
Nato leaders agree to 5% defence spending goal in annual summit
Nato member states have committed to boosting investments in defence to 5 per cent of their domestic output, largely endorsing US President Donald Trump's pressure on Washington's European allies.
The North Atlantic Council (NAC), which convened on Wednesday during the two-day Nato summit in The Hague, the member states' leaders agreed to spend the higher percentage annually on core defence requirements and 'defence-and-security-related' expenditures by 2035, in the face of 'profound security threats and challenges', including 'long-term threats posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security'.
Nato heads of state said in The Hague Summit Declaration issued after the NAC that their investments would ensure that they have the 'forces, capabilities, resources, infrastructure, war fighting readiness, and resilience' required for 'deterrence and defence, crisis prevention and management, and cooperative security'.
It said the allies agreed that the 5 per cent commitment would be comprised of at least 3.5 per cent of GDP annually on 'core' defence expenditure and requirements within the next decade for meeting 'Nato capability targets', and up to 1.5 per cent to 'protect critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base'.
'We reaffirm our shared commitment to rapidly expand transatlantic defence industrial cooperation and to harness emerging technology and the spirit of innovation to advance our collective security,' the declaration said. 'We will work to eliminate defence trade barriers among allies and will leverage our partnerships to promote defence industrial cooperation.'
The pledge added that the alliance would 'reaffirm their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine', and their 'ironclad commitment to collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – that an attack on one is an attack on all'.
'Almost all [Nato members] are going to contribute now 5 per cent – a number that people are surprised at, but you need it today,' Trump said at a press briefing after the summit. 'The United States accounts for two-thirds of all Nato defence spending. Since I began pushing for additional commitments in 2017, believe it or not, our allies have increased spending by US$700 billion.'
Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte told reporters that the summit 'laid the foundations for stronger, fairer and more lethal Nato', through the new investment plan that could 'fuel a quantum leap' in their collective defence.
'Should anyone make the mistake of attack, allies recognise the severity of the threats we face, and in response, they have come together to agree on an ambitious but essential new defence spending commitment,' Rutte said.
'Our decisions today show that from the Mediterranean to the Arctic, from the rest of North America to our eastern flank, all allies are united in understanding that we need to step up to stay safe, and they are active.'
Addressing concerns about the Trump administration's commitment to defend Nato allies, Rutte stated the US president had been 'clear' that America was 'committed to Nato', a pledge they 'affirmed again on Wednesday in no uncertain terms'.
The 5 per cent defence spending goal originated with the Trump administration's pressure on European Nato allies, leading to a shift from the initial 2 per cent benchmark agreed in 2014.
The benchmark was agreed on a compromise text on Sunday between the representatives of each Nato member state before the summit.
Rutte said he believed Spain, a holdout on the defence spending commitment, would be convinced to work towards it.
Citing budgetary constraints, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said that his country would not be able to increase defence spending, claiming that Madrid only had to spend 2.1 per cent of GDP to meet Nato's core military requirements.
In his briefing, Trump threatened to double US import tariffs on Spanish goods if Madrid did not work to meet the new Nato target.
'We're going to make them pay twice as much. And I'm actually serious about that,' Trump said.
Nato officials, including Rutte, have claimed that a significant increase in defence spending was necessary to counter an increasing Russian threat demonstrated by its war against Ukraine, and to allow Europe to take on more responsibility for its own security as the US shifts its military focus to China.
Rutte said in the opening remarks at the NAC that 'assertive grouping of adversaries' seeks to divide and challenge Nato, as well as increasing other 'serious' security threats, calling the alliance to stand together and that the 'adversaries' know it is a 'winning combination' for North America and Europe working together.
He asserted that the US carried 'too much' weight in commitments to protect the alliance 'for too long', and praised Trump's leadership for making such a change in defence burden sharing possible.
According to Rutte, the Nato member states lagging on defence spending would not have reached the goal of 2 per cent of GDP if Trump had not been elected president, adding that the proposed defence spending goal was 'doable' and that he was 'optimistic' that it would be achieved.
'Seven to eight countries at the start of this year were not at 2 per cent. They will now reach 2 per cent this year. Many countries said 'we will do it somewhere in the 2030s', but now they are committed to do it by this year,' Rutte said.
'Countries have to find money, it's not easy. These are political decisions. I totally recognise that. But at the same time, there is absolute conviction with colleagues at the table, that given those threats from Russians, given the international security situation, there is no alternative. We've got to do this.'
Rutte also addressed the gushing 'Dear Donald' private message he sent to Trump this week, which the US president posted on social media.
In it, Rutte said Trump was 'flying into another big success' at Nato after his 'decisive action in Iran'.
Rutte confirmed that the text message was a 'statement of fact' and that it was 'absolutely fine' that Trump shared it online.
This exchange took place amid renewed concerns over Trump's stance on the alliance's core principles.
The US president had previously claimed that Nato member states failing to meet a proposed 5 per cent defence target might not benefit from US protection under Article 5.
En route to this week's summit, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that there were 'numerous definitions' of Article 5, fuelling uncertainty about whether the US would defend European members under attack, though he added he was 'committed to saving lives'.
On these remarks, Rutte said before Wednesday's summit that the US was 'totally committed to Nato, totally committed to Article 5', and that equalising defence spending among the European Nato member states as much as Washington was 'fair', repeating his remarks from the first day of the summit on Tuesday that Europe must 'stop worrying about the US'.
The meeting between Trump and Rutte also took place in the morning on Wednesday, where the US president said 'we're with them all the way' and the increase of defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP would make Nato stronger. - SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Robinhood establishes first European crypto hub in Lithuania
VILNIUS, June 30 (Xinhua) -- U.S. financial services company Robinhood has selected Lithuania as the home of its first European cryptocurrency operations hub, the Baltic News Service (BNS) reported on Monday. According to a statement from Investuok Lietuvoje, the country's national investment promotion agency, Robinhood has launched a dedicated cryptocurrency trading platform via its Lithuanian entity, Robinhood Europe. In late May, Robinhood Europe received both a Category A financial brokerage license and a crypto asset services provider license from the Bank of Lithuania. These regulatory approvals enable the company to operate legally under the upcoming European Union Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, making it one of the first to do so in Lithuania, according to BNS.


The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
ECB central banking forum opens in Portugal amid volatile environment
LISBON, June 30 (Xinhua) -- The European Central Bank (ECB) Forum on Central Banking kicked off in the Portuguese resort town of Sintra on Monday amid a volatile environment. The three-day event brings together central bank governors, economists, financial market leaders, and academics to discuss issues such as monetary policy, financial stability, and structural reforms, among others. According to ECB President Christine Lagarde, updates at the forum will ensure that the ECB's "toolbox remains appropriate," especially as "structural changes suggest that the environment will remain uncertain and more volatile." In addition to European policymakers, U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, Bank of Japan Governor Kazuo Ueda, and Bank of Korea Governor Rhee Chang-yong are also attending.


The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Trump's ‘emergency' playbook
TO hear Donald Trump tell it – America is under siege – from within, from without and from all directions in between. According to the president, the country is gripped by rebellion, facing invasion from a Venezuelan gang and under economic assault from foreign actors. Armed with this self-declared crisis narrative, Trump has invoked sweeping emergency powers embedded in US law, dating back centuries. He deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the objections of California's governor, deported migrants to El Salvador with little to no due process and triggered trade wars through tariffs he justified as national security measures. Legal scholars argue these moves aren't grounded in the statutes Trump cites, but are instead part of a broader effort to expand his power – and erode constitutional limits. 'He is declaring utterly bogus emergencies for the sake of trying to expand his power, undermine the Constitution and destroy civil liberties,' said Ilya Somin, a libertarian law professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School. Somin represents several businesses, including a wine importer, challenging Trump's tariffs in court. Crisis has always been Trump's calling card. His first inauguration speech painted a bleak picture of 'American carnage', while his latest presidential campaign promised to reverse 'staggering American decline'. The message is consistent: America is broken, and only he can fix it. Now back in office, Trump appears determined to codify that rhetoric into governance – transforming everyday political challenges into full-blown emergencies that grant him exceptional authority. Rewriting the rulebook Trump's justification often rests on laws created long ago to give presidents flexibility during genuine emergencies – such as wars or natural disasters – when Congress might be too slow to act. 'These statutes were passed with the expectation that future presidents would act in good faith,' said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri. 'Genuine emergencies do occur and Congress knows it's slow. It wants presidents acting in good faith to move with rapidity.' But Trump, Bowman warned, is testing that assumption to its breaking point. 'Declaring everything an emergency begins to move us in the direction of allowing the use of government force and violence against people you don't like.' The White House, for its part, blames Democrats for failing to protect Americans from national and economic threats. 'President Trump is rightfully using his executive authority – as evidenced by many victories in court – to deliver resolve and relief for the American people,' said spokesperson Taylor Rogers. In truth, the victories have been limited. Lower courts have mostly rejected Trump's emergency-based legal arguments – most notably, his recent attempt to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deporting migrants linked to a violent Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua (TdA). The Act, which grants the president the power to deport citizens of nations engaged in war, invasion or 'predatory incursion', has been used only three times before – during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. In March, Trump argued that the gang's presence on American soil constituted such an incursion. But judges weren't convinced. 'There is nothing in the 1798 law that justifies a finding that refugees migrating from Venezuela, or TdA gangsters who infiltrate the migrants, are engaged in an 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion,'' ruled Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the US District Court in New York City. Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, dismissed Trump's framing of a criminal gang as a national invasion. 'TdA may well be engaged in narcotics trafficking, but that is a criminal matter, not an invasion,' he wrote. At least one judge – Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee in Pennsylvania – agreed with the president, calling the gang's presence a 'predatory incursion'. But she's so far in the minority. Emergency, everywhere Beyond immigration, Trump has applied the language of crisis to a range of issues. In April, he imposed tariffs on several countries, claiming that 'foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency'. The move drew legal challenges and two courts have since ruled against him – although a federal appeals court has paused one of the rulings. Trump departing Morristown Municipal Airport in New Jersey.— Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times California, in particular, has resisted Trump's moves. Officials there sued after he federalised a state militia unit without meeting the criteria – which, under law, include an invasion by a foreign power, a domestic rebellion or an inability to enforce federal law. 'The situation in Los Angeles didn't meet the criteria for federalisation,' state officials said at the time. Meanwhile, Trump has amplified fears of a 'migrant invasion', citing it as the basis for stepped-up Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and as justification for bypassing local authorities to exert federal control over state matters. The supreme test So far, the US Supreme Court has not weighed in on Trump's recent emergency declarations. But the justices have shown a willingness to challenge presidents' use of extraordinary powers – including President Joe Biden's Covid-19-era efforts to cancel student debt and extend eviction moratoriums. Historically, the Constitution contains only two major references to 'invasion': one limiting states from declaring war unless 'actually invaded', and another allowing suspension of habeas corpus in the event of 'rebellion or invasion'. The court's most definitive ruling on presidential emergency powers came in 1952, when it rejected President Harry Truman's attempt to nationalise the steel industry during the Korean War. It's a warning that legal scholars say rings louder today, as Trump reframes a wide array of political and legal challenges as existential threats – and reshapes the presidency in the process. 'In Trump's world,' said Bowman, 'everything is an emergency. And that's the real danger.' — ©2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times