Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles stood before reporters in Madrid on October 10, 2025, her tone measured but firm. The question at hand: Was Spain concerned about its standing in NATO after a barrage of criticism from U.S. President Donald Trump? Robles was unequivocal. "We are not worried," she stated, according to The Associated Press. She went on to emphasize Spain’s loyalty, adding, "I believe that President Trump must know that Spain is one of the committed and loyal (NATO) allies."
These remarks came in the wake of a particularly tense week for the transatlantic alliance. Just a day earlier, in the Oval Office, President Trump had not minced words during his meeting with Finnish President Alexander Stubb. Trump, referencing Spain’s defense contributions, declared, "You people are going to have to start speaking to Spain. You have to call them and find why they are a laggard. They have no excuse not to do this, but that’s all right. Maybe you should throw them out of NATO, frankly." According to the AP and further confirmed by Euronews, Trump’s comments reignited a months-long feud with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, dating back to the NATO summit in The Hague in June 2025.
At the heart of the dispute is Spain’s defense spending. Last year, Spain contributed just 1.3 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defense—a figure that falls well short of NATO’s minimum 2 percent target. Trump, never one to shy away from blunt assessments, called Spain the alliance’s "laggard" and pressed for a dramatic increase. "As you know, I requested that they pay five percent, not two percent. And most people thought that was not going to happen, and it happened virtually unanimously. We had one laggard. It was Spain. Spain," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on October 9, 2025.
The tension over defense budgets is not new, but it reached a boiling point in June 2025, when Spain secured an exemption from an even more ambitious goal: raising defense spending to 5 percent of GDP by 2035. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez made his government’s position clear in a letter to NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte. “Committing to a 5% target would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive, as it would move Spain further away from optimal spending and would hinder the EU’s ongoing efforts to strengthen its security and defense ecosystem,” Sánchez wrote. He continued, “It is the legitimate right of every government to decide whether or not they are willing to make those sacrifices. As a sovereign Ally, we choose not to.”
Trump’s frustration was palpable during the NATO summit in The Hague. “I think Spain’s terrible what they’ve done. No, I do. They’re the only country that won’t pay the full — they want to stay at 2 percent,” he said at a press conference. Yet, in a moment of candor, he also remarked, “I do like Spain, by the way. I think it’s unfair that they’re not paying.”
The U.S. president’s tough talk has sparked debate across Europe and within NATO itself. Trump has long argued that the United States should not shoulder the burden of European defense alone, insisting that every member must "pull its weight." As reported by Euronews, he reiterated, "Washington was no longer willing to allow Europe to 'piggyback' on its military strength," a sentiment that has resonated with some U.S. voters but ruffled feathers among America’s allies.
Spain, for its part, argues that its defense contributions extend beyond raw spending figures. Robles and Sánchez have pointed to Spain’s participation in NATO missions and its strategic role in southern Europe and the Mediterranean. But for Trump and his supporters, the math is simple: meet the target, or face the consequences.
The controversy comes at a sensitive time for the alliance. Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine has underscored the importance of collective defense. Finland, which shares the longest land border with Russia of any EU country, is taking no chances. During the same Oval Office meeting where Trump lambasted Spain, he and Stubb finalized a deal for Finland to purchase 11 medium icebreaker ships from the U.S. at a cost of roughly $6.1 billion, with the first delivery expected by 2028. The move is part of Finland’s broader effort to bolster its defenses against potential Russian aggression, especially after Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
For NATO, the question of defense spending is more than a budget issue—it’s about unity and deterrence. In response to Spain’s stance, the alliance agreed to a review of member contributions in 2029. The goal: to monitor progress and reassess the threat posed by Russia, whose actions in Ukraine have rattled nerves from the Baltics to the Mediterranean.
Meanwhile, the political theater surrounding the dispute has taken on a life of its own. Trump’s comments about Spain were not his only headline-grabbing remarks during his meeting with Stubb. The two leaders also engaged in lighthearted banter about Trump’s prospects for the Nobel Peace Prize. "Well, I don't know. Look, I made seven deals and now it's eight. Solved the wars, one going 31 years, one going 34 years, one going 35 years, one going 10 years. I made 7 deals. This would be number 8," Trump mused, referring to his self-proclaimed record as a peacemaker. "But they'll (Nobel committee) have to do what they do. Whatever they do is fine. I know this. I didn't do it for that. I did it because I saved a lot of lives."
Stubb, for his part, played along but offered a dose of realism. "Well, I think that's probably a decision that comes from the Nobel Committee. And my take is that there are two key pieces that have to be solved in the big picture. One is in the Middle East, and we're seeing the results of that. And then the other one is between Russia and Ukraine. And once those are solved, you know, I don't see any impediments to it."
As the dust settles, Spain remains defiant. Its leaders insist that their country is a loyal and committed NATO member, even if their defense spending falls short of Trump’s expectations. The alliance, for now, has opted for flexibility, agreeing to revisit the issue in a few years rather than risk a rupture at a time of heightened security threats.
For many observers, the episode is a reminder of the ongoing challenges facing NATO as it adapts to new realities—financial, political, and strategic—in a world that seems as unpredictable as ever.