CIVICUS discusses the 2025 NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) summit with Francesca Grandi, Head of Defence and Security at Transparency International, a global civil society organisation that fights corruption and promotes transparency and integrity in public life.

While the summit put on a show of unity among member states and made extensive defence commitments, it failed to address a fundamental lack of strategic coherence on Russia, Ukraine and emerging security threats such as cyber and hybrid warfare. NATO faces the challenge of moving beyond headline commitments to create genuine alignment between strategic objectives and implementation timelines, between military power and democratic accountability, and between states and citizens. Transparency in defence spending is the crucial element that binds these together.

What were the key outcomes of the recent NATO summit?

The summit was primarily a symbolic show of unity that left crucial military and strategic decisions unresolved. It avoided failure but delivered little strategic clarity on key issues such as China, Russia and NATO’s long-term priorities or threat assessment.

The headline commitment was unprecedented: raising defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035, with 3.5 per cent allocated to core military capabilities and 1.5 per cent allocated to resilience, infrastructure, cyber defence and innovation. This target reflects growing concerns about US reliability and Russian aggression. The alliance also reaffirmed its commitment to collective defence.

But major disagreements remain. States could not agree on how serious the Russian threat is. While they promised continued support for Ukraine – with such aid allowed to count toward the five per cent target – its path to NATO membership stays unclear. The lack of fast-track membership suggests unity on Ukraine is tactical rather than strategic.

Most telling was the gap between urgency and action. While NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte warned Russia could test article 5 – which set out that an armed attack against one or more NATO states shall be considered an attack against all – within five years, the new spending commitment is spread over a decade.

What are the implications of increased defence spending?

This massive spending increase carries both benefits and risks. The allies agree that Europe needs to take more responsibility given Russian aggression and uncertain US support. Their planned investment could fill capability gaps, improve cooperation and drive innovation in cyber, space and AI-enabled defence systems. Yet without strategic coherence and democratic safeguards, the risks are substantial.

The summit exposed internal tensions. Spain, for example, opted out of the five per cent target, citing social spending priorities, offering a reminder that defence policy is inseparable from domestic politics. In many European countries, public support for higher military spending is fragile, particularly when framed in zero-sum terms against climate, education or health priorities. At this scale, increased defence spending risks crowding out investment in social infrastructure, particularly in fiscally constrained environments. To win the narrative at home, governments must explain the new strategic rationale in ways that promote and advance democratic values and citizen security.

Amid weak oversight, rapid rearmament may encourage waste, increase secrecy and create corruption opportunities. Defence spending globally is already among the least transparent public expenditure areas. Expanding it without proper accountability could weaken rather than strengthen long-term security.

What transparency concerns does this raise?

Focusing purely on meeting spending targets could lead to wasteful expenditure and competitive overspending between countries, unless accompanied by transparency measures, robust oversight, strategic planning and civic engagement.

Transparency in defence spending remains a major blind spot. Neither NATO nor the European Union (EU) have a unifying framework to monitor how increased defence funds will be spent, how effectiveness will be measured or how corruption and waste will be prevented. At the summit, accountability and transparency were discussed, if at all, as afterthoughts, not as core pillars of effective defence policy.

Transparency International and the Open Government Partnership have detailed how a shared integrity framework should be grounded in principles of transparency, independent oversight, citizen participation and responsible corporate conduct. This would help ensure that rising military budgets deliver both capability and legitimacy.

The stakes are high. Lack of transparency carries enormous risks. The defence sector is uniquely vulnerable to opaque contracting, excessive secrecy and the influence of politically connected intermediaries. As states rush to meet budget targets, the danger is that quantity will override quality: targets can be met on paper but fail to deliver real capability or value for money. Secrecy can mask poor decision-making from parliamentary scrutiny and public oversight, creating fertile ground for inefficiency, undue influence and unaccountable practices.

The absence of clear reporting standards and accountability mechanisms undermines fiscal responsibility and erodes public trust. In democratic societies, defence policy must be legitimate and responsive to citizens’ security concerns. If large-scale defence spending is perceived as wasteful or shielded from scrutiny, it risks triggering political backlash and polarisation. The credibility of NATO’s renewed ambitions will depend not just on how much is spent, but on how well it is spent.

How can civil society contribute to defence policy discussions?

Civil society organisations (CSOs), particularly those focused on human rights, transparency and peace and security, bring critical expertise and democratic legitimacy to defence discussions. They act as watchdogs, policy advisors and connectors between governments and the broader public. In many countries, they have the tools and track record to scrutinise budgets, assess procurement risks, monitor implementation and amplify citizen concerns. Civil society can also help ensure that spending priorities reflect real human security needs, not just geopolitical signalling or industrial interests.

However, civil society has extremely limited space to engage in defence policy debates. Defence is often treated as a closed domain and shielded from civic input under the pretext of national security. This exclusion is shortsighted. Without civil society engagement, there is little pressure to embed safeguards, address corruption risks or consider broader security trade-offs.

Unfortunately, civil society is largely excluded from NATO processes, a serious mistake that weakens NATO’s approach to modern security challenges. Security extends far beyond missiles and tanks to include combating disinformation, building institutional resilience, protecting energy infrastructure and strengthening democratic systems. Civil society plays vital roles in all these areas.

The fact that NATO’s new commitments largely ignore civic space, transparency and public accountability is particularly problematic given that the 1.5 per cent of GDP allocated to resilience and innovation should include efforts to strengthen democratic institutions.

Research clearly shows that transparency and access to information in the defence sector are not inherently at odds with national security. Greater openness, when properly managed, enhances security outcomes. CSOs can serve both as watchdogs and strategic partners, helping governments balance transparency with legitimate security concerns. Their inclusion can strengthen democratic resilience, mitigate integrity risks and ensure defence policies reflect the public interest, not just elite or industrial agendas.

What action should states and international institutions take?

States and international institutions – including NATO, the EU, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – must anchor defence spending within robust integrity and accountability frameworks. Credible defence against systemic threats – from disinformation to climate insecurity – is as much about values as it is about weapons.

NATO states must agree on common standards for transparency, risk assessment and public reporting, while defining national roadmaps to meet NATO’s spending targets. These standards should apply to procurement, exports, offset agreements and spending on AI, cyber and research and development. National parliaments must be empowered to scrutinise decisions and independent oversight bodies should be adequately resourced to follow the money.

International institutions must coordinate these efforts. They should develop shared benchmarks, facilitate peer review processes and promote risk mitigation tools. NATO, in particular, should integrate transparency and anti-corruption measures into its capability development efforts, while the EU can leverage its regulatory power and funding streams to incentivise reforms.

Multilateral forums should prioritise inclusive dialogue on what constitutes meaningful and accountable defence, recognising that military capability and democratic resilience are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive.

The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.