This week, the European Union crossed a symbolic and decisive political threshold: it officially activated rearmament mode during the latest Council meeting, with an ambitious defence strategy that involves increasing military spending to 5% of GDP in line with NATO. But this shift, solemnly announced from Brussels, comes wrapped in controversy: not only because of its unprecedented warlike orientation in peacetime, but also due to the opaque and authoritarian methods adopted by the Commission, bypassing Parliament on such a crucial and sensitive matter.
In the words of António Costa, President of the European Council, “Europe needs to spend better, together, as a team.” However, behind this apparent technical consensus lies a deeper conflict: the European Parliament—the only institution directly elected by the citizens—has been sidelined from the debate over the new €150 billion Defence Fund (SAFE), aimed at financing joint arms purchases.
Rearmament without democratic debate
The Commission and the Council have been tasked with drafting a rearmament roadmap for 2030, in “full coherence” with NATO and in response to Washington’s new target. Although it is repeated as a mantra that the aim is not to duplicate capabilities or waste resources, the SAFE fund has been designed using Article 122 of the Treaties—intended for emergencies which allows decisions to be adopted without parliamentary participation.
President of the European Parliament Roberta Metsola did not hide her indignation. “We question why a legal basis was chosen that seeks to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. No parliament in the world would accept this,” she stated, leaving the possibility of taking the European Commission to the Court of Justice of the EU.
This clash between institutions goes far beyond a legal technicality. In practice, it weakens one of the three pillars that define the European system: the balance between the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament. By bypassing the latter, a democratic rift threatens to transform the EU into an increasingly presidential entity, in which the Commission acts as a government without real checks.
The paradox is apparent: Europe is rearming in the name of its sovereignty and defence against external threats… but internally it is disarming its institutional balance.
Responding to U.S. pressure
The geopolitical backdrop is not neutral either. The push for European rearmament responds to pressure from the United States. Donald Trump has already threatened to impose tariffs on countries that fail to meet their NATO military commitments. In this sense, Brussels’ response seems more a gesture of submission than an expression of sovereign will.
EU leaders, nonetheless, hope this new military strategy will not hinder negotiations with the U.S. to avoid a trade war before July 9. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that “Europe is ready for a deal,” although preparations continue for possible failure.
I
