Donald Trump’s recent insistence that NATO countries increase military spending to 5% of their GDP is a reckless and self-serving manoeuvre that prioritises warmongering over humanity’s pressing needs. This demand, rooted in Trump’s cosy ties with American weapons manufacturers, threatens to divert trillions from critical global challenges like starvation and climate change.
In true Trump fashion, it’s a policy steeped in corruption and short-sightedness, with little regard for the broader consequences that increased militarisation causes.
In 2024, NATO’s 32 member states collectively spent $1.47 trillion on defence, representing 2.71% of their combined GDP. Trump’s proposed 5% target would push this to $2.71 trillion annually, nearly doubling current expenditure. For context, the war obsessed United States, NATO’s largest contributor, already accounts for $877 billion, or 3.38% of its GDP. Smaller nations within the NATO alliance would face crippling pressure to divert funds from social services to meet this arbitrary threshold.
Earlier this month, AP reported:
Most U.S. allies at NATO endorse President Donald Trump’s demand that they invest 5% of gross domestic product on their defense needs and are ready to ramp up security spending even more, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said Thursday.
“There’s broad support,” Rutte told reporters after chairing a meeting of NATO defense ministers at the alliance’s Brussels headquarters. “We are really close,” he said, and added that he has “total confidence that we will get there” by the next NATO summit in three weeks.
European allies and Canada have already been investing heavily in their armed forces, as well as on weapons and ammunition, since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
At the same time, some have balked at U.S. demands to invest 5% of GDP on defense — 3.5% on core military spending and 1.5% on the roads, bridges, airfields and sea ports needed to deploy armies more quickly.
What could $2.71 trillion achieve if redirected? The UN estimates that ending world hunger by 2030 requires $330 billion annually. That’s just 12% of Trump’s proposed NATO budget. Imagine the impact: 821 million people being fed, malnutrition eradicated, and communities stabilised and less likely to conduct resource based conflicts.
Instead, Trump’s plan would funnel billions into weapons systems, many produced by U.S. giants like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, companies with which he has troubling financial ties. During his first term, Trump’s administration approved $115 billion in arms sales, with Lockheed alone securing $83 billion in contracts. His stock holdings and campaign donations from defence contractors raise serious questions about whose interests he serves.
Climate change mitigation offers another stark contrast. The IPCC estimates that $1.6–3.8 trillion annually is needed to limit warming to 1.5°C IPCC, 2018. Trump’s $2.71 trillion could cover the upper end of this, funding renewable energy, reforestation, and adaptation for vulnerable nations. Instead, his policy would lock NATO into a cycle of militarisation, exacerbating global instability as climate-driven disasters rise. In 2023, 377 million people faced climate-related displacement. Diverting even half of Trump’s proposed spend could transform global resilience and save countless lives.
Education and diplomacy, cornerstones of peace, are similarly underfunded. UNESCO reports a $39 billion annual shortfall for universal education. Investing $2.71 trillion could not only close this gap but also fund diplomatic initiatives to de-escalate conflicts. NATO’s own data shows that 23 of its 32 members now meet the 2% GDP defence target, up from 10 in 2020. Forcing a jump to 5% risks alienating and destabilising smaller economies like Latvia or Estonia, where social services are already stretched.
Trump’s corruption taints this push for more military expenditure. His administration’s revolving door with defence contractors, evidenced by former Boeing executive Patrick Shanahan as Acting Defence Secretary, suggests a profiteering motive instead of concern over military capabilities. His properties reportedly earned millions from foreign governments during his presidency, raising conflict-of-interest concerns. This isn’t leadership; it’s a shakedown dressed as geopolitics.
New Zealand, a partner country through NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme, feels the ripple effects through its security partnerships. Increasing our $4.7 billion defence budget (2.2% of GDP) to 5% could instead fund the required 10,000 new teachers or 50,000 hospital beds Aotearoa desperatly needs. Globally, Trump’s plan undermines the cooperative spirit needed for peace. Diplomacy, not arms races, resolves conflicts. His NATO demand is a corrupt, dangerous distraction from humanity’s real priorities...ending starvation, climate change mitigation, and education deserve taxpayers' money, not Donald Trump's warmonger mates.
