Europe is entering a new era of defence spending. Alarmed by Russia’s war on Ukraine and the US’ waning commitment to European defence, EU leaders have pledged to rearm fast, aiming to be “ready by 2030.”
This surge in budgets may be necessary for security, but it’s triggering a lobbying gold rush in Brussels as arms manufacturers scramble to shape how new funds get spent.
The result? An uptick in lobbying that risks outpacing the rules meant to keep influence peddling in check.
If Europe wants its rearmament plans to succeed, it must couple the spending spree with a transparency spree. Otherwise, it could win the arms race but lose the public trust and support.
When money floods in, lobbyists are never far behind.
In the past, national capitals were the prime targets for defence contractors.
Now, with the European Commission’s ambitions to create a single market for defence, the EU itself has become a key target of influence. According to a recent investigation by Politico Europe, the lobbying budgets of the largest European defence companies grew by roughly 40 percent from 2022 to 2023. Nearly all major players are hiring extra lobbyists.
Lobbying is not inherently nefarious. In the best case it makes policies better informed, more targeted, and adapted to the needs and realities of industry and various stakeholder groups.
But the speed and scale of the lobbying boom in Brussels raises a red flag. If transparency is not championed, defence budgets can quickly be squandered on weapons that fulfil the sales targets of private companies, not Europe’s security needs.
Whilst it might look like European ministries of defence will soon have endless money at their disposal, if we look closely at the investments that are needed across innovation, production, logistics, infrastructure and capabilities — money is still tight. To get this right, decisions need to be made carefully and efficiently.
The EU does have lobbying regulations, but they’re a patchwork quilt full of holes.
Transparency International EU analysed the regulatory frameworks for all 27 member states, as well as the three main EU institutions, the results showed a fragmented lobbying regulation landscape.
15 member states have adopted mandatory or partially mandatory lobbying provisions, while the remaining 12 have virtually no — or only voluntary — rules.
Out of the EU’s biggest defence spenders per percentage of GDP — Poland, Estonia and Greece — Estonia has voluntary reporting regulations whilst the other two have mandatory ones, but with significant enforcement and implementation gaps.
Only the European Commission, European Parliament and five EU countries publish lobby meetings proactively, and even the EU’s Council of Ministers (where national governments wield influence) sticks to a voluntary disclosure system, resulting in an incomplete picture of who is whispering what in whose ear.
This fragmented landscape is an invitation to exploit weak links.
If lobbying in Brussels requires disclosure, a firm might instead lobby through a member state with lax rules, knowing those efforts won’t be visible or reported systematically.
They can route influence via national ministries, hire consultancies or think-tanks in countries where oversight is minimal, and then have those governments advocate industry-friendly positions in EU meetings.
The result is the same: policy gets shaped, but we cannot be sure in whose interest. If the EU is serious about being “ready by 2030”, it must also get serious about regulating lobbying more effectively, including updating it to reflect the landscape of doing business in 2025 and demanding, for example, that WhatsApp messages and other digital communications are properly recorded.
We don’t have to speculate about what happens when big money meets weak oversight — Europe has recent cautionary tales to heed.
In the Covid-19 pandemic, the rush to secure masks, vaccines and medical gear meant normal procurement rules were widely tossed aside. As governments scrambled to respond, transparency was an early casualty. Many countries suspended their usual public procurement rules, leading to billions of euros in emergency contracts being barely scrutinised.
Scandal on scandal followed.
From over-priced PPE deals brokered by politically connected middlemen to questions about how vaccine contracts were negotiated via text message, the pandemic response showed how secrecy breeds trouble. Europe cannot afford to repeat the same mistakes with tanks and missiles. The stakes are too high.
European leaders understandably want speed - Denmark’s prime minister recently told her military to “buy, buy, buy” weapons as fast as possible, announcing that procurement would be made without going through the normal tendering procedures.
The recent European Commission’s joint white paper on defence also mentioned the “need to immediately simplify and streamline regulations and procedures and ensure priority access.”
Not to say that EU bureaucracy doesn’t have room for improvement, but as Europe opens the spending taps, every shortcut around transparency and due process can carry a heavy price down the line in accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness.
Money well spent on defence means getting the best value for the right equipment, not lining the wrong pockets or funding the loudest lobbyists.
A defence strategy built on public funds must be protected by public scrutiny. That means regulating lobbying seriously. It means treating backroom deals with as much caution as battlefield threats.
If Europe wants to be “ready by 2030,” it must also be ready to police the politics of procurement. Anything less, and Europe may find itself armed but not protected.
This year, we turn 25 and are looking for 2500 new supporting members to take their stake in EU democracy. A functioning EU relies on a well-informed public – you.
Emily Wegener is senior policy & campaigns officer for defence & security at Transparency International.
Emily Wegener is senior policy & campaigns officer for defence & security at Transparency International.