NATO allies back higher defence spending targets
NATO defence ministers have agreed to raise the alliance’s minimum defence spending expectations, marking a major shift in how members prepare for a more dangerous security environment. The plan centres on a long-term commitment to invest up to 5% of national GDP in defence and related security needs by 2035.
The decision reflects pressure from Russia’s war in Ukraine, uncertainty about future US involvement in European security and growing concern about cyberattacks, drones and critical infrastructure. For Australia, which is not a NATO member but works closely with the alliance, the change could influence defence planning across the wider Indo-Pacific.
| Area | Existing benchmark | Proposed direction |
|---|---|---|
| Core defence spending | 2% of GDP | 3.5% of GDP by 2035 |
| Defence-related security | Not consistently defined | Up to 1.5% of GDP |
| Total ambition | At least 2% | Up to 5% by 2035 |
| Main focus | Military readiness | Forces, infrastructure, resilience and security |
What the ministers agreed
The proposed framework separates traditional military expenditure from broader security investment. At least 3.5% of GDP would be directed towards core defence capabilities, including troops, ammunition, naval vessels, air power, armoured vehicles and military readiness.
A further 1.5% could cover infrastructure, cyber-security, border protection, logistics, innovation and support for defence industries. This structure gives governments some flexibility while still creating a much higher baseline for national security spending.
The agreement is expected to support formal political approval by NATO leaders. Individual countries will still need to set their own budgets and timelines, meaning the final impact will depend on domestic politics, economic conditions and the ability of each government to expand military production.
Why the target is rising
NATO members have struggled to replace equipment and replenish ammunition after years of relatively restrained defence budgets. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed shortages in artillery shells, air-defence systems and other supplies that would be needed during a prolonged conflict.
The alliance is also adapting to a broader definition of security. A hostile state can disrupt ports, undersea cables, electricity networks and online services without launching a conventional attack. Spending on resilience and cyber capabilities is therefore being placed alongside tanks, aircraft and warships.
The proposed target also responds to pressure from Washington. US leaders have repeatedly argued that European allies should carry more of the financial burden for their own defence. A higher European contribution could help preserve American involvement while giving the United States greater capacity to focus on China and the Indo-Pacific.
The pressure on European budgets
Reaching 5% of GDP would be difficult for many European governments. Defence budgets compete with healthcare, housing, energy support, pensions and public transport, while weak economic growth makes large spending increases harder to absorb.
Poland and several northern European countries are already moving rapidly towards higher military expenditure. Other members may require longer transition periods, especially those dealing with high debt or coalition governments. The language around 2035 is intended to provide time for gradual increases, although NATO’s military planners are seeking faster improvements in readiness.
The definition of the additional 1.5% will be closely watched. If the category includes roads, ports and civilian infrastructure with military value, governments could meet the headline figure without directing the entire increase to weapons and personnel. Supporters say that approach reflects modern warfare; critics may see it as a way to soften the commitment.
What it means for Australia
Australia is a NATO partner rather than a member, so Canberra is not bound by the new spending target. It does, however, cooperate with NATO on issues including cyber-security, maritime security and support for Ukraine. Australian officials will be watching how the new benchmark changes expectations for partners in the Indo-Pacific.
The Australian Defence Force is already facing major investment demands. The nuclear-powered submarine program under AUKUS, long-range strike weapons, northern bases and new surveillance systems will require sustained funding. Projects connected to Darwin, Perth and other strategic locations are likely to remain important as Australia responds to activity across the region.
Higher European spending could also create opportunities for Australian defence companies, particularly in autonomous systems, communications, electronic warfare and maritime technology. At the same time, global demand for missiles, radar and shipbuilding capacity may intensify competition for equipment and skilled workers in the Australian market.
Reactions from allies and critics
Supporters say the plan gives NATO a credible answer to the security environment and creates a clearer standard for burden-sharing. Countries that have already increased military budgets are likely to welcome a framework that asks other members to contribute more consistently.
Critics are likely to question whether governments can afford the promise and whether spending figures will translate into usable military capability. A larger budget does not immediately produce trained personnel, functioning supply chains or deployable forces. Procurement delays have affected many NATO countries for years.
Public opinion will also shape implementation. In Australia, debates over defence spending often compete with concerns about supermarket prices, mortgage costs and pressure on public hospitals. European governments face similar trade-offs, making the political durability of the target just as important as the announcement itself.
How readers can follow the developing story
The spending agreement will evolve through summit communiqués, national budgets and announcements about military contracts. Details such as which infrastructure projects qualify, how progress will be measured and whether countries can meet annual milestones will determine whether the pledge becomes a practical shift or remains a distant ambition.
Because the story involves defence, economics and international diplomacy, reports may emphasise different parts of the decision. Readers tracking updates across Canberra, Brussels and Washington can use ZUKUS’s global feed, which brings together headlines from more than 200 news outlets in one place.
For Australians, the most relevant signals will include changes to the federal defence budget, AUKUS delivery schedules, investment in northern bases and the effect of international demand on local suppliers. NATO’s new target is focused on Europe, but its consequences will reach well beyond the alliance’s borders.