, given that some in that number also have nuclear deterrents. Even without the US that would be daunting to say the least.
OssanAmerica
Trump being gone isn't going to change the issue. NATO nations are willing to increase their defense spending not because Trump is saying so. They are sincerely concerned about Putin.
HopeSpringsEternal
NATO and EU divided on many issues, makes sense Spain feels more secure in western Europe than those close to Russia. Spain has no meaningful history with Russia, thus logically feels safer than other NATO Members
Underworld
HopeSpringsEternal
You correctly identify Russia as the main security threat in the region.
HopeSpringsEternal
Main security risk of Russia is due to NATO foolishly pressing eastward under Biden Admin, turning Ukraine into a proxy fighting force. Big time unforced error, that is now exposing how reliant Europe is on the US military.
World not interested in territorial matter and now largely resolved Civil war in Ukraine, as their former Russian speaking citizens became Russian citizens, as it's not a global security issue, but risks becoming w/NATO involvement
TaiwanIsNotChina
NATO's last expansion eastward was in 2004. Trump was the one that sent Javelins. As pathetic as russia's armed forces are, the latter were not an actual threat. Also no one has heard of a civil war lasting a week.
Underworld
HopeSpringsEternal
NATO didn't press eastward. Countries close to Russia, Europe's biggest security threat requested to join NATO to defend against Russia, which is their sovereign right. Russia's aggressive behavior in the region was the reason for this.
Defending itself against Russia is not a proxy force.
Indeed, Russia's "3 day" invasion of Ukraine was a big time unforced error.
HopeSpringsEternal
Putin's destroyed global currencies real asset purchasing power, and fueled inflation, as Russia's become far richer relatively speaking and the West has re-aligned in ways far more favorable to Putin etc.
Threat of Ukraine continuing as a proxy member of NATO dropping daily, as it permanently depopulates and EU voters lose interest in an unwinnable war.
Putin has huge leverage over US now with Iran, threat of nuclear proliferation, and thus Ukraine's the big loser, clear as day to the entire world the Ukraine's being thrown under the bus
Underworld
HopeSpringsEternal
Indeed, there is rampant inflation in Russia due to this war.
Russia's non-military GDP is negative, so no, Russia is not becoming richer due to this war.
okinawarides
Sanchez argued it was not necessary for Spain to meet the new target and trying to do so would mean drastic cuts on social spending such as state pensions, or tax hikes.
More money for state pensions over more weapons? Go Spain.
deanzaZZR
I never want to read people here at JT squawking about Chinese military budgets ever again.