Trump and NATO...Take Two
Donald Trump and NATO summits don’t have a good track record. His latest summit was different, though. After spending years, and his first term, bemoaning America’s NATO allies’ low defense spending in relation to the United States, and questioning whether or not America would, or should, come to the defense of its allies in the event they were attacked, Trump left the June NATO summit singing a different tune. Speaking about the alliance to reporters, Trump said, “It’s not a rip-off, and we’re here to help them.” Almost as important as the president’s statement, the NATO allies (except for Spain) agreed to a large increase in defense spending.
This about face comes just days after Trump told a reporter that “it depends on your definition” of Article 5—the common defense section of the NATO Treaty—as to whether or not the United States would come to the defense of its allies. Why the sudden change?
First, Trump arrived in the Netherlands riding high. Just days before, the United States dropped 14 bunker buster bombs on Iran’s underground Fordo nuclear site, and also attacked nuclear sites at Natantz and Isfahan. While the damage to the underground facility at Fordo is still unclear, Trump is claiming complete destruction. The U.S. and its Qatari partners also repelled a highly telegraphed Iranian counterattack of missiles aimed at U.S. bases in Qatar. For the moment, the president has also gotten Iran and Israel to uphold a ceasefire.
Second, NATO allies agreed to a defense spending increase that moves the target from 2 percent of GDP to 3.5 percent. It also includes another 1.5 percent that is to be spent on domestic defense-related infrastructure. This is a major increase, and a win for the United States. Presidents of both parties have tried to get NATO members to increase defense spending for years. It was President Barack Obama who cajoled allies to increase to 2 percent spending at the 2014 Madrid NATO summit. In fact, questions of defense spending inequities go back almost to the founding of the alliance in 1949. While some individual NATO members have unique capabilities, the 2011 NATO incursion into Libya put the alliance’s inability to truly act without American assistance into stark display.
While president Trump will take a victory lap for the spending increase, presidential pressure wasn’t the only reason allies decided to take the domestic political risk to increase defense spending. The increase is the culmination of European NATO members’ over two-year recognition that Russian president Vladimir Putin is bent on recreating as much of the Soviet state and the Russian Empire as possible. This, along with Trump’s reelection and his frequent public doubts about defending Europe, has finally convinced NATO allies to shore up their capabilities.
Third, the recent summit demonstrates that European leaders seem, to the extent possible (and this could change at any time), to have figured out how to create a more amenable working relationship with this iteration of the Trump administration. This is definitely a change from what we saw just a few months ago, when both Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth questioned the usefulness and importance of America’s NATO alliance. But, not only did NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte refer to Trump as “Daddy” to reporters when discussing the recent Israel-Iran ceasefire, but British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Fredrick Merz, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney have all walked out of their Oval Office meetings with President Trump relatively unscathed, rocking the boat as minimally as possible and, in the case of Starmer, flattering the president with an invitation to Britain from King Charles. This is in stark contrast to the visits of Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.
For the moment, NATO is riding high. It is in both the Europes and America’s interest that allies other than Washington increase their defense spending. This allows European capitals to hedge against American flakiness and to better defend themselves against, and deter, Russia. Increased defense production also allows America and its partners to ramp up production when needed, in places like Ukraine, and for a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan, for example.
But, the proof is in the pudding. The fine print of the defense spending increases provides a runway of 2035 to meet the new numbers—not exactly a strong sense of urgency. Moreover, there is bound to be arguments in the coming years over what counts as defense related infrastructure spending. Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, for example, announced a 13 billion Euro bridge from mainland Italy to Sicily, and her government intends to count that towards Italy’s 1.5 percent.
Regardless, European NATO allies are moving in the right direction on defense spending, which will placate the Trump administration for the time being and create a stronger position for Europe in the future, and for the United States if it upholds its treaty requirements. Whether or not the Trump-NATO harmony will last is another question entirely.
An earlier version of this post appeared in the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy’s Diplomatic Pouch online magazine.