Connect with us

News

Europe faces €56bn Nato defence spending hole

Published

on

Europe faces €56bn Nato defence spending hole

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Nato’s European members need to find an extra €56bn a year to meet the alliance’s defence spending target, but the shortfall has halved in the past decade, according to research by Germany’s Ifo Institute for the Financial Times.

The research showed many of the EU countries with the biggest shortfalls in Nato’s target for defence spending to hit 2 per cent of gross domestic product — including Italy, Spain and Belgium — also have among the highest levels of debt and budget deficits in Europe.

The push for the 32 members of the US-led alliance to boost defence spending in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is stoking budgetary pressures in Europe at a time of low growth and when many countries are tightening their fiscal plans. Economists say this will make it harder for the laggards to bridge the gap.

Advertisement

The biggest shortfall by value was in Germany, which last year spent €14bn less than needed to meet the benchmark, according to Ifo. But Berlin has halved this gap in the past decade, adjusted for inflation, and plans to close it completely this year.

The next largest European shortfalls were €11bn in Spain, €10.8bn in Italy and €4.6bn in Belgium. The trio were among six EU countries with debt above 100 per cent of their GDP last year. Italy also had one of the bloc’s highest budget deficits at 7.2 per cent and its interest costs are set to rise above 9 per cent of government revenues this year.

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

“Countries with high debt levels and high interest costs do not have much room to raise more debt, so the only real way to do it is to cut spending in other areas,” said Marcel Schlepper, an economist at Ifo. “This is not easy, as we saw when Germany tried to cut subsidies on agricultural diesel and the farmers came out in protest.”

US state department spokesperson Matthew Miller this week acknowledged that there had been an “improvement” in EU efforts to get all Nato members to hit the 2 per cent threshold. Washington has long wanted Europe to spend more on its own defence.

Advertisement

Last year, two-thirds of the total €1.2tn of Nato defence spending was by the US, more than double the €361bn spent by EU members, the UK and Norway combined.

New EU fiscal rules applying from next year are set to usher in more budget cuts as countries seek to comply with a 3 per cent limit on annual deficits and a 60 per cent debt-to-GDP threshold. More than 10 countries in the bloc are expected to breach the annual deficit limit, which will probably result in sanctions by the European Commission.

But during negotiations that ended last year, Poland, Baltic countries and Italy successfully campaigned to treat defence spending more favourably under the new rules. The commission will therefore regard military expenditure as a mitigating factor when assessing whether to take action against countries breaching the annual deficit limit.

In cases such as Poland, which in 2024 is set to spend more than 4 per cent of its output on defence — the highest level among Nato members — and thus breach EU fiscal limits, this is likely to lead to a more lenient assessment of its budget.

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Advertisement

Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s secretary-general, told reporters on Thursday that two-thirds of members would meet the 2 per cent target this year, up from just three in 2014 when the defence investment pledge was agreed after Russia annexed Crimea.

Eurozone countries are on track to double their defence spending from €150bn in 2021 to €320bn in 2026, according to Pantheon Macroeconomics, which estimated this would boost sluggish growth by 0.2 to 0.3 per cent. This week, Norway became the latest European Nato member to say it would meet the alliance’s 2 per cent target in 2024, a year ahead of schedule.

Lorenzo Codogno, a former Italian treasury official and now an economic consultant, said it would be “difficult” for Italy, which had debt above 140 per cent of GDP last year, to reach the Nato target “if there is no special exemption within the rules or no EU money involved”.

“The Russian threat is not perceived as sufficiently dangerous to justify, say, welfare spending cuts to make room for weapons,” he said.

Nato polling found low public support for increasing defence spending in some countries with the largest shortfalls. Only 28 per cent of Italians think their country should raise military spending, while 62 per cent want it to spend the same or less.

Despite being home to Nato’s headquarters, Belgium’s defence spending was only 1.21 per cent of GDP last year, one of the lowest in the alliance, according to new figures it released on Thursday. Spain was not much higher at 1.24 per cent and Italy was at 1.47 per cent.

Advertisement

Excluding the seven European countries that have said they aim to reach Nato’s 2 per cent target this year, including new member Sweden, Ifo found the European shortfall would still be €35bn.

“We are moving in the right direction, yet too slowly and too late,” Poland’s foreign minister Radosław Sikorski said on Friday, pointing out Russian defence spending was set to reach 7 per cent of GDP this year. “The Russian economy is already operating on a war footing. European economies need to switch to at least a crisis mode.”

News

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

Published

on

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Casper.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

Advertisement

In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” said James, a Democrat.

A voter casts a ballot during New York’s primary election on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Ryan Murphy)

Advertisement

Advertisement

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle that it s up to the states and Congress to set election rules.

“While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down,” Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. “So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”

Requests for comment sent to the White House and he U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

Advertisement

Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump’s defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.

Advertisement

Casper, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Published

on

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

transcript

transcript

Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”

Advertisement
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

By Julie Yoon

June 24, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

Published

on

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

A massive 826,780-square-foot warehouse sits illuminated Feb. 12, 2026, in the El Paso suburb of Socorro, Texas, that was recently purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for $122.8 million.

Morgan Lee/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Morgan Lee/AP

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.

Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.

Advertisement

In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the United States. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.

“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Balakrishnan represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel and said its ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges on the panel, said the plaintiffs had not shown the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. Immigrants received notice of removal proceedings and were given a chance to respond, he wrote in his opinion.

Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Advertisement

Walker said there was no requirement that the administration inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending