Back in June, US President Donald Trump took a victory lap at the NATO summit in The Hague after allies agreed to significantly increase defense spending, marking a major foreign policy win for the president.

Although he may have succeeded, many allies are relying on flexible definitions and creative accounting to meet the alliance’s new targets—often in ways that critics say stray far from traditional military spending, Newsweek reports.

Allies agreed to dedicate 5% of their GDP to defense, a steep increase from the 2% target set in 2014. But the new figure is split: 3.5% is meant for core defense needs, while the remaining 1.5% can go toward "defense-related" investments like infrastructure, cybersecurity, and resilience.

Stretching the definition of defense

It is this latter category that has opened the door for reinterpretation. Italy, for example, is pushing to count its $15.5 billion Strait of Messina Bridge, a massive civilian infrastructure project, as NATO spending, calling it a "security-enhancing" asset on the alliance’s southern flank. Critics like Nick Witney of the European Council on Foreign Relations call that "a bridge too far."

Experts argue this flexible standard invites countries to repurpose existing or unrelated expenditures. EU and NATO member states, particularly in Western and Southern Europe, are expected to label infrastructure improvements like highways and ports as military mobility projects, sometimes with questionable relevance to actual defense needs.

Related News

United States and Russia in talks over new prisoner exchange: Axios

Maduro urges US dialogue, warns against military threats

Elie Perot, a professor at the Brussels School of Governance, notes that heavily indebted countries are especially eager to reclassify ongoing projects to meet NATO benchmarks, even if their strategic value is debatable. Adding to the confusion is the absence of any clear enforcement mechanism for the 1.5% category, unlike the 3.5% portion, which requires members to submit annual progress plans.

In recent years, several NATO countries have pushed the limits of what counts as defense. The UK has included war pensions and the intelligence services. Spain has tallied coastal surveillance and border control. Germany reached the 2% threshold last year with the help of a temporary fund and spending from non-defense ministries.

Canada, too, counts expenditures from its Coast Guard and even police peacekeeping missions. And some countries have suggested climate change efforts should qualify, arguing that they contribute to long-term security and disaster resilience. Others see this as a way to inflate defense budgets without committing new funds.

Lack of clarity and calls for reform

Analysts say NATO’s vague definitions allow for wide disparities in reporting. Mackenzie Eaglen of the American Heritage Institute calls the alliance’s figures a "hodgepodge of accounting," noting that expenditures like Spain’s Civil Guard budget, primarily for domestic policing, are included as defense. Canada, for example, expanded its definition after NATO loosened its criteria in 2018.

The lack of transparency exacerbates the issue. NATO provides only high-level breakdowns of spending, personnel, equipment, infrastructure, and an undefined "other" category, making it hard to compare real defense efforts across countries.

John Deni of the Atlantic Council points out that NATO has issued no public guidance on what qualifies as a defense-related expense under the 5% rule. As a result, allies can stretch the rules to claim credit without redirecting funds or truly increasing military readiness.

Some experts argue that the entire spending framework is flawed. Todd Harrison, another senior fellow at the American Heritage Institute, believes that instead of focusing on arbitrary budget targets, NATO should set specific capability and readiness goals. He called it "intellectually lazy" to "use defense spending as a percent of GDP to try to govern whether or not countries are meeting their military commitments to NATO."

If the Trump administration, or any future White House, demands greater transparency or stricter definitions, they could find the US under scrutiny too. Despite its massive defense budget, the US hasn’t spent 5% of its GDP on defense since the 1990s and has also counted infrastructure like interstate highways under its defense umbrella.

Ultimately, Harrison suggests Trump may be more inclined to declare victory than dig into the details. "If they do," he warned, "this will look more and more like what it is, which is a false commitment."