The Hegseth Shock for New Zealand

In his speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue conference in Singapore in late May, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth highlighted those Indo-Pacific nations—including Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea—that Washington considers “model allies” because they have stepped up to spend more of their GDPs on defense. One country noticeably absent from Hegseth’s list was New Zealand. The omission seemed intentional, given that New Zealand spends a mere 1 percent of its GDP on defense. Wellington has a plan to get closer to 2 percent by 2032, but that number is still far from the 3.5 percent that the Trump administration now considers to be the global standard for allies. In his speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue conference in Singapore in late May, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth highlighted those Indo-Pacific nations—including Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea—that Washington considers “model allies” because they have stepped up to spend more of their GDPs on defense. One country noticeably absent from Hegseth’s list was New Zealand. The omission seemed intentional, given that New Zealand spends a mere 1 percent of its GDP on defense. Wellington has a plan to get closer to 2 percent by 2032, but that number is still far from the 3.5 percent that the Trump administration now considers to be the global standard for allies. The speech prompted veteran New Zealand journalist Anna Fifield to poke Hegseth: “I could not help but notice that New Zealand was missing from your list of countries there. Would you consider New Zealand to be a free rider?” Hegseth responded that “2 percent is not enough, and so 2 percent is freeloading.” It is rare in New Zealand that a comment on foreign policy causes such a firestorm—but Hegseth’s “freeloading” remark has done exactly that. Since U.S. President Donald Trump returned to office, Wellington under Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and his conservative National Party have been maneuvering New Zealand to boost defense outlays and capabilities, not least to appease the United States. The plan under consideration would nearly triple New Zealand’s defense budget from around $3 billion today to $8 billion by 2032. Indeed, last year, then-New Zealand Defense Minister Judith Collins justified the increase, arguing that it is “very clear that New Zealand is not immune from the increasing tensions being felt throughout the world.” But Hegseth’s remark reopened an old wound in New Zealand. On one side of the debate stands the National Party, which has been quietly trying to raise defense spending to meet the moment. New Defense Minister Chris Penk, who was in the room when Hegseth spoke, jumped in to deny that New Zealanders are freeloaders. Rather, Penk characterized the planned increase from 1 percent to 2 percent defense spending as a major accomplishment. Since then, it appears that New Zealand’s senior leaders are directing their unhappiness not at Hegseth but at Fifield for prompting the unwanted statement—and for pointing out the shortfall compared to Trump’s 3.5 percent target in her question, thus inadvertently diminishing Wellington’s accomplishment. Instead of reopening the debate about defense spending, the National Party would have rather just let the issue fade away. Hegseth also opened a can of worms in New Zealand’s domestic politics, because on the other side of the defense debate is the opposition Labour Party and the majority of New Zealanders, who have generally tended toward pacifism and believe that their government should prioritize social programs over defense. To be sure, the long-neglected New Zealand Defence Force requires a major overhaul, but polling indicates that most citizens do not believe that this should come at the expense of government programs that improve their daily lives. Making matters worse, Penk, in response to a reporter’s question at the same conference in Singapore, questioned New Zealand’s strict nuclear-free policy, which denies access not only to ships and aircraft carrying nuclear weapons, but also even to aircraft carriers and submarines that use nuclear energy only for propulsion. He said that because the country’s only formal defense ally, Australia, is now acquiring nuclear-powered submarines as part of the Australia-United Kingdom-United States security pact, “it would be helpful, I think, for us to have that conversation [about potential port calls by nuclear-powered ships] in New Zealand.” Penk’s comment stomped on the third rail of New Zealand politics. The country has been staunchly against all things nuclear for decades. This even resulted in the Reagan administration downgrading the country’s status from security ally to partner when Wellington would not allow the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships to make port calls. Wellington’s stance in part reflects its perceived obligation to its Pacific island neighbors, which were affected by U.S., British, and French nuclear weap

The Hegseth Shock for New Zealand

Key takeaways

More in publications