NextFin News - NATO’s move to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 is a multi-year procurement signal, not a one-quarter trading headline. The alliance has already written the spending path into a formal framework: at least 3.5% of GDP for core defense requirements and 1.5% for defense- and security-related spending tied to infrastructure, networks, resilience, innovation, and the industrial base. For investors asking which defense stocks stand to gain, the real issue is which companies can convert that policy into backlog growth, delivery visibility, and durable margin support.
At the Hague summit on 24-25 June 2025, NATO allies committed to invest 5% of GDP annually on defense and security-related outlays by 2035. NATO’s 2025 annual report said allies in Europe and Canada spent USD 574 billion on defense in 2025, up 20% in real terms from 2024, and that all allies met the long-standing 2% GDP guideline for the first time. The report also said three allies were already estimated to be meeting the new 3.5% core-defense objective in 2025. That is not the profile of a fleeting burst of spending. It is the shape of a budget regime that is being pulled higher for a decade.
The market logic follows the procurement logic. The 5% framework is broad enough to reach not only missiles and armored vehicles, but also sensors, air defense, cyber, secure communications, logistics, civil resilience, and the industrial capacity needed to produce more of all of it. That widens the set of potential winners. The companies best positioned are not simply the ones closest to war headlines; they are the ones closest to the budget lines NATO governments will have to expand if they want to meet the new target on schedule.
Among the largest U.S. primes, Lockheed Martin remains a core beneficiary because missile defense and allied systems sit at the center of the new demand mix. Its 2025 annual report said backlog increased primarily because of higher orders for strategic and missile defense programs, including NGI, strategic re-entry programs, and hypersonics. That matters because NATO’s spending path rewards the kinds of long-cycle programs that are hard to replace quickly and expensive to delay. The company’s scale gives it a shorter path from policy to revenue than smaller peers that still need to prove production capacity.
In Europe, Rheinmetall looks like the most direct expression of the NATO spend-up. The company said in its 2025 annual report that the share of order backlog tied to NATO member countries, NATO Global Partners, and other European NATO partners increased to over 90%. That concentration is powerful in a world where the alliance is pushing member states to build more of their own industrial base. Rheinmetall’s exposure to ammunition, land systems, and air-defense-adjacent products puts it on the front line of the European rearmament cycle.
Saab fits the same logic from a different angle. Its Q1 2025 results showed order bookings of SEK 19.1 billion and order backlog of SEK 189.2 billion. The company’s mix of surveillance, radar, electronic warfare, fighter aircraft, and command systems aligns with the parts of the NATO framework that go beyond hardware procurement. If the 1.5% resilience bucket turns into more spending on networks, interoperability, and industrial capacity, Saab is positioned to benefit from budget growth that is less visible in the classic tank-and-missile narrative.
Thales also screens well because its defense business sits in the systems layer that governments usually buy when they want faster modernization. Its 2024 full-year results showed order intake of €25.3 billion, sales of €20.6 billion, and a consolidated order book of nearly €51 billion, a record level. That combination of backlog and product mix gives Thales exposure to secure communications, radar, electronics, and command-and-control systems — the sort of spending NATO allies can accelerate without waiting for a new platform to be designed from scratch.
The first-order effect of higher NATO spending is obvious: more orders, more backlog, and more production runs. The second-order effect is more interesting. If the alliance is serious about meeting a 3.5% core-defense floor plus a 1.5% resilience bucket, governments will have to keep funding domestic industrial capacity, not just buy finished systems. That should favor firms with European manufacturing footprints, integrated product portfolios, and enough scale to capture both hard-ware and software-heavy spending.
That is why the best defense stocks are likely to be the names that sit closest to the bottlenecks in production, not the loudest geopolitical proxies. The obvious trade is to buy the companies most exposed to headline risk. The better trade, over time, is to own the suppliers of air defense, sensors, secure networks, and integrated systems — the parts of the stack that NATO’s new spending formula is most likely to keep funding year after year.
The pricing question matters because the sector has not been sleeping. Defense shares have already benefited from the post-2022 rearmament theme, and the market has spent years moving from an emergency response to an industrial retooling story. That means the next leg is less about whether NATO spends more — that part is now policy — and more about whether the extra spending translates into incremental earnings. In other words, the market has probably priced the direction of travel, but not yet the speed or composition of the order flow.
That is where stock selection becomes more important than the simple thematic call. A company with a long backlog, rising delivery capacity, and exposure to the exact products governments are trying to buy faster can still re-rate if it converts policy into margins. A company that merely looks geopolitically levered but lacks industrial throughput may have much less upside. The distinction matters because NATO’s 5% path is likely to be implemented unevenly across countries, with some governments prioritizing munitions and air defense, others pushing cyber and resilience, and still others leaning on domestic suppliers to satisfy political constraints.
Why The New NATO Target Looks Structural Rather Than Cyclical
The spending push is structural, not cyclical, because it has been turned into a formal alliance objective with a 2035 horizon. A cyclical impulse would fade with the news cycle or the next political shift. This one has a rule, a timetable, and a broad definition of eligible spending. That makes it harder to unwind and easier for governments to embed into multi-year budgets. NATO is not just asking members to spend more; it is defining where that money should go.
The evidence for a structural call is already visible in the trend. NATO said defense expenditure in Europe and Canada reached USD 574 billion in 2025, up 20% in real terms from 2024. The report also said European allies and Canada have more than doubled annual defense expenditure since 2014, with a 106% real-term increase. That means the current spending cycle is not starting from zero. It is building on an 11-year reallocation of budget priorities, one that has already been reinforced by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and is now being institutionalized through alliance targets.
There is also a transmission mechanism beyond pure budget growth. The 1.5% bucket for infrastructure, networks, resilience, innovation, and the industrial base matters because it changes the composition of demand. A higher share of spending will go to systems, software, cyber, logistics, and factory capacity. That is important for stock selection because it broadens the earnings pools that can benefit from NATO’s plan. A contractor no longer needs to win only one large platform program to participate. It can benefit through upgrades, integration, maintenance, and networked systems.
“Allies will allocate at least 3.5% of GDP to resource core defence requirements for Allied militaries and to meet the NATO Capability Targets. The other 1.5% of GDP will go towards protecting critical infrastructure, defending networks, ensuring civil preparedness and resilience, enhancing innovation, and strengthening our defence industrial base.”
That language is the strongest clue that the spending regime is changing the industrial map, not merely padding existing budgets. In a normal cycle, governments buy more of the same. Here, NATO is specifying new categories of demand that should advantage firms with diversified product lines and regional production capacity. That is a structural shift in what the market should reward.
The second-order implication is that the obvious winners may not be the entire sector. The market has already spent years pricing in rearmament, and much of the most visible rally in defense shares followed the post-2022 surge in geopolitical tension. That means the next leg may depend less on the existence of higher spending and more on execution: who wins contracts, who expands capacity, and who can convert geopolitical urgency into earnings. In that sense, the market may already know the story, but not yet the distribution of the benefits.
The counter-thesis is serious: the defense trade may already be crowded, and fiscal constraints could slow the actual budget path. Governments can endorse a target and still delay procurement, stretch delivery schedules, or shift accounting categories instead of adding real capability. That would limit upside for the most obvious defense names and leave only the strongest backlogs and most efficient production lines with room to outperform. The argument is not that NATO’s plan is fake. It is that the market may have gotten ahead of the execution.
There is also an important regional distinction. The U.S. primes are likely to keep winning allied contracts, but Europe’s push for strategic autonomy means more money may stay on the continent than in previous cycles. That creates a relative advantage for European contractors with local plants and political acceptance inside member states. Rheinmetall and Saab fit that pattern. Thales fits it through electronics and systems. Even Lockheed Martin, although still central to missiles and integrated systems, may face a slower path to marginal benefit if governments prefer local production where possible.
The falsifying signal is concrete. If allied budgets and contract awards in 2026-2027 do not accelerate materially from the 2025 base, or if the order books of the most exposed European primes stop expanding, then the structural thesis weakens. The market would be telling investors that the target is politically durable but industrially thin.
Who Looks Best Positioned If The Spending Path Holds
Short term, the names with the cleanest backlog support and the most direct exposure to current procurement pipelines look best positioned. Lockheed Martin has scale, allied demand, and missile-defense exposure. Rheinmetall has the sharpest European operating leverage to higher land-systems and ammunition demand. Saab has a strong fit with sensors, radar, and command systems. Thales sits in the systems and electronics layer that can capture spending tied to modernization and resilience.
But those four names are not interchangeable. Lockheed Martin is closer to the high-end integration and missile-defense budget. Rheinmetall is closer to volume, munitions, and industrial ramp. Saab is closer to surveillance, airborne systems, and interoperability. Thales is closer to electronics, cyber, and command infrastructure. NATO’s spending mix matters because it can reward different business models depending on whether the allocation lands in core weapons, resilience, or digital infrastructure. That is why “best” should be defined by the type of spending, not just by the size of the defense logo.
Medium term, the advantage should migrate toward companies that can convert backlog into sales without running into production bottlenecks. NATO’s spending target should keep demand healthy, but execution will matter more as orders turn into deliveries. In that phase, investors will likely reward firms with visible order books, flexible supply chains, and an ability to protect margins while capacity expands. Backlog by itself is not enough if supply chains are tight or contract mix turns less favorable.
The industrial-capacity point is especially important. A defense company with a large backlog but a weak ability to add lines, hire workers, source components, or localize production may struggle to turn policy into earnings. By contrast, a contractor that can expand capacity in Europe, secure multi-year framework agreements, and maintain pricing discipline may compound more reliably even if its headline growth rate looks less dramatic. That is one reason the market may eventually favor systems integrators and electronics specialists alongside the more obvious weapons manufacturers.
Long term, the structural beneficiaries are likely to be the firms that help Europe rebuild industrial capacity. The 1.5% resilience and industrial-base bucket suggests more spending on local production, cyber, logistics, and secure infrastructure. That should favor companies that can manufacture in Europe and sell systems that are difficult to substitute quickly. It also means the winner set could broaden beyond traditional combat platforms to include electronics, communications, and integrated-defense suppliers. In practical terms, the spending mix points to a larger role for software, sensors, and networked capability — the plumbing of modern defense rather than only the hardware.
The upside case is straightforward: if NATO members keep moving toward the 3.5% core-defense benchmark and the 1.5% resilience bucket becomes a real funding channel, order books should keep growing and the strongest suppliers should see multi-year revenue visibility. The downside case is equally clear: if governments slow the budget ramp or rely on creative accounting rather than new procurement, the rally in defense shares could narrow sharply to only the names with the best existing backlog. A third path sits between them: spending rises, but mostly in lower-margin or politically fragmented categories, which would keep the sector supported while muting the earnings effect.
That leaves the base case: NATO’s target is likely to keep the defense cycle alive well beyond the next headline, but the biggest winners will be the companies closest to the alliance’s bottlenecks, not necessarily the companies most associated with war headlines. Higher spending alone is not the whole story. The composition of spending is the story.
There is a practical way to test that view. Watch whether order intake, backlog, and capacity expansions move together at the companies most exposed to Europe. If the policy is real, those three variables should begin to reinforce one another. If order intake rises but backlog stalls, or backlog rises but delivery capacity does not, the market is looking at a political signal rather than a durable procurement wave.
So the best defense stocks amid higher NATO spending are the ones that can turn a policy pledge into industrial throughput. In this market, the real moat is not the headline. It is the backlog.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
