As NATO’s 12 founding members inked the pact in Washington, D.C. on April 4, 1949, then-US President Harry S Truman said, “On this historic occasion … we are about to do here is a
neighbourly act. We are like a group of householders living in the same locality who decide to express their community of interests by entering into a formal association for their mutual self-protection.”
When
NATO turned 75 this year, President Joe Biden reiterated the bloc’s commitment to “stand up for freedom and push back against aggression”, especially during the Cold War. “We saw it again when America was attacked on September 11, 2001 … And we’ve seen it over the last two years as allies have stepped up to support the brave people of Ukraine in the face of Russia’s vicious invasion.”
The year 2024 has been monumental. As the 32 NATO members reaffirmed the “enduring transatlantic bond” between them on its 75th anniversary in Washington, D.C. in July, American politics witnessed a tectonic shit a few months later—Donald Trump’s thunderclap return to the White House.
Trump 2.0 and his ‘America First’ policy have alarmed global alliances, especially NATO, helmed by the US. The 45th POTUS and the 47th POTUS-elect staunchly opposes the unequal contribution of other bloc members and America fighting foreign wars.
During his first presidency and the third election campaign, Trump hammered NATO allies for not contributing enough to the alliance.
Truman and Biden highlighted an important point that added ballast to Trump’s NATO stance.
First, if NATO’s founding was a “neighbourly act” with members entering “into a formal association for their mutual self-protection”, every member should contribute equally to maintain the alliance. Second, if the Cold War is over, it was pointless for the US to get entangled in the Russia-Ukraine War and pour billions into a country that’s not even a NATO member. Besides, NATO wasn’t formed to fight terrorism.
Where Trump is wrong about NATO
In February, Trump triggered consternation in Europe and criticism from the White House after suggesting that he wouldn’t defend NATO allies who failed to spend, at least, two per cent of their GDP on defence, and would even encourage Russia “to do whatever the hell they want.”.
I’d encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ with NATO allies if they don’t pay up – Trumphttps://t.co/FModwC0oXo pic.twitter.com/PnCEw8fped
— RT (@RT_com) February 11, 2024
“Trump’s admission that he intends to give Putin a green light for more war and violence, to continue his brutal assault against a free Ukraine and to expand his aggression to the people of Poland and the Baltic States are appalling and dangerous,”
Biden said in a statement.
NATO’s then-secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said, “Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines our security.”
In July 2018, just before NATO’s emergency plenary session in Brussels, Trump falsely claimed that several member nations owed America “a tremendous amount of money from many years back”.
However, Trump is wrong in saying that NATO allies owe money to the US.
Neither NATO, which isn’t a club with annual membership fees, maintains a ledger of what members pay and owe nor do they owe any money to the US.
According to NATO’s
principle of common funding, defence ministers agreed in 2006 to commit a minimum of two per cent of their GDP to defence spending to “continue to ensure the alliance’s military readiness”. The bloc agreed to members meeting the guideline to continue to do so and allies spending below two per cent of their GDP to halt any decline and move towards the guideline within a decade.
Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, NATO signed the Defence Investment Pledge in the same year calling for members to meet the two per cent guideline. After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, most allies committed to investing more in defence.
While most members don’t follow this guideline, it doesn’t mean they owe money to the US or need to make
direct contributions to fund NATO operations. Per the 2014 Pledge, members not following the guideline were required to do so—it wasn’t a legal obligation.
At the 2023 Vilnius summit, NATO members
formally declared, “We make an enduring commitment to invest, at least, two per cent of our GDP annually on defence”. However, it again doesn’t mean a legal obligation but only a commitment.
Where Trump is right about NATO
Trump is right for slamming allies for not spending, at least, two per cent of their GDP on defence—and he’s not the only president to do so.
At a news conference in Belgium in 2014, then-President Barack Obama said, “If we’ve got collective defence, it means that everybody has got to chip in. And, I have had some concerns about a diminished level of defence spending among some of our partners in NATO—not all, but many. The trend lines have been going down.”
In a 2016 speech in Germany, Obama said, “Every NATO member should be contributing its full share—two per cent of GDP—towards our common security, something that doesn’t always happen. And I’ll be honest. Sometimes, Europe has been complacent about its own defence.”
Obama’s predecessor, George W Bush, said at a NATO summit in the Czech Republic in 2002, “For some allies, this will require higher defence spending.” At a 2008 NATO summit in Romania, he said, “Building a strong NATO alliance also requires a strong European defence capacity. So at this summit, I will encourage our European partners to increase their defence investment to support both NATO and EU operations.”
Trump’s argument about the two per cent guideline is right. For decades, the US has been bearing the largest burden of expenditure.
Nato’s yearly budget and programmes total around $4.1 billion. There’s a
cost-sharing formula to pay for civilian staff and administrative costs of Nato headquarters; joint operations, strategic commands, radar and early warning systems, training and liaison; and defence communications systems, airfields, harbours and fuel supplies.
The cost-sharing is based on national income. The US and Germany are the biggest contributors at around 16 per cent and the UK at 11 per cent. Earlier, the US paid more than 22 per cent of these running costs, but a formula was agreed upon in 2019 after the Trump administration complained about the unfair burden the US had to bear in supporting the alliance.
Moreover, the US has the largest number of troops, 85,000, based throughout Europe with Germany hosting the largest number of American forces, followed by Italy and the UK.
In the past 75 years, the US contributed $21.9 trillion to NATO’s defence budget—which is much more than its 31 allies—according to its annual Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries report.
America contributed around 16 per cent to NATO’s annual budget in 2023. The US financed 15.8 per cent ($567 million) of NATO’s yearly expenditure of around $3.5 billion, according to
a NATO breakdown for 2024.
Despite NATO members committing in 2023 to stick to the two per cent guideline, only 11 members met the target that year,
per NATO estimates.
In 2024, NATO will spend $1.47 trillion—however,
only 23 allies are expected to meet or exceed the two per cent target.
Among member nations who spend less than two per cent of GDP on defence, the top five are Spain 1.28 per cent, Slovenia and Luxembourg 1.29 per cent each, Belgium 1.3 per cent and Canada 1.37 per cent.
This is where Trump is right. In March 2016, he told CNN that NATO was “costing us too much money, and frankly, they have to put up more money … We’re paying disproportionately.”
For example, suppose Slovenia is attacked. In that case, the US will bear the largest cost militarily in protecting a country that spends only 1.28 per cent of its GDP on defence.
Trump 2.0 having desired effect
In July 2018, NATO held the emergency session in Brussels after Trump slammed allies for not meeting the two per cent guideline.
Wow, this was glorious!
President Trump kicking off his NATO visit by slamming Germany & other NATO countries for paying so little:
“I think that these countries have to step it up, not over a ten year period they have to step it up IMMEDIATELY!” pic.twitter.com/61eCZf977o
— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) July 11, 2018
German news agency
DPA reported that Trump threatened that the US might go solo if the guideline wasn’t met.
Stoltenberg had said that the “clear message from President Trump” was “having an impact” and there was “a new sense of urgency”.
After the summit, Trump claimed that the allies “agreed to substantially up their commitment” and said “tremendous progress” was made.
“Everyone’s agreed to substantially up their commitment” -President Trump touts “tremendous progress” made with NATO allies in Brussels pic.twitter.com/W4O9YTVOTr
— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) July 12, 2018
However, the massive difference in the contribution made by the US and several other allies continued.
With Trump’s return, NATO is again under pressure. A day after Trump’s win, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski said that Europe “urgently needs to take more responsibility for its security”—the country would spend five per cent of its GDP on defence in 2025.
On the same day, NATO’s new secretary general Mark Rutte praised Trump for asking allies to spend more than two per cent of GDP on defence.
“We will have to spend more … It will be much more than the two per cent. I’m clear about that,” Rutte said at the European Political Community summit in Budapest. “He is right about this. You will not get there with the 2 two per cent.”
The EU’s soon-to-be defence and space commissioner Andrius Kubilius told lawmakers at his confirmation hearing in the European Parliament, “We can ask NATO to discuss—[whether] the two per cent target [is] enough. From my point of view, it is not enough.”
Even Trump’s national security adviser (NSA) pick, Mike Waltz, supports Trump in pressuring NATO allies to spend more on defence.
Trump has rattled NATO with members fearing he might exert more pressure and eventually withdraw from the alliance. However, experts feel that Trump
will not pull out as shattering the transatlantic military partnership would taint his second term.
Trump is a maverick and can, at least, threaten to
withdraw from NATO. In 2018, Trump told his aides several times, especially around the Brussels emergency session, that he wanted to withdraw from NATO, alarming then-defence secretary Jim Mattis and NSA John Bolton.
However, pulling out of NATO requires one year’s notice and Congress’s approval. In December 2023, Congress approved legislation introduced by Florida senator Marco Rubio—Trump’s pick for secretary of state in his second term—and Virginia senator Tim Kaine that prevents the president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without the approval of a two-third Senate super-majority or a Congress Act.
“We must ensure we are protecting our national interests and protecting the security of our democratic allies,” Rubio had said in a statement.
Still, Trump could take such a drastic step by citing presidential authority over foreign policy, putting him in direct conflict with Congress. He could still proceed in such a scenario with the GOP controlling the Senate and the House—though several Republican lawmakers support the US being in NATO.
Trump’s pick for defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, is also highly sceptical of NATO, and his confirmation will further rattle the alliance.
The former National Guard officer, who was deployed to Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan, has slammed NATO allies for being “weak” and not spending much on defence, and said that Ukraine’s invasion was “(Vladimir) Putin’s give-me-my-shit-back war”.
“Outdated, outgunned, invaded and impotent. Why should America, the European ‘emergency contact number’ for the past century, listen to self-righteous and impotent nations asking us to honour outdated and one-sided defence arrangements they no longer live up to?” Hegseth wrote in his 2024 book The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free.
“Maybe, if NATO countries actually ponied up for their own defence—but they don’t. They just yell about the rules while gutting their militaries and yelling at America for help,” he wrote.
The writer is a freelance journalist with more than two decades of experience and comments primarily on foreign affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.