The success of a key NATO summit is in doubt after Spain rejects a big hike in defence spending
U.S. President Donald Trump, centre, stops to talk with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, left, and Turkiye's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, right, as they attend a meeting of the North Atlantic Council during a summit of heads of state and government at NATO headquarters in Brussels on July 11, 2018. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
BRUSSELS — 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 defence 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 defence 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 defence 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 defence 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 defence 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 defence plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defence spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros (US$18 billion to $22 billion).
Supplying arms and ammunition to Ukraine, which Spain does, will also be included as core defence spending.
NATO estimates that the U.S. spent around 3.2% of GDP on defence 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 defence 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 defence 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 defence 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.
Lorne Cook, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
3 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
U.S. judge blocks National Science Foundation from slashing universities' federal funding
A federal judge on Friday prevented the National Science Foundation from sharply cutting research funding provided to universities in the latest legal setback to efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to slash government support of research at major academic institutions. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston invalidated a policy NSF adopted in May that limited the ability of universities to be reimbursed for administrative and facility costs that indirectly support grant-funded research, ruling that it was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Spokespeople for NSF and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling. NSF, a US$9 billion agency that funds scientific research, adopted the policy after having already canceled hundreds of grants out of step with the Republican president's priorities. His administration has also been freezing billions of dollars in government funding for numerous universities, including Harvard. NSF's policy, which was announced on May 2, set a cap on how much grant funding could go to cover indirect costs. NSF said funding for such costs could equal no more than 15% of the funding for direct research costs, regardless of what the costs actually were at universities. Historically, universities had negotiated with NSF and other agencies over the rate at which indirect costs could be reimbursed. The cap meant that for every $100 in funding going directly to a research grant award, universities would receive just $15 to cover overhead, such as the costs of maintaining lab space and paying for electricity and staff. The Trump administration said it sought through the policy to rein in spending on administrative overhead, which had grown to consume US$1.07 billion of NSF's annual US$4.22 billion grant-making budget for higher education institutions. That rate, though, is significantly lower than the indirect cost that many of the 69 research universities belonging to Association of American Universities had negotiated, which was often in the 50 per cent to 65 per cent range, the group's lawyers said. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, said in her Friday decision that the administration's 15 per cent rate was unlawful. The association along with two other academic trade groups and 13 schools sued in May to block the policy, after earlier convincing judges in Boston to block similar funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Energy. The association did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Friday decision. Among the schools that challenged NSF's funding cuts were the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, Brown University, the University of California, Carnegie Mellon University, Cornell University, the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania. They argued that NSF's action, if allowed to stand, 'will badly undermine scientific research at America's universities and erode our nation's enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation.' The U.S. Department of Defense has since also adopted a 15 per cent cap, which a judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked pending a hearing on July 2. He did so a day after a different judge in Boston ordered NIH to reinstate hundreds of grants for research on diversity-related topics nixed as part of the administration's purge of initiatives viewed as supporting 'diversity, equity and inclusion.'
Globe and Mail
3 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
enCore Energy Announces Filing of Early Warning Report
DALLAS , June 20, 2025 /CNW/ - enCore Energy Corp. (NASDAQ: EU) (TSXV: EU) (the "Company" or "enCore"), America's Clean Energy Company ™, announces that it has disposed of 170,000,000 common shares in the capital of Anfield Energy Inc. (" Anfield") (TSX.V: AEC; OTCQB: ANLDF; FRANKFURT : 0AD) in a private agreement at a price of $0.115 per share for aggregate proceeds of $19,550 ,000 (Canadian dollars). Immediately following the disposition, enCore holds or controls no common shares of Anfield. The disposition represents a 14.73% decrease in enCore's ownership or control over the outstanding common shares of Anfield on an undiluted basis. enCore does not currently hold or control any securities of Anfield . Since enCore's last early warning report dated January 15, 2024 , enCore's holdings have decreased by an approximate 16.02% of the outstanding common shares of Anfield on an undiluted basis. enCore disposed of the shares of Anfield in a private transaction. enCore may, depending on market and other conditions, increase beneficial ownership of the Company's securities, whether in the open market, by privately negotiated agreements or otherwise, subject to a number of factors, including general market conditions and other available investment and business opportunities. The disclosure respecting enCore's shareholdings contained in this news release is made pursuant to National Instrument 62-103 and a report respecting the above disposition will be filed with the applicable securities commissions and will be available for viewing at A copy of the report may also be obtained by contacting Robert Willette , Acting Chief Executive Officer, or at info@ About enCore Energy Corp. enCore Energy Corp., America's Clean Energy Company ™, is committed to providing clean, reliable, and affordable fuel for nuclear energy as the only United States uranium company with multiple central processing plants in operation. enCore operates the 100% owned and operated Rosita CPP in South Texas and the 70/30 joint venture Alta Mesa CPP with Boss Energy Ltd., with enCore operating as the project manager. The enCore team is led by industry experts with extensive knowledge and experience in all aspects of ISR uranium operations and the nuclear fuel cycle. enCore solely utilizes ISR for uranium extraction, a well-known and proven technology co-developed by the leaders at enCore Energy. Following upon enCore's demonstrated success in South Texas , future projects in enCore's planned project pipeline include the Dewey-Burdock project in South Dakota and the Gas Hills project in Wyoming . The Company holds other assets including non-core assets and proprietary databases. enCore is committed to working with local communities and indigenous governments to create positive impact from corporate developments. Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Toronto Star
4 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Columbia protester Mahmoud Khalil freed from immigration detention
JENA, La. (AP) — Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil was released Friday from federal immigration detention, freed after three months by a judge's ruling after becoming a symbol of President Donald Trump 's clampdown on campus protests. The former Columbia University graduate student left a federal facility in Louisiana on Friday. He is expected to head to New York to reunite with his U.S. citizen wife and newborn son.
