When Donald Trump arrived at NATO’s annual summit in The Hague in June, he didn’t just question the alliance’s spending priorities. He threatened to redefine NATO’s article 5, the collective defence provision that says an attack on one member state is an attack on all. This has formed the cornerstone of the military alliance’s promise of security to its 32 members – 30 in Europe plus Canada and the USA – since 1949.

Trump’s bullying tactics worked: most NATO members caved in and gave him what he wanted, committing to almost triple their defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035, on the promise that the USA will come to their aid if attacked. Trump hailed the outcome as a ‘monumental win’.

In the wake of this historic shift, NATO states must address the question of what they’ll now cut back on to meet their promise to Trump. Civil society faces challenges of advocating for social spending while trying to hold governments and the private sector to account over often opaque defence deals.

A trillion-dollar commitment

The numbers behind NATO’s commitment are staggering. European states’ combined defence budgets will balloon from around US$500 billion to over US$1 trillion a year by 2035, essentially matching US spending levels and ensuring that global military spending keeps increasing year-on-year. The new target breaks down into 3.5 per cent of GDP for traditional military spending on troops and weapons, plus 1.5 per cent for broader security investments covering everything from cybersecurity to critical infrastructure protection.

The UK alone is earmarking around US$1.3 billion to restore tactical nuclear capabilities designed to deter a full-scale Russian invasion. The European Union (EU) has approved a fund of around US$176 billion to lend to countries for joint defence projects. EU member states will also be allowed to go into debt without the disciplinary steps that normally take effect once the national deficit exceeds three per cent of GDP – a clear demonstration that defence spending will now be prioritised.

These are immense changes. Some NATO members are currently spending around 1.2 per cent of GDP on traditional defence items such as weapons and troops, making the leap to five per cent a staggering proposition. At a time when many people in NATO countries are struggling with the high cost of living and feel public services have been cut to the bone, remilitarisation may bring still deeper economic insecurity. More military spending may mean less for education, healthcare and programmes that help those most in need. Already the UK government has said it will cut its international aid budget, which once met the global target of 0.7 per of gross national income, to 0.3 per cent by 2027 to enable an increase in defence spending. Other countries are following suit.

The upshot will be a huge transfer of income from the world’s poorest people to politically powerful defence corporations, mostly based in the USA. Trump may be happy and the defence industry may reward him with even bigger donations, but the conditions that foster insecurity and conflict in much of the world can be expected to worsen.

NATO came to renewed prominence with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which prompted Finland and Sweden to join. But some states still haven’t fallen into line with Trump. Spain argued it had secured an opt-out from the spending target, prompting Belgium and Slovakia to demand similar flexibility. Slovenia’s government, which recently lost a parliamentary vote to raise defence spending to three per cent by 2030, has reacted by saying it will hold a consultative referendum on its continuing NATO membership; this appears to be a political attempt to out-manoeuvre the opposition. For states that don’t comply, Trump has threatened retaliation in ongoing trade negotiations

Fresh opportunities for corruption

As well as the hard decisions about budget allocations and the likely impacts on struggling people, there’s another major problem: NATO’s spending surge comes with no meaningful transparency requirements or standardised oversight mechanisms. The result could be vast corruption.

Defence procurement often operates behind closed doors, where normal accountability rules don’t apply. Decisions are shrouded in secrecy, while complex international supply chains make oversight even harder and industry-government relationships blur ethical lines. Close ties between officials and contractors create revolving door relationships that compromise independent decision-making: former government ministers often move into lucrative defence industry lobbying jobs. National security provides a convenient catch-all cover for decisions that might not otherwise withstand public scrutiny.

Rapid spending increases will exacerbate accountability problems. The experience of the pandemic showed that sudden shifts in state spending are rarely transparent and provide opportunities for corruption. As governments race to meet deadlines and pressure from Trump mounts to show immediate results, expedited procurement processes are likely to bypass normal checks and balances.

Corruption can undermine the effectiveness of defence spending. In the two decades US and allied troops were in Afghanistan, billions that were supposed to develop local defence capacity disappeared into ghost projects and phantom battalions. Corruption undermined military effectiveness by producing substandard equipment and compromising logistics networks. This systemic failure helped enable the Taliban’s rapid return to power in 2021. Money spent without accountability can buy the illusion of security while creating new vulnerabilities.

Ukraine’s experience offers another cautionary tale. Despite intense international scrutiny since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, it took years to root out corrupt networks that had captured large portions of the defence budget. Corruption disrupted supply chains, prevented critical equipment reaching Ukrainian armed forces and weakened Ukraine’s defence readiness.

Meanwhile, Russia has spent decades honing its malign influence operations, using cash and networks of cronies to hollow out democratic process in western states, including many NATO members. A defence spending boom with no accountability safeguards risks creating fresh vulnerabilities that Russia, other authoritarian states and organised criminal groups can exploit.

The democratic solution

Recent research on EU defence procurement revealed that more transparent military contracting consistently produces lower corruption levels. Countries with greater transparency spend money more efficiently, with fewer cost overruns and higher-quality equipment.

But one of the most glaring gaps in NATO’s current approach is the absence of civil society from defence governance. Other government ministries in NATO member states have track records of consulting with civil society to some extent, but defence ministries make major spending decisions with minimal input from those who can ensure the choices made reflect real human security needs and are consistent democratic values.

Civil society organisations (CSOs) bring crucial capabilities governments often lack: the independence to ask the right questions, the expertise to spot red flags in complex contracts and the persistence to follow money trails that lead to politically sensitive destinations. Security goes beyond troops and weapons: it also means building institutional resilience, defusing disinformation and strengthening democratic systems from attack, areas where civil society has a great deal to contribute. Excluding civil society is short-sighted.

Effective oversight doesn’t mean states have to reveal sensitive operational details or risk compromising security. It requires tracking financial flows, monitoring contractor performance and ensuring competitive bidding processes. Civil society groups have demonstrated repeatedly that they can investigate defence spending without endangering national security.

Before the money starts to flow, NATO should establish a defence procurement transparency initiative that sets baseline standards for member states. This could include requirements for public disclosure of contract values and vendor selection criteria. Standards should apply to procurement, exports, offset agreements and spending on AI, cyber capabilities and research and development. National parliaments must be empowered to scrutinise decisions and independent oversight bodies should be adequately resourced to follow the money, and both should draw on civil society expertise.

CSOs need to be protected and allowed access to monitor defence spending flows, and whistleblower protections for defence sector employees should be strengthened. As CSOs worldwide endure funding cuts, including because of the Trump administration’s evisceration of aid spending, any increase in defence spending mustn’t come at the cost of democracy and human rights.

NATO’s credibility, and ultimately its security, depends on reconciling human security with respect for democratic values. That will only be achieved if civil society is able to play its role.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org