NATO’s 5% defence spending target: Political, public challenge

In a recent op-ed for Breaking Defense, Kristen Taylor of the Atlantic Council examines the ambitious defence spending goals set by NATO allies at their summit earlier this summer. Taylor argues that while the decision to raise defence budgets to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035 demonstrates a necessary response to mounting international security challenges, it also represents a profound political and societal test for NATO members. Her analysis highlights both the scale of the financial commitment and the critical need for public support to make the pledge feasible.

As Taylor points out, the headline 5 per cent target masks the true magnitude of the spending increase. Allies agreed to allocate 3.5 per cent of GDP toward traditional defence spending and 1.5 per cent to defence enablers such as critical infrastructure and cybersecurity. 

While this goal may appear modest on paper, Taylor emphasises that when considered as a share of total national expenditures, the increase is staggering. For example, Germany, the European Union’s largest economy, spent 2.12 per cent of its GDP on defense in 2024, amounting to just over $97 billion, or roughly 20 per cent of total national expenditures.

Meeting the 5 per cent target, she calculates, would push defense spending to nearly half of Germany’s budget—a transformation of government priorities unprecedented in peacetime Europe.

The op-ed stresses that this reality is not unique to Germany. Several NATO members, particularly those lagging in meeting even the 2 per cent of GDP threshold set in 2014, face equally steep challenges.

Taylor argues that while the 5 per cent target is set over a decade—allowing for GDP growth, economic fluctuations, and potential accounting of infrastructure projects toward defense enablers—the immediate implication is clear: governments will need to make hard choices regarding taxation, social programs, or deficit spending to finance these commitments.

Taylor also highlights the political dimension of the spending challenge. Public support is crucial to sustaining higher defense budgets, yet citizens across the Alliance have long benefited from the so-called transatlantic “peace dividend,” enjoying security without major personal financial sacrifice.

As the op-ed notes, previous spending targets have not always been met even during periods of heightened threat, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This underscores Taylor’s point that achieving the new goal will require careful, sustained public messaging and political coordination.

The article draws lessons from Norway and the United Kingdom as examples of effective approaches. Taylor points out that Norway’s 2024 bipartisan defense pledge succeeded because the government worked across party lines to present a unified message, reassuring citizens and industry alike of the plan’s durability.

In the UK, she notes, political leaders have tied defense spending to domestic benefits such as job creation, industrial growth, and cyber resilience, helping to build public support for measures that might otherwise be unpopular. These examples, Taylor argues, demonstrate that messaging must align with societal priorities and emphasize tangible civilian advantages.

A key element of her argument is the emphasis on the 1.5 per cent of GDP designated for defense enablers. Taylor stresses that framing these investments as dual-use—beneficial to both military and civilian sectors—can make higher defense spending more politically palatable.

Infrastructure upgrades, cybersecurity improvements, and technological development serve national security while also improving societal resilience, providing allies a persuasive rationale to gain broader public backing.

Taylor further examines financing options and long-term feasibility. She suggests that governments may need to consider resource-pooling, deficit spending, or novel mechanisms such as Euro defense bonds, though she cautions that implementation challenges remain significant.

Beyond financing, she argues, the Alliance must address industrial capacity: defense firms are unlikely to expand production if they fear political or public backlash against higher spending in the future.

In conclusion, the op-ed underscores that meeting NATO’s 5 per cent target is about far more than moving money from one part of the budget to another. As Taylor writes, it is a fundamental shift in national priorities and societal mindset, requiring political cohesion, robust public outreach, and careful framing of spending benefits.

Allies must not only commit to higher defense budgets but also build enduring public support, ensuring that the ambitious pledge translates into actionable and sustainable defense investments over the next decade.

Taylor’s analysis highlights the complexity behind NATO’s headline spending target: it is at once a financial, political, and social challenge.

Without early, strategic engagement with publics and consistent messaging from political leaders, the op-ed warns, the Alliance risks falling short of a pledge that, if realised, would mark a historic transformation in European and transatlantic security policy.

By Sabina Mammadli