Keir Starmer dodges questions about how UK government will find £30 billion annually to meet Nato defence spending target at The Hague summit

As world tensions rise and Nato pushes its member countries to increase defence budgets, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is under pressure to explain how the UK plans to meet a new, ambitious target — spending 3.5% of GDP on defence each year.

But when asked directly, Starmer dodged specifics about where the extra £30 billion annually would come from.

Starmer Promises More Details but Avoids Tax Increase Commitments

At the Nato summit in The Hague, with leaders including former President Donald Trump, Starmer said the government will spell out exactly how it intends to hit this spending goal — but not just yet.

When pressed on whether taxes might rise to fund the boost, Starmer stopped short of ruling it out completely, though he emphasized the party’s manifesto promises not to raise income tax, National Insurance contributions, or VAT.

Nato’s New Defence Target Is Stirring Debate Among Members

The new Nato spending goal isn’t just about defence budgets. Members have also agreed in principle to invest an extra 1.5% of GDP in related areas like cybersecurity.

But some insiders say the numbers might be getting fudged — the deadline to reach 3.5% has reportedly been pushed from 2032 back to 2035 in draft documents, and the language softens commitment from a firm “we commit” to a more vague “allies commit.”

Spain, in particular, has made it clear it has no plans to meet the target, while Donald Trump has openly stated that the U.S. doesn’t feel bound by the new spending promises.

Germany Pulls Ahead Amid Global Instability

Meanwhile, Germany is bucking the trend.

Citing increasing global instability and potential conflicts in the Middle East, Berlin announced it will speed up its military spending plans, aiming to hit the 3.5% target by 2029 — a full six years ahead of schedule.

This means Germany will need to find an extra $60 billion annually for defence.

Starmer Reiterates Past Defence Spending Plans Without Tax Hikes

Speaking to reporters in the Netherlands, Starmer pointed out that when the government previously raised defence spending targets — like the planned 2.5% of GDP by 2027-28 — they always explained how it would be funded without raising taxes.

He stressed the party’s commitment to sticking with its manifesto promises not to increase taxes on working people.

The Cost of Nato’s Defence Goals for Member Countries

The price tags for the new Nato spending goals are hefty.

Italy would need around $46 billion more a year, Canada $45 billion, France £44 billion, and the UK about $40 billion.

Spain’s current defence spending was just 1.24% of GDP last year, and meeting the target would require a $36 billion increase — but Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has been clear he’s only aiming for 2.1%, dismissing the higher target outright.

Nato Spending Targets Vary Widely Among Members

Right now, the official Nato target is 2% of GDP, a goal not all countries have met.

Only Poland currently exceeds the 3.5% benchmark.

The U.S. spent 3.38% last year, which translates to a huge absolute amount given its large economy, far outpacing contributions from other members.

The UK spent 2.33% last year, with plans to reach 2.5% by 2027 and an ambition to hit 3% at some point during the next parliament.

Controversy Over What Counts as Defence Spending

There’s also debate over what counts towards the new spending goals.

Some worry that the UK government may include unrelated costs, like energy security or efforts against migrant-smuggling gangs, to boost its figures.

Former Defence Secretary Sir Ben Wallace criticized these moves sharply, accusing the government of using “smoke and mirrors” to exaggerate defence spending without real increases in military funding.

He warned:

“This is an insult to our troops who will see no significant new money. It fools no one.”

What Lies Ahead

With Nato’s new spending targets stirring debate and key members openly questioning their feasibility, the UK government faces a tricky balancing act: how to support the alliance’s goals, manage domestic expectations, and remain true to its tax promises — all while responding to a rapidly shifting global security environment.