De Wever Rejects Defense Cuts, Slams Critics on Geopolitics

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has firmly rejected proposals to cut defense spending, dismissing critics as people who “don’t really understand geopolitics.” The statement, made in an interview with VTM NIEUWS on May 27, comes as his Arizona coalition government faces tense budget negotiations with a July 21 deadline.

Context

Belgium reached the NATO target of 2% of GDP on defense spending for the first time in 2025, after decades of underinvestment that saw the country rank among the alliance’s lowest contributors. The current government, a five-party coalition known as “Arizona” (N-VA, Vooruit, CD&V, MR, and Les Engagés), now faces the challenge of finding at least €5-7 billion in budget savings while maintaining this commitment.

According to Het Laatste Nieuws, both Vooruit minister Frank Vandenbroucke and CD&V chairman Sammy Mahdi had suggested cutting the defense budget—Vandenbroucke by questioning the pace of investment, and Mahdi by proposing €1 billion in savings.

Key Developments

Speaking in the Belgian Chamber of Representatives, De Wever made clear that the 2% target is non-negotiable. “People who think a lot can be saved there are people who don’t really understand geopolitics,” he said. “I don’t have the tendency to negotiate in advance through the media, but that 2% for Defense is now carved in marble. That is what you owe as membership dues to NATO, an organization that employs thousands of people in our country and on which we are completely dependent for our security.”

Defense Minister Theo Francken (N-VA) reinforced the prime minister’s position, responding sharply to the proposals in an HLN podcast. “As the only country in the world spending less money on Defense? That is very unwise and not solidary,” Francken warned. He noted that Belgium spends €130 billion on social security—€55 per €100 of tax revenue—compared to just €3 per €100 for defense, as reported by HLN. “The world is on fire and yet some parties find that scandalously much,” he added.

Francken also emphasized that the 2% commitment was an agreement within the government and had been communicated to NATO through 2029. “We agreed to maintain that 2 percent for investments in Defense until 2029,” he said. “It is an agreement within the government and that is how it has been communicated to NATO.”

Analysis

The defense budget debate reveals deep fissures within the Arizona coalition. N-VA takes a hardline pro-defense stance, viewing 2% as a minimum commitment, while Vooruit and CD&V face pressure from their constituencies to prioritize social spending. Belgium’s public debt exceeds 100% of GDP, and the government needs €5-7 billion in savings, with the Court of Audit (Rekenhof) estimating the total gap at approximately €15 billion.

As VRT NWS reported earlier this year, De Wever had already warned that Belgium would need to “sprint” to meet NATO norms, with the government planning a Defense Fund financed through the sale of state shareholdings in companies like Belfius, BNP Paribas, and Brussels Airport. The fund was intended to receive an initial €2.4 billion contribution.

The debate also unfolds against a broader geopolitical backdrop: the ongoing war in Ukraine, rising NATO-Russia tensions, and signals from NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte that the alliance may raise its spending target to 3% or more. Donald Trump’s return to office has further intensified pressure on European allies to increase their defense contributions.

What’s Next

The Arizona coalition faces a critical July 21 deadline to reach a budget agreement. De Wever urged restraint in public statements, acknowledging the difficulty of the negotiations: “I know it’s in vain, but the fewer public statements, the fewer tough declarations, the fewer aggressive attacks on each other, the easier it will go.”

With Belgium hosting both NATO headquarters and SHAPE in the country, failure to maintain defense spending commitments could damage its credibility within the alliance at a time of heightened geopolitical tension. The question remains whether the coalition can bridge its internal divisions and find the necessary savings without compromising its defense commitments.